4 ms·

Actually, allowing 3rd party vendors to make MacOS-compatible hardware is basically what almost killed Apple to begin with. So no, he's not repeating past mist

by jolan 16y ago

Actually, allowing 3rd party vendors to make MacOS-compatible hardware is basically what almost killed Apple to begin with. So no, he's not repeating past mistakes.

xenophanes 16y ago
Why was that so bad for Apple? Why didn't it work? (I have no strong opinion on the matter.)
- etherael 16y ago
  Because they basically acted as enablers for the competition on their core profit center. I'm prone to agree that it was a bad move keeping in mind what Apple's strengths are, but then I just don't think that highly of Apple's strengths so ymmv.
- jfb 16y ago
  Apple was and is a hardware company. The amount that made on each OS license was insignificant compared to the margins they made on their computers. This was true in the clone era and much more so today. Full disclosure: I used to work at Apple.
- wvenable 16y ago
  Apple couldn't build better hardware or cheaper hardware than the clone makers -- they were losing on the top end and the bottom end. Today, Apple makes good top end hardware and would likely continue to compete there but allowing clones to capture the low end would dilute their premium brand.
tullius 16y ago
That's only because they waited to do so as a last-ditch effort after their market share cratered. At that point the cheaper alternatives were only purchased by the existing Mac faithful.
tzs 16y ago
I'd say the problem there wasn't allowing MacOS compatible hardware--it was requiring that hardware to be too close to Apple hardware. The clone makers were required to use Apple-approved designs for their motherboards, expansion busses, and so on. All they really had some freedom with was the case design, and they got to pick how to build the thing. This forced the clone makers into essentially the same market Apple was in, so there was almost no chance the clone makers could grow the Mac market. That isn't what the clone makers wanted. They wanted to make MacOS compatible machines aimed at markets Macs were not in, rather than just end up competing with Apple in the existing market. One of the clone makers demoed some laptops, for instance, that covered nicely parts of the laptop market Apple wasn't in, and publicly begged Apple to let them sell them. Apple wouldn't allow it. In some ways, this was a continuation of an Apple problem that started earlier, even before the PPC switch. That's the problem of too many models in a given space. I remember when I bought my Centris 650. It was a brand new model when I bought it. 14 months later it was discontinued. Apple had dozens of models like that--each a minor variation on something they already had, but with a different name. Buy a Mac, and 18 months later go to buy RAM, and it was was a pain in the ass, because the vendors no longer listed your Mac model. Want to buy a hard disk? Again a pain in the ass--because each model had a slightly different way of mounting an internal drive, and the vendors were no longer advertising the kits with a mount for your Mac (this was before the internet was big, so you couldn't just pop online and check their catalog...if it wasn't in their ad in the magazines, you had to call or send away for their catalog). Want some really cool expansion hardware that used the fast "direct to processor" bus instead of the much slower NuBus? Oh look, each model Mac had a slightly different pin-out for that bus. I think Jobs knows exactly what he's doing. He knows that what is best is to have a small number of devices that are clearly distinguished from each other, and have a large amount of non-overlap in the markets they are best for (although one might argue that MacBook and MacBook Pro have a lot of market overlap).

by jolan 16y ago

Actually, allowing 3rd party vendors to make MacOS-compatible hardware is basically what almost killed Apple to begin with. So no, he's not repeating past mistakes.

xenophanes 16y ago

Why was that so bad for Apple? Why didn't it work? (I have no strong opinion on the matter.)

etherael 16y ago
Because they basically acted as enablers for the competition on their core profit center. I'm prone to agree that it was a bad move keeping in mind what Apple's strengths are, but then I just don't think that highly of Apple's strengths so ymmv.
jfb 16y ago
Apple was and is a hardware company. The amount that made on each OS license was insignificant compared to the margins they made on their computers. This was true in the clone era and much more so today. Full disclosure: I used to work at Apple.
wvenable 16y ago
Apple couldn't build better hardware or cheaper hardware than the clone makers -- they were losing on the top end and the bottom end. Today, Apple makes good top end hardware and would likely continue to compete there but allowing clones to capture the low end would dilute their premium brand.

tullius 16y ago

That's only because they waited to do so as a last-ditch effort after their market share cratered. At that point the cheaper alternatives were only purchased by the existing Mac faithful.

tzs 16y ago

I'd say the problem there wasn't allowing MacOS compatible hardware--it was requiring that hardware to be too close to Apple hardware. The clone makers were required to use Apple-approved designs for their motherboards, expansion busses, and so on. All they really had some freedom with was the case design, and they got to pick how to build the thing. This forced the clone makers into essentially the same market Apple was in, so there was almost no chance the clone makers could grow the Mac market. That isn't what the clone makers wanted. They wanted to make MacOS compatible machines aimed at markets Macs were not in, rather than just end up competing with Apple in the existing market. One of the clone makers demoed some laptops, for instance, that covered nicely parts of the laptop market Apple wasn't in, and publicly begged Apple to let them sell them. Apple wouldn't allow it. In some ways, this was a continuation of an Apple problem that started earlier, even before the PPC switch. That's the problem of too many models in a given space. I remember when I bought my Centris 650. It was a brand new model when I bought it. 14 months later it was discontinued. Apple had dozens of models like that--each a minor variation on something they already had, but with a different name. Buy a Mac, and 18 months later go to buy RAM, and it was was a pain in the ass, because the vendors no longer listed your Mac model. Want to buy a hard disk? Again a pain in the ass--because each model had a slightly different way of mounting an internal drive, and the vendors were no longer advertising the kits with a mount for your Mac (this was before the internet was big, so you couldn't just pop online and check their catalog...if it wasn't in their ad in the magazines, you had to call or send away for their catalog). Want some really cool expansion hardware that used the fast "direct to processor" bus instead of the much slower NuBus? Oh look, each model Mac had a slightly different pin-out for that bus. I think Jobs knows exactly what he's doing. He knows that what is best is to have a small number of devices that are clearly distinguished from each other, and have a large amount of non-overlap in the markets they are best for (although one might argue that MacBook and MacBook Pro have a lot of market overlap).