The downside of Apple

I had a little challenge with my Powerbook this weekend.  It seems the bottom memory slot no longer works.  It was working and now no longer works.  Everything else seems to be fine, so I guess I'm lucky in that respect.  It started me thinking about what to do if my PowerBook died.  It's out of warranty, and I'm pretty dependent on it right now since I commute to work and use it heavily there.

I was talking to a reseller that I've know for several years.  I mentioned fleeting thoughts of buying a new Mac Book Pro.  His very professional comment was, "Do you really want to own one of the first Mac Intel machines?"  Of course my answer was no.  Yet I don't want to buy an old PowerBook.  This weekend a friend forwarded me a NY Times article, "Good Luck With That Broken iPod."

Now you're reeling. You're furious. But what choice do you have? You
can't turn to a competitor's product, not if you want to keep using
Apple's proprietary iTunes software, where you've stored all the music
you love, including songs purchased directly from the iTunes Music
Store, which you'll lose if you leave the iTunes environment. So you
grit your teeth and buy a new iPod. Of course since it's a newer
machine, it has that cool video capability. But you're still angry.

The legacy work on my Mac is almost like my music library. It holds me in the Mac world.

Now I'm not angry at Apple about that or even the lower memory slot on my Powerbook dying.  Electronic things just break especially when they're hauled around alot.  Given the premium we pay for Apple products we might hope they last longer. Actually my experience shows that they often manage to do just that.

Yet, once you're in the Apple world, it's pretty hard to migrate.  I don't particularly like the idea of going out and trying to replace my software.  Of course that is minor compared to actually switching over to another operating system.  Apple actually has me in a bind.  I like OS X better, and I won't switch unless I have to do so.

There's an interesting perspective in "Will Apple do right with OS X?"

Those who've used the two operating systems largely agree that OS X beats the pants off of Windows, hands down. Yet, Apple's licensing policies have choked its business to a meager 4 percent market share, leaving Microsoft with a virtual monopoly. It reminds me of the Sony Betamax vs. VHS videotape wars of the 1980's.? Betamax was clearly the superior technology, but VHS won the war because of Sony's tightwad licensing and marketing policies.

Apple has a superior technology but we are at their mercy for hardware. At a certain point you have to weigh the options.  If my PowerBook died right now, I might be tempted to switch to a Windows box.  Then again I'm not sure things are any better over there.  Would the Windows laptop that I bought day run the Vista that Microsoft will release tomorrow?  I've looked at Linux, and it just doesn't fit what I need to get done these days unfortunately.  It also breaks pretty easily with updates.

I think I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.  I hope my PowerBook stays healthy.

Comments

[Norman Ferguson]

Dave,

There is one of those extended waranty repair programs for some PowerBooks whose lower RAM slot failed. You may wish to check that out. See here for details: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303173

[Chris Thomas]

Your point regarding the monopoly on compatible hardware is well-taken, but the linked article does not effectively support your position.

The author of that quote dredging up the old VHS vs. Beta comparison so popular in the nineties only demonstrates ignorance of history. Apple's marketshare tanked because of many boneheaded moves by Sculley and Spindler, but not because they didn't license the OS. How about overcharging for Macintoshes for at least ten years (1984-1994)?

Until 1995, Apple had a monopoly on a user-friendly OS for computers, and they acted like it, sacrificing long-term market share for short-term profit. So, when the monopoly came to end in 1995 ( in popular perception), they crashed. (There were signs of the problem much earlier than this, but Windows 95 was the tipping point.)

Licensing is the ultimate red herring in discussions of Apple's history and future. Microsoft is a software company. Apple is a consumer electronics company, and always has been at the core.

[ocracokewaves]

Norm,

Thanks for the heads-up. Looks like you're staying pretty current on Apple stuff. Have you seen any of the new Intel-iMacs in Roanoke yet?

[ocracokewaves]

Unfortunately my system is 1 Ghz system and the program is for newer systems though I'm having the same problem.

As to be there being an ignorance of history, there are absolutely plenty of reasons other than licensing that Apple tanked. However, there are some pretty good arguments that the landscape around Apple might have been much different if Apple had continued licensing.

The reason I referred to it is that I have a huge investment in Apple software and peripherals to go my my Powerbook but I'm held hostage by the fact that Apple is the only one making the hardware. Now I've gotten myself into this situation which is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view.

What is clear is that Apple releases new hardware when they please. I can take it or leave it, and I would like the option of using my Apple software and peripherals on something besides just Apple hardware. I don't think that's going ot happen.

And I suspect keeping Apple's OS X software tied to just Apple hardware is going to limit not just my options but Apple's eventual success as an operating systems company.

They may end up being very successful as a consumer products company but their "Betamax quality" OS X might forever be doomed to single digit market share which isn't necessarily a bad thing if Apple can continue to do well as a niche OS company.

[thomas Barta]

Two points:

1) Sony WON the Beta war-- see Balckfriar's blog. Sony made more monsy on Beta than any company made on VHS.

2) I'd rather "be at the mercy" of Apple for Hardware than at the mercy of Dell, Lenovo, HP, Acer-- you get the picture.

[Damian]

The iPod/iTunes/iTMS is certainly a winning combination for Apple, and it's not surprising they've done well by it. But, as you say, from the customer's point of view there is a lock-in there.

Besides the obvious, it's particularly unfortunate that very few makers of portable players support AAC (or ogg vorbis, for that matter). So even *unprotected* AAC files - what you get if you rip your CDs using the default settings in iTunes - won't play on most other devices. There must be many people who've ripped their whole CD collections before realizing this and now can't switch player - unless they want the pain of doing it all over again.

AAC is, of course, a standard format (from Fraunhofer) and anyone *could* support it, but few makers do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

Some phones will, but that's about it. I suppose it's possible that Microsoft exerts influence on the makers of portable devices to support their proprietary wma format as the alternative to mp3 and not support AAC. Whatever the reason, it leads, once again, to lock-in.

And it's a reminder, once again, that open (and well-supported) formats are of critical importance.

One might hope that Apple would eventually embrace Open Document, but I shan't hold my breath.

Pages does have an XML schema, but, according to Tim Bray, it is an amateurish mess:

http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2005/09/18/Apple-XML

Anyway, what price anyone with any sense risking storing any important documents in yet another proprietary format?

[Jim Banks]

A couple of points:

* You refer to the New York Times article which claims that consumers are locked in to the iPod because their music files won't play on any other device. That's not true. Migrating your music to play on a different device is not as easy as just sticking with Apple, but the "savvy shoppers" who are always complaining about flexibility and choice are the very people who can easily figure out how to make their music files migratable.

The secret is, don't buy music from the iTunes music store. Buy CDs, then import them into iTunes as mp3s. Then you can migrate to Bill Gates' devices whenever you want.

And, if you have ripped CDs into Apple's AAC format, it is easy to convert them to mp3s as well. Although your best bet would be not to use AAC from the start.

If you have made the "mistake" of purchasing DRM-protected AAC files from iTunes, you can make them migratable by burning them on a CD, then re-ripping them as mp3s, either in iTunes or in the software of your future device.

Again, for the people who complain about choice, this is easy stuff to figure out. For those who don't, Apple seems to work very hard to not give them a *reason* to leave the iPod platform, in addition to making it not-so-easy for the average consumer to do so.

Also, would someone please point out to me all of the altruistic work that Microsoft is doing to make Windows DRM music files migratable to the iPod format?

* My other point is a question: what are you doing with your PowerBook that makes it impossible to migrate your files to a Windows laptop if you wanted to, in this day and age??

[ocracokewaves]

There is nothing impossible to migrate. Twenty two years experience on a Mac means I'm more comfortable there. Actually I spent much of last year using Linux and Windows XP systems. It only took me a few months to get things to work as I chronicled in my post-

http://viewfromthemountain.typepad.com/david_sobotta_weblog/2004/12/printing_succes.html

I've gotten to the point that basic things along with networking, printing, and most other computer tasks are pretty easy to do on any plaform. At my desk at work, I have both a Powerbook and a Dell 610 Latitude at work, but I woulud rather use one of the Macs.

The closest things to applications tying me to the Mac platform would be iPhoto, iMovie,iDVD,Dreamweaver, and ImagePrint.

I haven't found anything as good as the iSuite in the Windows world. As to Dreamweaver and Imageprint, both are available in the Windows world.

But,it would just cost a lot of money to migrate and I would be completely freaked out if my photos didi print correctly.

It's similar to the choice I make every morning with what shoes I choose to wear. Having another computer to run by already paid for stuff would be great.

I guess the promised land is when I can run Vista and Mac OS on the same computer.

[Jim Banks]

Another thought: I'm not sure why people are so hot for Apple to release OS X to run on generic PC hardware, other than their own short-term self-interest--because Apple's life-expectancy is directly related to how directly they compete with Microsoft in the PC space. It seems obvious to me that the moment Apple competes with Microsoft head-on, the detente will be over and Microsoft will kill them dead by any means necessary. Microsoft Office for the Mac will be the first head on the chopping block. MS will fight dirty from there.

I also don't know why people think Apple will be more successful at supporting all of the many hardware options out there than Microsoft, when OS X works so well in part because it is restricted to particular hardware and not obligated to support any old or weird set of hardware requirements. And if Apple put restrictions on which generic PC hardware they'd support, how is that different than the current situation, or the Apple + clones situation in the '90s? There is no money for Apple in doing free development for other hardware makers, or in taking on additional hardware requirements that would kill the very attributes that make the Mac ecosystem so simple and successful.

[ocracokewaves]

I'm a customer so it is prefectly legitimate for me to have some needs that Apple may or may not choose to meet. The problem with the Apple ecosystem is that others are prevented from meeting those needs because of the proprietary nature of the way Apple does business.

I don't know that I want to go through the argument once again about Apple releasing OS X for generic boxes. I used to say to CIOs when they told me that they had gone to single platform of Windows, "Exactly how many versions of Windows are you supporting on your network?"

Well guess what? The Apple universe no longer is just four products in simple quadrants with processors from a single manufacturer. You have a variety of processors and even different versions of software. So which version of OS X are you running?

Without getting too deep on this, the point is that you make better margins on software than you do hardware, though if the recent numbers or more properly guesstimates are right, Apple is doing a good job sticking it to ccustomers with the new Intel iMacs.

My guess is that MS Office has already been chopped and in a relatively short time we'll figure out that feature parity is going to get worse inspite of any agreements between the two companies.

In fact MS could probably do more damage and make more money by continuing to make Office for the Mac and just making certain that key things don't work quite as well on the Mac. They might not even have to try to accomplish that. It just might happen naturally since it's always harder to devote significant development time to a minority platform.

[Jim Banks]

I'm not quite following your response--perhaps you can direct me to earlier posts in which you elaborated on this?

But what is your response to my assertion that Apple will make Mac OS X worse by attempting to support all of the generic/legacy hardware that Windows supports?

And if if Apple can make more money on software than hardware, why did Steve Jobs claim otherwise when he killed the cloning program upon his return to Apple?

And, hasn't Apple always had multiple versions of its Mac operating system and multiple processor families in use by end users at the same time since around 1990?

[ocracokewaves]

First off you might want to look at this post which talks about one potential scenario for Apple selling OS X as an operating system divorced from Apple hardware.

http://viewfromthemountain.typepad.com/applepeels/2005/06/apple_dell_the_.html

I don't claim that this is the absolute answer to the situation, but I do believe that Apple could make money selling OS X as just as software.

First off there are a number of people who will continue buy Apple hardware because it meets their needs better than what other manufacturers could potentially deliver. These extremely loyal Apple customers will always be willing to pay a price premium. I think very few of them would be drawn away by other sources of hardware that could run OS X. These people belong to Apple,heart and soul.

However, there are lots of other people who would be drawn to OS X if Apple wasn't part of the hardware equation.

Among them are a lot of large companies who will never buy OS X if they have to get it with Apple hardware. Apple has burned many enterprise bridges. Also the way Apple makes rapid,and unplanned changes to hardware doesn't fit the way large companies buy computers. Apple is a consumer company, they will never own the enterprise market.

I view the comparison to the original Mac cloning as nearly meaningless. I was at Apple then and we were making some very bad hardware. I know because I replaced many cpus for customers. Apple quit doing clones because Apple's customer base was shrinking at the time, not growing as it is now. However, even that doesn't take into consideration how hardware pricing has shrunk and software prices have gone up. Check out some hardware prices from those days and compare them to Apple's software prices then which were under $100 dollars.

http://news.com.com/Mac,+clone+prices+falling/2100-1001_3-205882.html

I think the OS as a percent of the total system cost was probably 5% or less. My guess is that it is 10% or more today. Also Apple's major software releases are closer together these days so they are already harvesting more money from software. Freeing OS X just opens the way to make even more money from software. There's no easier way to make money than burning CDs.

The reality is that software offers a much better margin opportunity.

The other argument always trotted out is that it would cost Apple a fortune to support all the many combinations of software and hardware.

The reality is that much of the hardware that is already in Apple boxes is also in generic Intel boxes. Keyboards, mice, hard drives, monitors, even video cards, and printers work much better across platforms than in the past.

As to your final question, yes Apple has had multiple operating systems out there over the years, and even multiple architectures, but not to the degree that we see today.

However, the most important argument is that if Apple can already support OS X on two processor architectures, how hard would it be to just let OS X into the wild? The reality is that much of the real support for Apple products already comes from the Internet community.

If Apple removed the locks on OS, I suspect a huge Internet community would spring up to support Mac OS X on other hardware at no cost to Apple. After all look what has sprung up around Linux.

[Jim Banks]

Well, here's another thing I don't understand (yes, there are many!) about the big desire for dual booting, whether on Apple hardware or PC hardware. It seems like an invitation for dual-platform developers to exit the Mac market (MS first among them, as they seem to be eager to find reasons to drop Mac programs these days). They can simply say to Mac users, "since you have hardware that will run Windows anyway, there's no need for us to devote precious resources to developing our program for a different OS. Just reboot. Have a nice day." Then, people who just have to have dual boot capability for one obscure Windows program or another will find that more and more Mac programs will have become "obscure." Why is this a good thing, in the long run?

And, here's another thing to ponder (although I don't know how it fits in with any particular argument, I just thought I'd bring it up): What's to stop Apple from using Transitive's software to create a "Rosetta for Windows?" And what effect might that have on all of this?

[ocracokewaves]

Well in effect they have already done that on some programs. I have a Dell PC for a couple of reasons which boil down to software. The Quicken Professional for Small Businesses isn't available for Mac. It's only available for Windows machines.

Dual booting isn't the cure all for everyone by any means. I've been dual and triple booting a Windows system with multiple versions of Linux. I also have a Mac that I dual boot with OS X and Unbuntu Linux. While dual booting is okay, it isn't nearly as interesting as Codeweavers Crossover Office which
probably is close to a Rosetta for Windows.

http://www.codeweavers.com/

It will run certain Windows applications in Linux without launching Windows. It ran Office 97 on my Linux box faster than it runs under XP on the same box.

Now if I could run Excel for Vista on my Mac without having a MS OS that would be really cool. Maybe the Apple wizards can make it happen. Of course there are some weird things in Codeweavers, but when I used it in Xandros Linux, I was amazed at how well it worked.

There some great third party developers for the Mac, but much of the software that makes Apple special comes from Apple. What doesn't come from Apple is often already running on Windows. There are few really cool pieces of software that only run on a Mac outside of what Apple has released. Comic Life is a neat program but not a platform changer. I even like Keynote, but it wouldn't move me to another platform.

If OS X is really as strong a development platform as Apple says and if Apple released OS X into the wild so it could run on other hardware besides Apple's, it would just make it more attractive for developers to create software for OS X.

Apple's biggest risk is their tiny market share which will probably never get into double digits without help from other hardware manufacturers.

It seems like most people believe that the only way that Apple can survive is behind proprietary walls that protect the company from real competition. I think Apple should join the fray, they have plenty of differentiators to allow them to compete, not the least of which is their software portfolio.