3 ms·

That's impressive, but then again Apple is _giving away_ copies, so I'm not too surprised. It's more interesting considering what this means as an Operating Sy

That's impressive, but then again Apple is _giving away_ copies, so I'm not too surprised. It's more interesting considering what this means as an Operating System developer. If they're giving away copies, it shows that Operating Systems are truly commoditized (as well as the huge profits that Apple is raking in!)

ChrisLTD 13y ago
Not to be too pedantic, but I don't think this situation fits the formal definition of commoditization. For a product to be a commodity, the various alternatives need to be interchangeable or indistinguishable. Edit: Web apps (Google Docs/Drive, Spotify, Basecamp, Facebook, etc.) would fit the bill as a force for OS commoditization.
encoderer 13y ago
No all it really shows is that it's a loss leader for Apple. Much the same way Microsoft made the browser a loss leader because it made money on the OS, Apple is making the OS a loss leader because it's making money on the hardware.
- gibwell 13y ago
  It's not a loss leader. OSX has always been supplied as a component that is integrated with the Mac. I.e. You never had to buy a Mac and then separately purchase OSX. What they are doing here is to integrate ongoing support for OS upgrades into the cost of the computer.
- ssharp 13y ago
  I'm not even sure if I'd call it a loss leader, solely based on "making it up" in hardware margins. I think you could show that by having much larger %'s of its user base being up to date and adopting new releases faster, that it cuts costs in other areas and makes it a more attractive platform. Just spitballing here, but less users on old versions should reduce support costs, create a better user experience for more of its users, and entice developers to take advantage of new features, which may further differentiate the platform from competitors. I'd have to think that creates more long-term value for the company than making $30 bucks per license. And that's not even calculating the customer goodwill by making the updates free.
bdcravens 13y ago
If you profit off of the hardware, absolutely.
bradleyland 13y ago
Apple is playing a slight of hand trick here. Mavericks isn't free. Apple makes higher margins than anyone else in the PC hardware industry, and you can only run OS X on Apple hardware (I'm talking broad market here, not hackers). What Apple has done is combined the hardware and software in to a single SKU. No one gets all excited when a new version of iOS is free because that's just "the way things are" in mobile. I think the strongest reasons for paid OS updates on the Mac in the past are because of precedent. When IBM chose to license DOS from Microsoft, they created the operating system pricing model that would define all future operating system pricing models in the consumer market. Apple has always charged for OS updates because that's just how OS updates were done. Apple has learned a great lesson from the success of iOS and the app ecosystem there. The consumer doesn't want to buy hardware and operating system software, they want to buy a device. That device should fulfill their other wants and needs, which are delivered through software that have been abstracted through the term "Apps". A lot of people fear a wholesale re-implementation of OS X as a giant form iOS that runs on a laptop/desktop. I don't think that's where Apple is headed. Rather, Apple is going to apply the same broad strategies to OS X, but will maintain a distinction in the actual implementation (tactics, if you will).
- Samuel_Michon 13y ago
  > What Apple has done is combined the hardware and software in to a single SKU. When you buy an off-the-shelf PC, you have the same experience. The Windows licence is included in the price of the computer, for which the OEM pays Microsoft. However, subsequent major releases of Windows aren’t included in the price. Given the trend, that might change. I can imagine Microsoft making all future consumer OS releases free for those with a valid Windows 8 licence. For enterprises, little is likely to change, as they already pay for seats, not specific OS versions.

ChrisLTD 13y ago

Not to be too pedantic, but I don't think this situation fits the formal definition of commoditization. For a product to be a commodity, the various alternatives need to be interchangeable or indistinguishable. Edit: Web apps (Google Docs/Drive, Spotify, Basecamp, Facebook, etc.) would fit the bill as a force for OS commoditization.

encoderer 13y ago

No all it really shows is that it's a loss leader for Apple. Much the same way Microsoft made the browser a loss leader because it made money on the OS, Apple is making the OS a loss leader because it's making money on the hardware.

gibwell 13y ago
It's not a loss leader. OSX has always been supplied as a component that is integrated with the Mac. I.e. You never had to buy a Mac and then separately purchase OSX. What they are doing here is to integrate ongoing support for OS upgrades into the cost of the computer.
ssharp 13y ago
I'm not even sure if I'd call it a loss leader, solely based on "making it up" in hardware margins. I think you could show that by having much larger %'s of its user base being up to date and adopting new releases faster, that it cuts costs in other areas and makes it a more attractive platform. Just spitballing here, but less users on old versions should reduce support costs, create a better user experience for more of its users, and entice developers to take advantage of new features, which may further differentiate the platform from competitors. I'd have to think that creates more long-term value for the company than making $30 bucks per license. And that's not even calculating the customer goodwill by making the updates free.

bdcravens 13y ago

If you profit off of the hardware, absolutely.

bradleyland 13y ago

Apple is playing a slight of hand trick here. Mavericks isn't free. Apple makes higher margins than anyone else in the PC hardware industry, and you can only run OS X on Apple hardware (I'm talking broad market here, not hackers). What Apple has done is combined the hardware and software in to a single SKU. No one gets all excited when a new version of iOS is free because that's just "the way things are" in mobile. I think the strongest reasons for paid OS updates on the Mac in the past are because of precedent. When IBM chose to license DOS from Microsoft, they created the operating system pricing model that would define all future operating system pricing models in the consumer market. Apple has always charged for OS updates because that's just how OS updates were done. Apple has learned a great lesson from the success of iOS and the app ecosystem there. The consumer doesn't want to buy hardware and operating system software, they want to buy a device. That device should fulfill their other wants and needs, which are delivered through software that have been abstracted through the term "Apps". A lot of people fear a wholesale re-implementation of OS X as a giant form iOS that runs on a laptop/desktop. I don't think that's where Apple is headed. Rather, Apple is going to apply the same broad strategies to OS X, but will maintain a distinction in the actual implementation (tactics, if you will).

Samuel_Michon 13y ago
> What Apple has done is combined the hardware and software in to a single SKU. When you buy an off-the-shelf PC, you have the same experience. The Windows licence is included in the price of the computer, for which the OEM pays Microsoft. However, subsequent major releases of Windows aren’t included in the price. Given the trend, that might change. I can imagine Microsoft making all future consumer OS releases free for those with a valid Windows 8 licence. For enterprises, little is likely to change, as they already pay for seats, not specific OS versions.