Memo to Steve Jobs: 7 Reasons to Decouple OS X from Apple Hardware Now
Dear Steve,
I have to admit it is a little strange writing to you. So many of us in the broader Apple family feel like we know you. We have watched your keynotes for years (for some of us, a lifetime!). We have watched you grow Apple only to be thrown out, only to come back and save the company from what seemed like a certain demise. And now, some of us are watching now and see what could be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that you simply cannot pass up on.
The storied history of Apple and Microsoft is a fascinating one, as you know, Steve. What has happened in essence is two business models, or approaches as to how to make money and how to create the greatest experience in the marketplace. With Microsoft’s well over 90 percent lockdown on the usage of GUI operating systems I think you would agree that they have won. And I think you would also agree that Apple’s operating system is a superior user experience, albeit one that gets more and more obfuscated as time goes on, and Microsoft catches up.
Steve, your switch to the Intel processor was a ballsy one. Many of the Mac faithful were shocked after spending years ingesting, and regurgitating, the now-proven myth that the Power PC platform was a better one than the Intel one (remember the snails?). But what I am suggesting is a far ballsier move, one that is somewhat an inversion, or reverse of the Apple business model, but one, I believe, that will take Apple to new heights, in stock price and marketshare.
As you know, Microsoft decided a long time ago to not be in the hardware business (at least for computers, you’d think they learn to not do silly things like put out the craptacular Zune!). Microsoft makes its money selling its operating system to hardware manufacturers. Back in the day Apple prided itself not only on its operating system, but also its hardware. Apple was an innovator, bringing to the market superior hardware. Things like SCSI (chain issues notwithstanding), ethernet, firewire, and much much more. 10 years ago an Apple computer was significantly different from a PC. Its processor was different. Its motherboard architecture was different.
But Macs now are very similar to PCs. Take a Mac and put it next to a Dell and, the horrific gap in industrial design aside, they share the same processor, the same drive hardware, the same networking, USB 2.0. The same wireless protocols (airport and bluetooth). In fact, they are remarkably similar machines.
This similarity has led to many Windows users buying Macs, knowing that they can not only experience the superior OS X experience, but that they can also run Windows machines without virtualization should they need to.
All this really leaves me scratching my head. Why does Apple continue to require an Apple piece of hardware to run OS X? It doesn’t make any sense! So, after that somewhat verbose introduction, Steve, I give you the 10 reasons why you must decouple OS X from Apple hardware now.
1. There has never been a better time
Steve, I love your new commercials. The ones smashing Vista are particularly brilliant. Vista sucks. You know it, and we do too. What is happening right now is that Microsoft is admitting that XP is outdated, and their answer, Vista, is a failure. You are wise to pick up on this and to start pointing OS X out to consumers. But the time to really strike is now. And striking by expecting people who are comfortable going to Best Buy or buying directly from Dell requires a change in strategy.
2. Dell wants you
Let’s face it. Dell is a force to be reckoned with. Yes, their Dude, get a Dell campaign was stupid. Yes, the majority of their hardware is ugly and the antithesis of everything that is brilliant about Ives. But they sure know how to sell a boatload of hardware. Dell was locked into Windows, but now they sell Linux machines! Don’t view Dell as ugly machines. View Dell as incredible channels for OS X. Look at it this way. You are syndicating the Apple experience to other platforms. When HBO releases an incredible series (or maybe I should use a favorite of yours, The Office) they don’t demand that it only be consumed on a certain make of television! Same with OS X. Let Dell sell it and they will sell tons.
3. Hardware doesn’t really matter, or most people don’t get good design
I already covered above how the difference between Apple and PC hardware is minimal, and probably nonexistent. The other thing you have to understand, Steve, is that the vast majority of people don’t get good design. After all, they use Windows, drive Asstecs, and do other unsavory things. Now, you could say that Apple is like Porsche, or BMW, as some others have said, and is happy with low marketshare. But I can’t believe you think this way and are stubborn enough to not try to change the world. Indeed, syndicating OS X to other manufacturers could really bring good design to the masses. After all, people spend all day staring at their screen, and not the boxes that run their screens. Even so, the vast majority of computer users won’t care that they are using a better looking operating system than Windows. But, if it is offered at Dell, and it has better security and features, they will buy it. So sell it.
4. You will make much more money
There, got your attention, didn’t I? Some out there go on and on about how Apple is a hardware company and would never license OS X because you would lose money. Funny, didn’t work out for Microsoft that way and the last time I checked Bill has a lot more money in the bank than you. Plus, I’m not suggesting you stop making Macs. Indeed, because you will be the maker of both the operating system and hardware you will still be uniquely positioned to create hardware and software experiences that will rock our world. And many computer users, including me, will see that difference and continue buying Macs. But for those Dell and HP users out there who want to save a buck, or don’t care about Apple’s design, they will still be putting money in your pocket instead of Bill’s. The marketplace has already proven that Apple’s marketshare will always be a minority, and while you have made great strides recently let’s be honest. They are in the low percentages (and that is at the high end) and more often in the decimals of percentages. That is no way to grow.
5. The world is leaving you behind or China
To the vast majority of the world a computer is a PC running Windows. This is a shame. Sure there are niches overseas but they are all in developed countries. Go to India, which is going through a huge economic transformation, and you won’t see Macs. Go to China? Forget it. Same with Africa. Again, if OS X could run on any hardware, including the cheap stuff, people who would otherwise never be exposed to Apple would use it.
6. Scale
Open up OS X and you don’t have to get into silly negotiations with people like Best Buy who, every six months it seems, are either selling Macs or aren’t. And when they are there is usually one or two out there that is largely ignored. But with OS X running on any hardware suddenly Best Buy, Circuit City, Radio Shack, and any brick-and-mortars outlet is a channel for Apple. This is huge. Add Dell to the mix and it gets really big. This is scale, and by continuing to bundle things you cannot match this out in the marketplace.
7. It’s better for the end-user
Personally I care more about OS X than I do about the hardware it runs on. If I had to choose between running Windows on a Mac, and Mac on a PC, well, I’d choose the latter. Don’t get me wrong, I love your hardware. Love it so much that I have never owned a PC, and will never bring one into my home! But, what really matters to me is OS X.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
There would be NOTHING in this scenario that would prevent Apple from continuing to make hardware, particularly laptops. Given Apple’s competitive pricing, there’s probably be almost no movement either way.
What it WOULD do, however, is open up the bottom of the market that Apple has little or no interest in serving. I had to get a sub-$1000 machine a few weeks ago and ended up with a Vista/HP box because the Mac mini was simply too underpowered with no way to upgrade the video card.
Overall, I think choice is a good thing. I think Dell adding Linux to the mix is a good thing. I’d love to be able to see OS X as an option as well.
Having a bunch of crappy PC vendors make crap and then Apple has to try and make OSX run on it like it does with there current hardware.
And what you guys are all arguing essentially is that Apple, with its superior hardware and OS STILL wouldn’t be able to compete against total crap?
What does that say about Apple that they can’t compete with crap?
Been there, done that, Hadley, it didn’t work. Apple tried the clone business and got its ass handed to it. Apple cannot afford to adopt Microsoft’s business plan. We Mac Users cannot afford to live without Apple; who else will drive the next computer paradigm shift?
You are stuck in the past, Hadley. We need to see where the computer market is going. It is uncertain that Microsoft will survive the next paradigm shift. Don’t confuse big, powerful and rich with good; MS is a dinosaur. Microsoft isn’t on top because of a conscious decision or skill. It lucked into a situation and exploited it well. But is MS in a position to take advantage of the next big changes? No, it is still five years behind Apple. Vista is better than XP, but it isn’t really a modern, modular Operating System. It is Windows server 2003 with a pretty face.
What is driving the next paradigm shift is hardware. What happens when the computer-on-a-chip gets under ten bucks? Every peripheral will become a stand alone device. No manufacturer will want to pay the Microsoft tax to run that keyboard, mouse, drawing tablet, headset and monitor, so Unix or linux will run them. Apple will, most likely, design that software out of self defense and donate it to open source. And Apple will continue to provide most flexible, durable and easiest to use hardware.
You would think that with the computer fragmenting into stand-alone devices, that this would make the OS less important, not more. But here, we must trust to Microsoft to do a half-assed job. Naturally, MS will be many years behind the curve, but will still get it wrong in user friendliness. Apple is doing its best to stay ahead of that fragmentation with the Apple TV and the iPhone. There will be many other Apple branded stand alone devices.
Meanwhile, most of Front ends for mainframes (ordering devices, cash registers, etc) which comprises a third of MS’s market share will be lost to Linux stand alone devices.
Apple wants the most profitable quarter of the consumer electronics market. It will chip away at the server and the enterprise markets, but there isn’t enough money in most computer sales, anymore. The Enterprise and Government markets demand a special institutional sales force and 24/7 repair service that it doesn’t pay Apple enough to provide. Or they want advanced planning information that Apple does not want to publish because it ruins Steve’s “just one more thing” moments. Apple’s secrecy makes good copy worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
There is always a market for quality equipment at a reasonable price. The reason that Apple is selling its hardware at much higher percentage of sales than Wintel now, is that the old IBM & MS FUD about Apple has faded. It will continue to fade and Apple’s market share will rise, but the quality must be there to substantiate Apple’s quality and longevity.
Both Dell and HP have cut their prices to the bone and are sacrificing quality. That practice must eventually catch up with them, because it is sacrifices the future for the present. In time. the future will arrive. MS and the Wintel manufacturers are not preparing for that day. I believe Apple is. Apple will drive the bus leaving Wintel behind. But only, if Apple has a bus-- that is, hardware.
“I spent a while trying to get one specced out over the phone to - yes - india”
I hear a lot of similar comments nowadays but I don’t understand what is the problem with outsourcing support to India. You can get cheaper labour there and my experiences with Indian tech support personnel haven’t been half bad.
Beeblebrox wrote: “What does that say about Apple that they can’t compete with crap?”
The FCC had to step in and mandate how the broadcast spectrum was broken down into desecrate channels and force manufactures to produce digital televisions. Otherwise, we’d all be watching standard definition TV right now.
Without enough public demand for better devices and content, there simply wasn’t enough incentive for the industry to actually produce better hardware and programming. The industry had become stagnant. The FCC had to step in and act in the public’s best interest because the public kept buying crap.
The extraordinary thing is that Dell could spend what Apple does on R&D;. Think about it.
Sometimes when I hear horror-stories about windows, in fact windows had nothing to do with the problem. People buy cheap things and then with Windows on it expect it to run.
Instead of this rather stupid article, imagine the following:
Microsoft making also the hardware without compromises. And producing the Microsoft computer. When things would go wrong, windows users would say, “of course, you only have a Dell”.
I can’t believe this article. Imagine people putting… Whatever / I don’t feel like looking for arguments much longer.
MacOS X is not idiot proof. It works well because the makers have ‘inside’ knowledge of what hardware they’ll use. Bring it on the market like any other product and it will crash, burn and freeze like any other product you let the public or AM-staff writer toy around with.
One staff writer deleting a folder because he doesn’t know what it is, another arguing a whole weekend that a fraction is a fraction whatever the unit is, and now this. Stop worrying how Steve or Bill could make more money, market share, etc. They are doing very well.
Worry about this site.
Third world countries also run on old trains the Brittons left there. The UK adopted this “business model”, see how far that got British Rail.
When I was in Bali (Rep. Indonesia) in 1993 their Apple shop was bigger than the one in Brussels! Now go to Singapore and see if everyone uses Windows. If there are a lot of windows computers in development countries it’s because donor countries where glad they got rid of them.
To call Dell a force to be reckoned with, is like buying shares of Zeppelin after the Hindenburg disaster.
Would the world be a better place if everyone used a Mac ? I doubt it. It would however if everyone started to use his brain.
Would the world be a better place if everyone used a Mac ? I doubt it.
I think it would unequivocally be a worse place.
The FCC had to step in and mandate how the broadcast spectrum was broken down into desecrate channels and force manufactures to produce digital televisions. Otherwise, we’d all be watching standard definition TV right now.
The FCC mandate had ONLY to do with digital broadcasting, not HD. These are two distinctly different things.
It has NOTHING to do with quality of the picture but rather the significant increase in bandwidth and available licensed channels in the digital spectrum.
It also only affects BROADCAST, not cable or satellite subscriptions.
In other words, that analogy has nothing whatever to do with mandating higher quality products.
The idea that Apple “can’t compete with crap” is equally, empirically silly.
I mean to say that, just because one can imagine a situation where Apple’s sales were parasitized, doesn’t negate the fact that Apple’s entire business model is based on “competing with crap”, if you must call it that, and it has been astoundingly successful, as Jobs’s stock portfolio will attest.
Really? Let’s look over those market share numbers, in 2006 they had roughly 6.1% of the PC Market. Know is that a profitable 6.1%, of course it is.
But the fact still remains that overwhelmingly people have chosen ‘Crap’ over Apple’s PC line.
The idea that Apple “can’t compete with crap” is equally, empirically silly.
I agree. Which is why I think Apple has nothing to lose by licensing the OS while still maintaining its own hardware product line. I think Apple can hold its own against what others are legitimately arguing would be poorly designed, cheap, inferior junk.
The question seems to be is Apple a hardware company that uses software to push gadgets or a software company that uses hardware to biat people into to buying software.
Steve Jobs says Apple is a software company, pure and simple. Steve avows that the softwre is the thing. The iPod, the Mac, the iPhone are all in essence, software products. At least according to Mr. Jobs.
If that is the case, if what Steve says is true, then where is problem with decoupling the two? If I sell fertilizer and put it in nice bags I’m still selling fertilizer, why not sell the same fertilizer in crappy white bags that merely say “fertilizer?”
I think the answer is because Apple, despite Steve’s recent pronouncements, isn’t just selling software. Apple is selling the Apple lifestyle, the Apple brand.
When you buy an iPod or a Macbook you’re buying style as much as substance. And if your real product is style, not security or superior computing or even ease of use the last thing you want to do is place control of your style in the hands of those that care more about making the cheapest product possible than enhancing the Apple brand prestige. Exclusivity is part and parcel of the Apple brand.