Should Apple allow Clones?

diablojota

diablojota

Doctoral Student
Who thinks that Apple should license it's technology for clone computers? I just want to hear what people think about the pros and cons of Apple letting other manufactures produce 'white box' clones. They can limit it to G3/G4 systems and focus in on the high end power-user and server crowd. Also, this allows them to sell more OSX licenses. This is one way for Apple to help penetrate the PC market. When people get into the 'MacClone' and when they want some style, they can upgrade to a real Apple. Obviously the clones would have to be limited in some way (perhaps by limiting L2 cache as on the iBook).
Just looking for opinions.
Thanks,
FcB
 
That's an easy one to explain why not. It's called the CORE BUSINESS. Apple is primary a HARDWARE company. Cloning was killed off by Jobs second coming to Apple. The first thing he did was KILL clones because clones were killing Apple. Simple business sense.
 
Apple tried that back in the 90's before Steve Jobs came back, if I remember right it really hurt their profits. I personally don't think that it is a good idea, as Apple's main profits come from their hardware. Yes they do make money off their software, and they do write some great software in my opinion, but they are first and foremost a hardware company.
 
But it wouldn't necessarily be killing off the business. I also disagree that the hardware is the core business. They make more margin off of their software. Obviously they would license OS X, iLife '04, etc. Apple is a business that does it all in house. Clones didn't just about kill Apple. Apple just about killed Apple. They were getting themselves pigeon-holed into a niche market of only professionals because of the high costs. I mean, even their standard printers were way off base in price.
 
And they would still make money off of the hardware by licensing out the hardware, in some way or another.
As for being a hardware company, if they didn't write their own software, the hardware would be just about useless (except if you wanted to run Linux).
 
Think about IBM though, how many poeple do you know that have a genuine IBM machine? I dont think i know anyone. However IBM now has more of a focus on business solutions and server stuff, much less personal computer.
 
Well Apple's own numbers even disagree. Look at the data summary on the page. Software revenue for the quarter doesn't even beat the iPod revenue. Apple is a hardware company.

Note: An interesting note is Europe revenue is catching up to the Americas revenue. This is good news in a reason for Apple to open multiple European stores.
 
Satcomer said:
Well Apple's own numbers even disagree. Look at the data summary on the page. Software revenue for the quarter doesn't even beat the iPod revenue. Apple is a hardware company.

Note: An interesting note is Europe revenue is catching up to the Americas revenue. This is good news in a reason for Apple to open multiple European stores.
Click to expand...

I agree, Apple should start having more focus in Europe. Definitely with iTMS as well.
As regards to the results, they count that as a total bundled system (not truly just hardware). Software is just for the individual sales.

As for the licensing strategy I am suggesting, it would be very limited, per machine basis. So basically the would still make (maybe $100 per system) on hardware and then another 50-75 on software (i.e. OEM operating system, and iLife bundle perhaps).

This means that Apple would still make a kill per machine, and not even have to worry about costs of selling regarding those machines.

The previous clone cycle (early 90's) didn't follow this method.
 
diablojota said:
I just want to hear what people think about the pros and cons of Apple letting other manufactures produce 'white box' clones.
Click to expand...
I think you are missing the point on linking the software with the hardware. Apple sells some of the least expensive (based on feature set) software out there... and they don't feel any need to applied anti-pirating measures.

Why?

Because you have to have Apple hardware to run the software. Unless you physically steal Macs from Apple, Apple makes money no matter how you end up with their software. How can Apple possibly sell iLife for $50? Because they make their profit on the hardware side.

What your asking for is Apple to keep hardware prices where they are and raise software prices... and add anti-pirating measures. And when someone steals the software and buys hardware from a clone Apple gets nothing. A Macintosh is one big hardware key to Apple software, and it works.

Sorry, but I like things the way they are now.
 
Amen. I think every thing Apple has been doing has been perfect (except for the push to release a mini iPod early because of the anniversary). We now enjoy a Apple renaissance. Things might be a little spendy here and there but it is stable and their products are mostly of relatively high quality. Especially our software. Let's hope this lasts.
 
If Apple stopped making hardware or software then they would either make their hardware X86 compatible, or the software, surely. It is a problem, if the whole world used macs, then Apple would have faaaarrr too much power, even more than MS, which is one of the MS says. I am also concerned about the ipod-itms circle. I can see that it makes good business sense when you make both hardware and software to present a unified product. But does it make good business sense (on a large scale) to present that interdependant solution?

I like things the way they are, and I think that if any flexibility were introduced into the software/hardware relationship then the product would not be as good. However I do think that it means that people are less likely to use it, as it isn't compatible with what they have, in some ways it shows how good the Apple product is that they have any market share at all...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top