“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
@mr_matalino
Why in hell would Apple buy back stock, it has 1/10 the outstanding shares of Microsoft 8.9Bto888M, 1/3 the outstanding shares of HP 2.4B-888M and 1/2 the outstanding share of Dell 1.9B-888M. What value would that bring to shareholders that this volitile economic chlimate would not take away? In tech companies shareholders are better served by the company investments in R&D;to bring out the next hit product or better offerings of your current ones. Stock manipulation by share buy back or stock splits are cheap accounting tricks that do little for share holder value (smoke and mirrors). Their effect on the bottom line is fleeting at best.
Apple will license its OS any day now, and Yellow Box will be out next week.
I can see them licensing it for embedded applications. OSX is highly scalable and stable. I could see automobile applications, smart appliances, etc.
@Macslut…thank you for your perceptive thoughts…it is an interesting way to think of the company.
Not gonna happen.
What I’d like to see, though, is a big PC maker (say, HP) who’d dump Windows and start making their own OS. Heck, a HP branded Linux distro would be just fine. They could brand it just the way they’d like it, make it stable and well-optimized (just like OS X), add some innovative GUI features etc.
The only thing lacking is the courage to do it. Now that the Redmond Beast is weakened by the epic fail that is Vista, somebody should definitely go ahead with this.
Why do you think there isn’t tighter control on installations of OSX? You MUST buy a Mac, (new or used) to run it. And for switchers, once they run it on a cheap used Mac, they won’t go back to Windows. And their next computer will be a new Mac.
OSX unrestricted is pure, irresistible fishing bait.
Apple Gifts—If you’re buying a new Mac this season, donate or cheaply sell a decent used Mac to a PC friend. That’s what I do—dangle the bait. Instant convert for life.
Would Mercedes sell engines to Chevrolet???
Why not? They did to Chrysler.
Don’t forget Toyotas sold by GM as the Geo Prism, and the current Pontiac Vibe.
One of Microsoft’s big problems is having to support many platforms and all the combinations of hardware that run its OS. I am amazed at how good a job they do of it.. Apple does not need that kind of headache and, in fact, it would probably limit their ability to innovate. Only an iDiot would want MAC OS to be licensed to other computer builders.
On the other hand they could sell more iPods for a few dollars less…. That makes a lot more sense.
Now , Folks. Stop picking on Mac Genius. Yes, he/it has delusions of adequacy, but it’s not nice to make fun of the impaired.
As a former Mac user, I accidentally came across this article and would like to chime in. I owned macs though my SE 30 until the Imac 400 SE running OS X, I started out with Apple, but once I went to college and majored in Computer Science, and became more of an enthusiast, the Apple hardware limitations became clear. I had been a mac gamer for years, paying twice as much for video cards, limited game and accessories. Don’t get me wrong, Apple has always made great systems, but they are closed systems. I made the switch once i had the chance to work with XP, then I built my first system, I was like a kid in a candy store with all of the hardware choice, not to mention the ease of future upgrades and repairs. I can buy from various vendors and so forth. Well i’ve just finished my newest system build and I made the switch to Vista 64, which is a very good OS now, but I thought for a few minutes about how nice it would be to be able to purchase Mac OS X, choice is good. The point is that being in the I.T. industry, we influence all types of buyers from our offices to workers asking for purchasing advice, Apple I’ve always said this, open up the Mac OS, trust me if you sell it they will come.