Why Apple’s proprietary system and small market share are a good thing
Many would gaff at such a claim, as the fact that OS X cannot be installed on any generic box is a deal breaker for some. Looking beyond that limitation, Apple has succeeded in areas others would dare not venture to. Their proprietary system has only helped Apple access these areas, but at some cost to the consumer.
Since the return of Steve Jobs, Apple’s market share has increased tremendously. However, Apple still commands about 5 percent of the U.S. computer market share and about 2 percent worldwide. For the competition, Apple was no big threat, but their small piece of the market provided one thing every company wanted: a massive testing platform. Apple’s small slice provided just that, allowing them to introduce new products to a wide but limited audience, providing real world results and further optimizing future products.
One of Apple’s biggest hits, the iPod, not only took tremendous planning and execution but required the music industry’s approval. Piracy was a definite concern with record labels, as they had no intentions of promoting a player encouraging piracy, especially after the recent defeat of Napster in court. Apple and the labels came to agreements on which platforms the iPod would be available for at launch. From its introduction in October 2001 and until 2 years later, the iPod was only supported for the Mac platform, including OS9 (support was stopped in version 3 of iTunes) and OS X. Going Mac-only for the launch of the iPod was due to the need for a testing platform that would provide real world results and evaluate the potential of the player. The small market share of the Mac not only provided the perfect testing platform needed for Apple and the record labels, but gave them a chance to showcase that piracy was a non-issue at the time, further increasing support for the yet-to-be-launched iTunes Music Store. Then in 2003, two years after Apple introduced the iPod, Windows was supported under iTunes along with the new iTunes Music Store. The iPod was now available to a much larger audience, which would not only revolutionize how you listened to music, but also how you purchased it. Had OS X and OS 9 not had such a small market share, selling the iPod and convincing record labels that the iTunes Music Store would not promote piracy would have been a much harder task to accomplish, or may not have happened at all.
The word proprietary is often associated with restriction, incompatibility, and unsupported. In the short run proprietary systems mainly benefit companies without offering much to the consumer. However, looking into the long run, Apple’s use of proprietary systems has offered a lot more than consumers realize. Apple’s two poster children for proprietary systems are Mac OS X and the iPod. Looking into these systems has not only created revolutions and evolutions, but has proven that proprietary systems can offer a lot for consumers, more than they think.
It’s well known that in order to run Mac OS X legally it must be done so on a Macintosh. Although versions have been hacked to run on generic PCs, it’s an option most consumers wish to avoid. Even with hacked versions of Mac OS X, most hardware configurations are not supported, often times crashing, and updates are few and far between. Many have criticized Apple because Mac OS X will only run on a Macintosh with most Macs supposedly out of their price range (although whether a Mac is more expensive than a PC could be debunked). And one could argue that quality does not come cheap. With OS X running only on the Mac platform, Apple has unique advantages over other manufacturers, including Microsoft. What others lack, Apple more than makes up for, especially in the communication department. Computers can be customized thousands of ways with each company going at its own pace, oftentimes surpassing the competition, but this in turn brings the quality down because software designed for other machines is not optimized for newer models. The introduction of Windows XP Media Center Edition, 64 Bit Edition, and Pen/Tablet Edition have shown how uncoordinated the PC industry is. As each new major feature manifested itself into consumer PCs, a new version of Windows was needed to take full advantage of these new additions. However, Apple is in control of their hardware and can tailor OS X for full optimization on each machine. While Microsoft creates new editions of Windows, Apple waits to incorporate all of these new features into OS X, creating a true multi-capable Operating System. Apple also has the opportunity to create simple and seamless transitions no other company would consider. The move to Intel chips from the PowerPC architecture was in the works ever since early versions of OS X. The only reason Apple could pull it off is their control of what hardware is used. If Microsoft were to support a new architecture and eventually phase out support for AMD and Intel chips it would require approval of each PC manufacturer and coordination, which they lack.
Apple has not been known for making new things no one has ever done before. Apple is known for taking an existing product and improving on it in such a way that new concepts and markets spawn from the introduction of a new product.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
No matter how much you hate a company, criticizing them for having the gall to improve their products is pretty lame.
Heh. Not only that, Apple fans of all people have no room to criticize. Not only does Apple routinely release software/OS updates that break hardware and software compatibility, we actually have to deal with TWO different processors now. I spent $80 on disk warrior only to find out it doesn’t work on Intel machines at all. And just try using Photoshop CS for anything big.
And of course there’s the fact that Leopard and past OS X upgrades have needed more and more RAM and other hardware to work as advertised. Heck, the hardware requirements for Time Machine alone double the cost of an upgrade to Leopard.
And yet Vista is suppose to obsolesce all existing hardware because the EYE CANDY isn’t supported on all machines? It’s FUD-peddling, pure and simple.
In the PC space, there just has been no reason to. x86 has won. It is exceedingly unlikely that a competitor to the architecture will come up in the near to mid-term future. -Sterling
Sure MS have won out that space and the reason that their chosen architecture have languished to a dinosauric catastrophy sure to happen. The NT foundation has been around since 1988 (that includes development time, of course) when Dave Cutler was swooned away from his VMS days at DEC. That very lackadaisical posture regarding the fundamental plumbing in NT (and yes, even NT 6.x of Vista) is due for a major re-engineering and soon.
And the HAL as it exist today is not a true HAL layer in the sense of OS X. It is not a full “abstraction” layer for the kernel as you might think. Read up more about it before giving me a lesson.
And of course, there are all of those smartphones that run Windows CE
Sterling, WinCE is not WinNT. Get the facts!
That NT had originally been developed (as VMS) on non-x86 architecture would seem to imply that NT is far more portable than you are willing to give credit for, Robotech. I’d also point out that I doubt that you know how much of OS X is in iPhone OS X. So you have no basis to argue that Win CE is less NT than iPhone OS X is OS X.
Anyway, Microsoft really cares little about x86 except that it was and still is the biggest commoditized architecture for personal computers, thanks to the clone makers of IBM. That Microsoft took advantage of this competition and offered their OS to all clonemakers was just savvy business. The clonemakers beat their brains out while everwidening the share of 86 only helped to bring hardware prices down, so MS could gather a larger percentage of the revenue of each new computer. They would have hitch their star to another processor if they thought x86 would collapse.
’d also point out that I doubt that you know how much of OS X is in iPhone OS X
No one else outside the developers and Steve really knows anyhow. So what’s your point? What we can assume though is correct: iPhone OSX is a subset of the desktop OSX, whereas to say that it iPhone OSX has ALL the OSX foundation - be it HAL, kernel, frameworks, and the absolute necessary APIs to run a phone-based computer. Do we agree on that? Technicalities aside this much is true of iPhone OSX.
That Microsoft took advantage of this competition and offered their OS to all clonemakers was just savvy business.
That I can agree with 1%. The other 99%? Pure lady luck given by IBM. With the results of their disastrous Origami, Tablet PC, XBox (yes, it is still bleeding red today!), and the Zune fiasco, how can you say MS has “savvy business”? Licensing to the PC cloners was not even their decision. MS was just going with the ride and got rich from the foolishness of those poor cloners.
Now, when it comes to Apple, where they blaze their way to richess and not depending upon the shrill cluelessness of others. The Mac is a “niche” that is leading the way in the PC industry. The iPod showed that simplicity and intuitiveness can remake a company into $11B cash-hoarding goliath.
The iPhone? Well, it is 6 months too early to tell but let’s not forget, Steve has his plans drawn out in the boardroom and he wants to conquer this space too! The iPhone is only the first salvo in this war.
They would have hitch their star to another processor if they thought x86 would collapse.
Which they did anyhow. NT on DEC Alpha? NT on PREP PPC? MIPS? All a failure.
So, MS is not really that great when it comes to predicting their future when one is already at their faces. MS just throws everything except the kitchen sink to the wall and watch which one sticks the longest. Now, is that business shrewdness? Hardly.
How can we say the MS is a savvy buisness? Very simply.
Last year Microsoft earned a profit of 11.9 billion dollars on sales of 46.1 billion. As a point of comparison, Apple made a profit of 2.4 billion, with 20.4 billion in income.
Not only does Microsoft have more income then Apple, it gets a much higher return on investment. Analysts don’t see that changing any time soon.
Insult Microsoft about their products if you want, but as Bill Gates said in an interview (I can’t find the URL), “You don’t need to feel bad for us about MS’s profitability”.
Alright, all statistics aside, MS is actually a much better buisness then apple. It may not make splashy adnouncements but if you follow the tech sector you will see Microsoft announcing partnerships practically daily. One of the reasons Windows has it’s gigantic Marketshare is that Microsoft knows how to build buisness relationships, whereas Apple sadly does not.
Edit:
Also, Microsoft was in buisness before being approached by IBM. They were only approached in the first place because they had buisness ties with IBM and were shrewd enough to recognize the potential of the IBM PC. Furthermore, they later created MS Word and Excel, which are also hugely succesfull products.
Last year Microsoft earned a profit of 11.9 billion dollars on sales of 46.1 billion. As a point of comparison, Apple made a profit of 2.4 billion, with 20.4 billion in income.
Simo, if numbers really is all that matters in what you call “business savvy” then why aren’t Wall Street analysts on your side the past five or so years??? Why is MS share price in the dumps - literally from its past glory? While Apple has been able to split their share price twice in the same period and still priced at stratospheric levels compared to MSFT? Simo, stay as a desktop market analyst because you merely skim off the frothy numbers and not the fundamentals.
Also, Microsoft was in buisness before being approached by IBM.
Ha! MS was in business with whom? The kit crowd with their QDOS? Let’s just say Bill’s little company was the cheapest of the greedy bunch at the time. IBM made a bet with Bill’s and lost BIG time.
Yah, I can take that Bill was shrewd in that oh, moment in computing history to fool IBM. Had IBM only spend more time developing their in-house DOS…and so it goes.
Alright, all statistics aside, MS is actually a much better buisness then apple.
lol.
One of the reasons Windows has it’s gigantic Marketshare is that Microsoft knows how to build buisness relationships, whereas Apple sadly does not.
MS to keep their gigantic cash flow, where Wall Street analysts expect them to, have to keep a pretty face in front of customers, then kick and stab them from behind-the-scenes. Shall we mention all the “monopolistic” judgements that came abound in the last decade? I am not going there but my point is.
Apple meanwhile does not play to the Street analysts expectations. They just merely produces spectacular results from shrewd and savvy business decisions from the top down.
The Apple machine is clicking since the iMac (less the Cube but no matter) and the iPhone should be no different. If I were MS I would be threatened as if their very lives were at stake. MS obviously do not possess an Apple-like biz acumen so I would not fight fire with misfires.
MS will stubbornly sit on their cash cow Windows to oblivion since they have no other way to compete head-on with Apple, Inc. How long would MS last by reheating Windows version after version? Only time will tell…
“You don’t need to feel bad for us about MS’s profitability” - Bill
Was he telling his MSFT investors from his face? If he was then obviously his investors think otherwise.
You know, all that profit is already accounted for in the billions of MSFT shares circulating. It is not a spark that will light their fires. What investors want MS to accomplish is expand their reach.
Expanding their reach with or without using Windows has been a spectacular failure. Janus or Plays For Sure imploded. Its WinCE efforts have not bloomed with the fruits of success, nor will ever be now that OSX has been shrunk to any portable form factor. Its XBox “success” to date is merely hiding the billions of losses since inception and development.
Sure, Vista will be profitable just as any Windows since 95 but it isn’t because Vista is a revolutionary product. It is merely a reheated XP with more “eye candies” than before.
MS is therefore only keeping the status quo. And the legions of foolish cloners will keep pumping out PC drones to the millions - because they have no other choice and MS will be happy to give them Vista licenses as if it were crack.
MS is therefore only keeping the status quo.
This is precisely the perfect summary of the situation.
Comparing the numbers with the numbers, Sales/Profit between the two divided by market share… Apple is larger (market share divided). If your doing 1/6th the biz with 1/20th the market share your doing better even if your smaller.
Vista is not bad, it’s not good either. It’s a pain to deal with to get into the system and migrate settings, etc… But all in all it’s better than XP even if it requires 10x’s the power. It DOES leave 90% of the PC’s out there behind. Now, and I really hope this happens, hardware manufactures will leave legacy devices behind and embrace the current trends and device inputs. I’m talking about ditching the RS232 and Serial, increasing onboard USB, Bluetooth, Wifi, and with a little luck FW800 or at least 400.
Apple dumps the old stuff in favor of the new stuff all the time. THIS IS EVOLUTION. We don’t have tails anymore, body hair is alot less than in the past and our brains, although with some I’m have doubt, are larger and more powerful. It’s evolution at it’s best in tech. You can’t keep old devices for ever. Everything has a half life and when that’s met Apple seems to dump the technology. If you don’t like the new stuff, don’t buy it. If what you have works why are you upgrading?
Same mentality goes towards PC users. If what you have works don’t bother with the new stuff. Your only creating waste.
Being a nimble “niche” PC player, Apple ironically wields plenty of fire power in a PC warfield stock full of leviathans. Being “small” is their greatest strength. Only fools see them the other way - as a follower to the clueless giant from the north.
So, market share% is not the all-telling fact of superiority. To me, market trend% is and Apple has been on that rising trend since 1998 when the iMac Bondi Blue was christened. MS has been on the downward spiral (albeit slow) since the release of Win98.
MS market share will remain HUGE and Apple’s - well, respectable and growing year-in and year-out. From this June on, you would have to start counting all the “OS X” iPhones sold as “OS X” shipped and released. That would definitely inflate the “OS X” market trend tremendously for all PC fools to drink with their morning coffee…
If your doing 1/6th the biz with 1/20th the market share your doing better even if your smaller.
You are using ALL of Apple’s profits to shore up the argument that it makes more money despite a fraction of MS’s operating system market.
Anyone care to guess at what is strikingly absent here and what might account for Apple’s huge profits?