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
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.
I think that’s largely an academic question at this point. Which is more important to the consumer?
Put it this way. Let’s say Apple licenses the OS to the Sonys and Dells of the world (and eMachines and pasty IT guys who build their own shit).
As a consumer in the market for a computer, are you shopping around for the best Sony brand laptop and deciding between OS X or Windows?
Or are you shopping around for the best OS X machine and deciding between Sony or Dell or Apple?
I would guess more than likely the latter. So I think consumers buy Macs for the OS, not the hardware, although ironically I think it’s the hardware where Apple really excels.
What!
Can anyone explain why liscensing OS X to vendors that will make cheap crap will help Apple any more than would making their own cheap computers?
The fact is this would parasitise their high-end bottom line. It would also be precisely contrary to the entire legacy Apple has slaved to build up. It would destroy Apple’s competitive advantage. It is the same as arguing that Lamorghini should make a 5 door mini-hatchback for the School Run Mum costing less than $10,000 because that’s where the real money is.
Always you can ask the question “what should apple do” in two ways: what’s right for apple, and what’s right for ‘the consumer’.
In actual fact the balance is between what’s right for apple and what isn’t wrong for the consumer. No-one’s going to argue that it is *immoral* in the current market for apple not to liscence their OS to cloners.
You have a certain overall set of markets and there are niches available in that ecology for a variety of different approaches. Apple’s niche has been outrageously successful and has produced the best consumer OS and software along with the best computer hardware currently available. What you’re basically saying is that humans have become so numerous, all other species should occupy the same niche as them. Why this is palpably not the case is also why comment 29 is so completely irrelevant.
Primarily, one doesn’t know the future relative outlook of the niches. The world of company strategy is a game of chance and strategy in which everyone’s betting. Decreasingly is money on Microsoft.
I repeat, Dell could spend the same on R&D;as Apple does. The only thing holding the tech world back is companies not knowing what they’re capable of.
Always you can ask the question “what should apple do” in two ways: what’s right for apple, and what’s right for ‘the consumer’.
Okay. Would licensing the OS benefit the consumer? I think the answer is unquestionably yes. Consumers could still buy Apple hardware if they wanted and they’d have an almost infinite choice beyond that of hardware from other brands they also know and trust.
The question of whether or not it’s beneficial for Apple seems to be what’s got the fanboy panties in a bunch. I think it would be beneficial, albeit in a different form than Apple’s current success.
Can a company consist primarily by selling software and an OS? Well, yeah. That’s how Microsoft became Microsoft. And Apple would still have its monstrously successful iPod and it’s (likely) successful iPhone.
The real question is can Apple compete in the OS market alongside Windows? And can their hardware compete in an open market against the likes of Dell and Sony? If they can, then what’s the problem? And since you called the idea that they cannot compete “empirically silly” then you must agree that this model would work, right?
What you’re basically saying is that humans have become so numerous, all other species should occupy the same niche as them.
Huh? No, what I’m saying is that I as a consumer want more choices, like putting OS X on any machine I want. Pretty simple idea, really, that apparently does not cotton well with the fanboys.
Yes it can. But the point about niches is that there are many different ones, and the one Apple is in is perfectly fine; in fact, better than perfectly fine.
It’s not apple’s job to provide a decent operating system to the world at large. Furthermore, as I keep hinting, if Apple can do it, others could too.
What we need is a shift in the entire technological landscape. What you propose is such a shift: where there is at least some competition in the OS arena. But this is not the right shift. The shift should be for more Apples. More companies producing their own ‘whole widgets’. You could call it ‘disintermediation’ - getting rid of the 3rd party software monopolist that has held the computing world back for so long.
In fact, I believe that ere too long, companies will face a choice: become like Apple, or die. All it would take is one more Apple to get the ball rolling.
I should add: imagine such a world, with interoperability through open standards combined with propietary/open internals in the way Apple has been moving. It would be far more competitive than the current environment. More brilliant for the consumer than the unsuspecting little darlings could possibly imagine.
And it’s inevitable.
I repeat, Dell could spend the same on R&D;as Apple does. The only thing holding the tech world back is companies not knowing what they’re capable of.
Dell does not spend as much as Apple on R&D;but the reason is not lack of initiative. A quick look at their innovative distribution method’s dispels that myth. Dell has simply decided to save money, and the savings are passed directly on to the consumers. The criticism is that with the hardware market dominated by companies who do not spend significant amounts of money on R&D;advances would be curtailed. However I do not see how Apple decoupling their OS would affect this as they would have even more motivation to differentiate themselves from their competitors.
<i> Imagine such a world, with interoperability through open standards combined with propietary/open internals in the way Apple has been moving <i>
For this vision to truely see the light of day Apple would need to decouple it’s OS from it’s hardware. Otherwise it’s just an illusion of choice.
In actual fact Dell spends roughly $500 million on R&D;and Apple spends… roughly $500 millions on R&D;.
For this vision to truely see the light of day Apple would need to decouple it’s OS from it’s hardware. Otherwise it’s just an illusion of choice.
No, for this vision to truly ‘see the light of day’ others must do what Apple has been doing all along. Those enlightened in the tech industry adhere to what may yet be called the Alan Kay Cliché: “People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.” At least this goes for OSs.
Again, it is not Apple’s job to provide a decent operating system to the world at large. Good OSs will be and have always been made by impassioned widget makers, by Open Sourcers, or not at all.
Beeblebrox wrote: “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.”
The term SD only defines the resolution of the content being displayed, not transmission quality. Digital SD content does not suffer from ghosting and other artifacts of analog TV. The result is a visible increase in picture quality for all over the air broadcasts, including SD.
Since an ATSC tuner is capable of receiving HD content and displaying it a SD resolution broadcasters can provide HD content in prime-time without leaving SD capable only consumers out in the cold.
Moving to DTV will require stations to make significant equipment upgrades. Broadcasters would be foolish to not include HDTV capabilities at the time of transition.
The end result of this mandate will result in higher quality content - even for those who can only display SD content. It will also drive broadcasters and networks to created HD content for consumers.
The FCC is currently investigating similar mandates for cable companies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_tuner
In the same vein in Britain, the govt is enforcing a complete ‘digital switchover’ to DVB-T region by region, starting in 2008 and ending 2013. So it has had to be enforced otherwise it simply wouldn’t have happened.
Not sure exactly what your point is though, Scott.
In actual fact Dell spends roughly $500 million on R&D;and Apple spends… roughly $500 millions on R&D;.
Dell’s R&D;are divided among a significantly larger pool of computer sales.
Much more shallowly.
Ben Hall wrote: “Not sure exactly what your point is though, Scott.”
The price of TVs dropped while the size of the screen grew. However, this represented implementations of existing technology and standards. Competition was limited to the lowest cost for the largest screen size. The actual quality of the content and presentation was negligible.
Most consumers just want to watch their reality TV show on the biggest screen size they can afford. Competing on cost and screen size alone is competing with “Crap”.
In the US, the FCC had to mandate the shift to ATSC tuners which setoff a chain reaction in the broadcast industry and television market to generate significantly higher quality content and devices to view them.