How will Apple react to Vista?

TG Daily ^ | February 2, 2007 | Rob Enderle

[savedbygrace]

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/business/technology/personal_technology/16555680.htm

[savedbygrace]

[6SJ7]

Gates' problem is that he is unfortunately inarticulate for a Harvard man.

Gates, like Jobs, is a college drop-out (which says something about success being antithetical with a higher degree).

[FreedomGuru]

I think you would have a much harder time upgrading components in a Mac than you would in a Windows system.

On the Mac Pro which is the only tower computer Apple has, the only options are RAM, HD's and a whopping choice of 3 video cards (already obsolete and overpriced). Even getting to the mother board is made more difficult by the design.

[Fresh Wind]

Apple will react by releasing even more obnoxious commercials. Heck, they're even giving GEICO a run for their money.

[Proud_texan]

"or if Jobs just got his liberal nose out of the air"

Are you sure he has it in the air? I am reminded of the South Park episode on hybrid cars.

Or if Apple didn't have Al Gore on the board. Sheesh, a nest of vipers.

[sionnsar]

I then jut downloaded a media player that's far better than Windows Media Player anyway, so it's all good. =)

What did you download?

[KoRn]

" What did you download?"

Windvd. It's better for video anyway, I haven't tried music on it. On my Linux PCs I use Xine, it's the best player I've used for anything. Too bad it isn't ported to Windows, that I know of anyway.

[ccmay]

apple is the Air America of personal computer world.... always saying they are the true leaders and always flopping commecially with the public....

Apple is NOTHING like Air America. Apple is the BMW of the computer world. More expensive but worth it. The unchallenged leader in technology. Satisfied with a 5% market share as long as it is the top 5%. And immensely profitable for its shareholders. One billion dollars-- billion with a 'b'-- net profit for the last quarter.

How do ya like them apples?

-ccm

[MichiganMan]

I couldn't imagine trying to do that with one of Jobs' machines (maybe you can and it would be just as easy, but I doubt it, I would be very uncomfortable trying to monkey around with a proprietary machine)

Hmm, I had just that exact experience working on a friend's Dell PC.

[calex59]

The "page" was the idea of a mouse, of a computer screen that was more than just a typewriter screen. It was such a revolutionary idea, but at the same time so obvious, it's hard to explain. All you had to do was see it and use it to know how natural it was compared to always typing in written commands. The "page" had Xerox's writing all over it before Jobs ever got involved.

Well, yes, but that makes MS even more of a pirate, don't you think? Xerox, then apple, then FINALLY Mr. Gates decides to get in on the action and actually did steal code from apple. Gates has never marketed a really GOOD version of windows, one that was bullet proof from hackers and one that didn't need 50 SPs before it worked any where close to what it was supposed to. BTW, I use PCs but only because of the price, not because they work so well, which they don't!

[Petronski]

That is, the innovation in question is simply figuring out how to make a lot of Macs economically enough to be able to make a profit in the market.

It was a question of engineering, not economics. You don't know what you're talking about.

[HAL9000]

I would suggest that a large part of any decline in the late stages of 2006 on the part of PC manufacturers might have something to do with consumers and businesses holding off their purchases to wait a couple of months for Vista

I partially agree with your analysis, but if Apple maintained their sales levels while the others were declining, that translates into real market share growth for Apple. Apparently some Windows customers got tired of waiting - or tired of Windows.

[TheBattman]

What need is there for a "reaction" to Vista on the part of Apple? Vista is basically a reaction to the last 4 generations of MacOS X.

Apple, I suspect, will just continue doing what they have been doing so well - developing quality hardware and a super OS that is more secure and still more user friendly than any version of Windows to date, including Vista.

Even many Pro-MS/Windows publishers have put their reviews of Vista in context of what OSX Tiger (and the soon-to-be released Panther) ALREADY do. If I were Bill Gates, I would be most worried that OSX is the benchmark by which my own software is evaluated.

Over the years, Windows has grown closer to the Mac OS in features and user-friendly-"nes", yet still seems to be trying to play catch-up more than being truly innovative. Yes, from what I have heard, Vista has some interesting features, although some have a bit awkward implementation. Yet most of these new features are just warmed over versions of what OSX already contains.

And to continue with that idea - at what cost the "new" Windows? I suspect many will have to do some serious upgrading (either components or whole new machines) to be able to satisfactorily run Vista. The eye candy and features come with some serious hardware load.

But hey----Let the FUD continue...

How long until Vista SP1 and SP2? How long until some MAJOR security holes rear their ugly heads?

I will continue using my several year-old MDD Power Mac that has never seen nor worried about worms, virii, or other Malware....

[RightFighter]

Actually, Apple would have to have an increase in their sales figures in order for it to be any indication that people are switching - if you give credence to my argument that PC users were waiting for Vista. In other words - if a large number of PC users were waiting for Vista - these are people who normally buy PCs, so they should only result in a decrease in sales of PCs. But, if some of those people get tired of waiting and switch and buy a Mac, that is a new sale for Apple, and it should be reflected in an overall INCREASE for Mac sales. I think it's important not to look at a single quarter to determine whether market share is shrinking or growing when that quarter is right before the release of a major new operating system like Vista.

I am not an Apple basher - they make an interesting product, although from a usability standpoint, I much prefer XP/Vista, especially when you consider that I am free to build myself a new machine with whatever hardware components I like without having to hand Mr. Jobs a couple of mortgage payments for a new tower.

The thing that pisses me off about Apple is that they act as if they want the world to switch from PC, but if they really did, they'd license their OS to hardware manufacturers and let it go head-to-head with Vista. This is because Apple doesn't really care that much about the OS - they make their money selling overpriced hardware. From Wikipedia:

Official Macintosh clone program

By 1995, Apple Macintosh computers accounted for about 7% of the worldwide desktop computer market. Apple executives decided to launch an official clone program in order to expand Macintosh market penetration. Apple's clone program entailed the licensing of the Macintosh ROMs and system software to other manufacturers, each of which agreed to pay a royalty for each clone computer they sold. From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing. Other licensees were Motorola, Radius, APS Technologies, DayStar Digital, and UMAX. In terms of exterior styling, Mac clones often more closely resembled generic PCs than their Macintosh counterparts, but they frequently offered better performance at a lower price than true Macs.

Jobs ends the official program

Soon after Steve Jobs' return to Apple, he attempted to re-negotiate the clone manufacturers' license agreements to raise Apple's royalty. Jobs proposed to raise the per-computer royalty by an amount that would render all the clones unable to compete on price. When the clone makers refused, Jobs in turn refused to license later versions of Apple hardware and operating system software to the clone vendors. The initial OS license was valid only for the 7.x series of the Mac OS; at the time these contracts were signed, Mac OS 8.0 was expected to be the next-generation Copland OS. Jobs exploited this loophole by declaring the imminent version of the Mac OS (which would otherwise have been numbered something like 7.7) to be 8.0, leaving the clone manufacturers without the ability to ship a current Mac OS version and effectively ending the cloning program.

Jobs publicly stated that the program was ill-conceived and had been a result of "institutional guilt," meaning that for years, there had been a widely held belief at Apple that had the company aggressively pursued a legal cloning program early in the history of the Macintosh, consumers might have turned to low-priced Macintosh clones rather than low-priced IBM/PC-compatible computers. Had it pursued a clone program in the 1980s, in this view, Apple might have ended up in the position currently occupied by Microsoft—an extremely powerful company with high profit margins and a wide base of consumers perpetually dependent on its system software products. Jobs claimed it was now too late for this to happen, that the Mac clone program was doomed to failure from the start, and since Apple made money primarily by selling computer hardware, it ought not engage in a licensing program that would reduce its hardware sales.

Prospects for official Mac clones

Since Apple transitioned the Macintosh to an Intel platform in 2006, and subsequent to a major increase in visibility (if not in computer market share) for Apple with the success of the iPod, large computer system manufacturers such as Dell have expressed renewed interest in creating Macintosh clones. Mac OS X is currently widely perceived to be free of the viruses and other security threats that afflict computers running Microsoft Windows operating systems, and also includes consumer-oriented "lifestyle" software (such as the iLife suite) that is thought to be attractive to home users. While various industry executives have stated publicly in 2006 that they would like to sell Macintosh-compatible computers, Apple VP Phil Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.^[4]

[HAL9000]

By definition, market share takes a view of the whole market. If Apple's unit sales remain constant while others are declining, Apple's percentage of market share will increase. Apple is also doing well in another metric - rising share of installed base. In January, the percentage of installed base for Windows XP declined for the first time - and it obviously wasn't due to cannibalization from Vista.

Windows unit sales ought to increase now that Vista has been released. But Microsoft has chosen the worst time of the year to release it - in the dead of winter. They missed a huge selling opportunity for Christmas 2006, and that could affect their long-term market share.

When Christmas 2007 arrives, Apple will have several new products on the market, including Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, Apple TV, new Macs, the iPhone, new iPods, and some other undisclosed products that will enhance the Mac environment. Vista may look rather stale by then.

[ShorelineMike]

What need is there for a "reaction" to Vista on the part of Apple? Vista is basically a reaction to the last 4 generations of MacOS X.

True … perhaps I should have made it clear that "How will Apple react to Vista?" was Enderle's original title, not mine.

I agree with you that Apple doesn't have to worry about "reacting" to Vista … and if there's any "reacting" to be done, it will be in the form of operating system upgrades (see Leopard) and hardware upgrades.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

That is, the innovation in question is simply figuring out how to make a lot of Macs economically enough to be able to make a profit in the market.

It was a question of engineering, not economics. You don't know what you're talking about.

economically

1. in a thrifty or frugal manner; with economy.
2. as regards the efficient use of income and wealth: economically feasible proposals.
3. as regards one's personal resources of money: He's quite well off economically.

Making things economically in America is of course an engineering problem; I had no other thought.

But since you raise the issue, that is only true if you are in an economy which allows the risk of development to be undertaken. In hindsight, there is no risk associated with the development of the Mac; in prospect there seemed to be a lot of risk. Actually, it was a moderate risk in the sense that individuals (operating in a corporation) could finance the development; big risks like Apollo programs and wars are things that only governments can do. And the Soviet system was designed to be risk-averse in small things like developing a Mac. Only in mass engineering projects did Stalin lay down the dictum, "Make no small mistakes."

So the Mac could be developed in America, and especially in Silicon Valley. It could not have been developed in the USSR because the inherent inability of its "deciders" to take small risks assured that the USSR could not lead the way in new, nonmilitary, technology (and even in military innovation, it had limitations). The American model of making small mistakes - mistakes that can at most only seem tragic for the people who committed fully to the ideas in the belief that they would pay off big - is far more dynamic and suited to the furtherance of progress.

So, strictly in the American context, development of the Mac was an engineering problem. In the larger global context, having an economy able to generate people willing and able to risk that development is a problem of "political economy," as the field of economics was formerly designated.