> > I am no expert, but I suspect that the typical PC comes with
> > reasonably standard hardware that could deliver a "pretty
> > good" experience on any current hardware -- maybe not as good
> > as an integrated hw/sw solution, but close enough.
>
> With the variety of PC hardware available, I'm often surprised that
> Windows
> works at all! There are so many compatibility issues that I run into
> on a
> regular basis, where product X doesn't work with computer Y even
> though they
> should in theory be compatible.
True! Apple would likely need to bless certain configurations and
rewrite (or help) drivers for popular IO devices.
As mentioned earlier, easiest way would be for someone like HP or Dell
to pre-install OS X on the blessed configurations.
I don't think Apple should target the older machines.
> > Lot of truth to that, but I think that the OS is a profit
> > center -- so, with an exponentially greater target market
> > (Intel) I think they should be able to make $ -- it would be
> > fun to run the numbers -- how about OS X Intel for $49?
>
> Keep in mind that this would cannibalize hardware sales, and increase
> support calls.
I don't think it, necessarily, has to cannibalize Apples hardware
sales. When you put together a workable configuration Apple's prices
are reasonably close to the competition -- Apple just doesn't have the
much-touted loss leaders. And, Macs are said to last longer (be
replaced less often) than pcs.
I would guess if you put an OS X Mac package beside an OS X Intel
(Sony, Dell, etc) package:
1) the Mac would be slightly more expensive
2) the Intel would be slightly faster & more flexible
3) the Intel would be slightly more difficult to configure & maintain
4) the Mac would have slightly more integration, style & sizzle.
> At $49 a copy, they'd lose money if a customer calls with a
> support question!
Apple is very profit-motivated & I suspect that they are making a
profit on OS X at $100/per. (they do offer a quantity discount).
You are prolly right about the $49 price & 1 support call, though.
They could reduce support problems, to a great extent, with the concept
of blessed configurations.
Also, it is the matter of perceived value. Should they charge more for
an Intel version than for the Mac version? Say $150.
> > That said, is this something that could be, should be done?
>
> It certainly could be done. Whether it should be, is a topic on which
> you
> and Steve Jobs may disagree. I think that Steve feels that Apple is
> primarily a hardware company, and requires total control of the user
> experience. After all, iTunes and iTMS are really just ways to get
> people to
> buy more iPods.
I first met Steve when he was in his early 20's & he loudly proclaimed
that he didn't trust anyone over 30 (I was).
He has aged & mellowed some.
I think the iPod/iTMS/iTunes were conceived as you describe. But, the
way hardware prices drop, there won't be much profit in iPods in a few
years. I think that the concept has already begun morphing into
something else -- who knows, maybe the future profit will be in songs,
audio books, advertising revenues?
Steve's decision to sell iPod/iTMS/iTunes into the Non-Mac
marketplace is an interesting one. It shows that "total control" of
everything is not necessary to provide "total control" of the user
experience.
Maybe this could apply to OS X, too.
Dick
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
