“Arguments of whether Apple should license its operating system are almost as old as the company itself… Even now, some commentators call on the company to license the OS in order to build market share. Such arguments seem to be based around the argument that in order for Apple to be truly successful it needs to be matching its Seattle competitor in market share. Not so,” Seb Janacek writes for Silicon.com.
“Apple isn’t pitching itself against Windows – that’s just an easy and recognisable target for its marketing. It’s more accurate to say it’s competing against PC makers – Dell, HP, Lenovo and the others. Even its ‘Get a Mac’ marketing is misunderstood in this respect,” Janacek writes.
“Will Apple license the OS X? Not a chance. It makes its margins on hardware, not software. Licensing the OS would dilute sales of high-end Macs and the company is selling more of those than ever before. If the hardware is ‘what’ the company makes its money from, the operating system and the software is the ‘why,'” Janacek writes.
Full article here.
Janacek’s argument makes sense. Ten years ago. iPhone and iPod revenue would allow for Apple to weather any revenue hit that cloning the Mac in whatever fashion (from limited to one partner to wide-open OS X licensing) would inflict. Macintosh is not Apple’s sole source of revenue anymore. And, even with cloning, Apple would still sell Macs. We’re not arguing that Apple should license Mac OS X, only that Janacek’s argument fails when you look at the sources of Apple’s revenue today, as our own SteveJack explained over three and a half years ago: iPod success opens door to Mac OS X on Intel – March 04, 2004
@clyde;
Makes no sense. You’d have to support older versions, particularly security wise, or if not, allow those users to continue to upgrade free to the next to the current version. I’d be happy to run on 10.4 for free. You would never get those folks to convert. They’d buy cheapo units to run the last version of OSX at a cost substantially below what Apple charges for a new unit and the current version. The differentiation between releases isn’t compelling enough to bridge that economic divide.
@Roger Knights
You are unwittingly suggesting that Apple imitate Microsoft’s business model; licensing partners and farming out support to OEMs. Just imagine: it will be just like getting support for Windows from Dell. Whoopee.
Apple will license OS X to other hardware manufacturers when it decides to compete with itself. In other words, never. No other hardware manufacturer needs OS X, anyway. They can create their own Linux distro for their own hardware. The customer perceives the hardware value in the software, so why let Apple or Microsoft control your customer’s opinion of your products? Why not control it yourself?
In these days of standard formats and protocols, we don’t all have to use the same OS anyway.
“MacSlut is smarter than MacGenius.”
I concur.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smirk” style=”border:0;” />
I think she would be more fun to hang out with.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
@Harvey:
“You are unwittingly suggesting ….”
No, the suggestion is “witting.”
“Just imagine: it will be just like getting support for Windows from Dell. Whoopee.”
Only for those abroad. And they can’t afford support from Apple anyway. So no buyer would come out a loser. Buyers abroad would get less support, but they’d have a product that needs less support–and they’d be better off having it, along with poor support, than having Windows (with poor support).
“Apple will license OS X to other hardware manufacturers when it decides to compete with itself.”
But, as I was at pains to make explicit, Apple’s sales in the 2nd & 3rd Worlds are nearly nonexistent, so it would NOT be “competing with itself.”
“In other words, never.”
Famous last words–we’ve heard ’em before.
Oh, Christ! This topic AGAIN?!
As Apple’s OS X market grows, it becomes essential that the company either widen the choice of hardware it offers customers OR selectively licence OS X to companies who can build hardware options to meet a large variety of consumer needs.
If Apple resists doing this, it will quick become to be seen as a company with a Microsoft mentality towards the customer.
‘Switchers’ don’t remain ‘switchers for long… they soon become experienced Mac users with demands for hardware that suits them – not Apple.
Just bought a laptop for my wife, a long time Microsoft Windows user who because of me has become familiar with OSX. She is still more comfortable windose and isn’t quite used to dragging and dropping icons.
Right Click Dependence Syndrome I call it.
So we went to a big box retailer to look at all the different laptops.
I’ve been Mac user forever – 20 + years.
I was a bit frustrated because I didn’t want to spend more than $1500CDN – taxes in. But my wife wanted at least a 15 in. screen.
Apple doesn’t do that.
Sooooooo!!! Guess what!
After looking at all the flimsy PC junk with 15 inch screens or bigger, for way less than $1500, she decided to go with the “little macbook” saying… “I’m sure I’ll get used to the small screen”.
Even though I have exposed her to OS X, the hardware closed the deal. Because she is so used to Windows XP it would have been less expensive to buy a PC with a bigger screen but there wasn’t even one notebook computer made by any manufacturer that even came close to the Macbook. Moral of the story?
Hardware makes a huge difference.
The OS makes a big difference.
When they come together in a single amazing package they represent an “experience”.
I agree with Willie G.
When the vision is lost at Apple, they will licence the OS, and Apple will stumble.
Until then… Great Software deserves superior hardware.
Solution: Retool Filemaker, Apple’s subsidiary company, to be both a software (database) and hardware company. Perhaps they could resurrect the Claris name for the hardware. The small to large corporations would then have the ‘choice’ of hardware providers which support OS X. It would also give a choice of different form factors and certain (not all) price points which Apple itself isn’t interested in.
I think we could rely on Filemaker, coming from the same gene pool, to put out some great industrial designs for us to salivate over.
And any hardware sales Apple looses to Filemaker ends up back in the same barrel of cash anyway.
What do you reckon?
NO!!!!!!!!!
Why? Because right now Apple controls the whole widget, the software and the hardware. Break either one and you have what amounts to Microsoft and the PC world. Everyone doing there own thing, which amounts to most of it not working 99% of the time.
The license fee isn’t worth the pain that us the customer would face later on because of all the incompatibilities between hardware and software. And Apple would lose the edge that it now has in the market. It would be one big bland computer world.
The big question is “What does Apple gain by licensing OS X?”
The answer: Nothing.
Apple can contract with many manufacturing companies to assemble it’s products. There’s no need to buy Dell, license OS X to HP, or any other combination you can dream up. Apple can do it all.
The only thing licensing does for Apple is to create more competition between Apple and the clone makers. So we have The Clone Wars, just not in Star Wars terms.
The only result from The Clone Wars is that Apple has to reduce its margins because other clones can be bought for less money. And in the drive to gain customers, clone makers start pricing their machines lower and lower. And they add other “features” which no one really needs, but which cause compatibility issues between hardware and software. Eventually they have to use cheaper and inferior parts.
Then you don’t have a Mac, you have PC running OS X. Definitely not the same.
“MacSlut is smarter than MacGenius.”
And hotter… probably.
Licensing OSX sounds like something that stockholders would come up with. All stockholders care about is growth. They don’t care about the products. They start clamoring for anything, even if it’s crap, to get growth. Too many CEOs start thinking about pleasing the stockholders instead of the customers.
Luckily, Jobs knows that the customers are the people who buy the stuff. There is absolutely no way in hell that Steve Jobs will ever license Apple’s OS to anybody, ever, period. iCal *that,* indefinitely.
One reason, and one reason only. Apple needs to licence OSX to a hardware maker who’s willing to offer matte screens.
Matte films don’t work. Google for reviews.
While some people find gloss ok, others face harsher lighting conditions, and others are more susceptible to eyestrain. Hence, the people who don’t mind glare or don’t get eyestrain cannot empathise with the other half who do get eyestrain or have harsher lighting conditions, e.g. right against a sunlit window with pin-point lighting indoors.
I agree, from a profit and hardware-software integration viewpoint, Apple does not need to licence. BUT I WANT MY MATTE SCREEN.
This question always surfaces about once a year. I’m getting tired of this and “Will Apple buy Palm?” or “Will Apple buy Sony” or “Will Apple buy Nintendo”
Apple should buy back stock…
Apple is selling more Macs then ever before. Why the hell would they jeopardize this markedly marketable advantage!!!
Kirk, so in other words Apple should do it only to please you? Where does this sense of entitlement come from. Ether they have a product you like, or they don’t, end of discussion.
I was once hopeful that the CHRP would offer some competition to Windows. There is not even a remote possibility that Apple could widely license Mac OS X now. Microsoft has twenty times Apple’s share of the OS market, but revenues only twice Apple’s and net income less than four times Apple’s. If it were licensed, Mac OS X would have to achieve dramatically high market share gains to break even. Without strong, committed partners (even in the CHRP days IBM and Motorola hardly qualified) this is unrealistic.
Apple has always been a product company. Hardware and operating system were conceived as parts of a single whole from the very beginning of the Macintosh. iPod and iPhone continue that tradition.
Apple will just have to trundle on with high customer satisfaction, growth, and margins without a short cut to world domination.
I was visibly shocked when they offered Bootcamp
Wish I’d been there to see it!
but I believe this was a “fall back” state in case OS X didn’t take off. Then Apple would just become another PC vendor and license Windows.
I doubt that would ever have happened. Apple allowed Windows on Macs because hackers were doing it anyway, and because it was one more incentive for switchers.
Well, no. Arguments that Apple should license OS X are definitely not anywhere near as old as the company itself. Considering Apple’s been around for 30 years, and OS X less than a decade. I hate these so-called journalists who introduce their story with sweeping generalizations several leagues divorced from reality. Actually I love ’em — they make me feel smart.
Will Apple license Mac OS X?
Yes.
The same day BMW licenses their models to be sold under a Detroit nameplate.
Would Mercedes sell engines to Chevrolet???
Not a chance! Remember Steve Jobs quotes “Those serious with software make their own hardware” last year and jab at M$ about their lousy performance?
Been there and done that… and it was nice!
Answer… NO!
MacGenius? Far from it.
Bravo MacSlut!
WHY do people continue to rewrite this same article that keeps reappearing? What’s the point? HitWhore.com