[Satchmo]

It seems Apple's fortunes have only gone up since Jobs' return. It's stock is at around $160 and some analysts have pegged it at hitting $200 in the next 6 months.
We're also on the cusp of Leopard's launch and perhaps some updated MacBooks just in time for the holiday season. While the jury is still out on the AppleTV, the iPhone can only be viewed as a homerun.

So, is this the beginning of a new era? Where over the next 5-10 years Apple becomes a dominant force in not only MP3 player space, but in cellphone/pda, and OS?
Jobs' has himself said that the desktop war was over...but that was before the iPod and it's halo effect. Is Apple poised to be what Sony was in the 70's and Microsoft in the 80's in terms of dominance? Or will Apple just simply be one of many players out there?

[torifile]

Apple's in a unique situation - while they may become the 3rd largest manufacturer of PCs, they will remain a distant second in marketshare. So depending on how you spin the numbers, they will either be considered a smashing success or an also-ran.

However, traditional computers are not the be all and end all they used to be. With the iPhone and the iPod running OS X, they may well have a larger install base than MS within a few short years. Again, depending on the way you spin the numbers, they will either be the dominant OS player or a very popular CE manufacturer.

So, we've got 2 options: 1) Support for OS X remains low because of the traditional computer marketshare mentality or 2) OS X users become first-class citizens when it comes to the design of web apps, which surely are the wave of the future.

Users of Apple's traditional computers - desktops and laptops - are going to benefit immensely from Apple's impending dominance of the portable marketplace. With the iPhone and iPod touch using Safari as their browser, Mac OS X users will see massive changes in what's "standard" and designed for on the web.

Many people complain that Apple is forcing iPhone development to be browser-based rather than specific applications designed for the iPhone/iPod touch. I think this is very short-sighted. We traditional Apple computer users will only benefit when the web is designed around the iPhone. Think about it - every advance on the web targeting the iPhone will benefit us directly!

Yes, connectivity all the time is a problem right now, but it won't be the case forever. When 3G is ubiquitous, we'll never know the difference except in rare (and undoubtedly frustrating) circumstances. We can't forget about the long-term when complaining about the iPhone's closed development. It's going to be worth it in the long run.

[turbulentfurball]

In certain markets, Apple already is dominant; with the iPod and iTunes. The iPhone is more of a niche product, but I do think it will become dominant in the smart-phone market, but never the mobile phone market as a whole.

As for computers and OSs; Apple will never become dominant. Their market share will grow, but OS X will never overtake Windows. Apple aren't in the position to be able to do so, and their product range prohibits domination. (Headless Mac, I'm looking at you).

The cost to businesses to make a switch to Mac is too great, considering not only hardware cost, but also proprietary software that requires Windows.

To take my employer for example; the Management Information software runs on a Windows 95 box, all the tills are Celeron NT4 boxes, and the office computers run Win2000. To replace all of this across the business would be unfeasible.

Apple will become more of a big player in the computer/OS market, but never dominant, IMO.

[Mugge]

The EU perspective:

Article 82 of the EC treaty states that:

Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. Such abuse may, in particular, consist in: (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions; (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers; (c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; (d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

Pay special attention to b & c.

As Microsoft was not allowed to include it's media-player with Windows, the same logic could easily be applied to Apple and it's iPod iTunes business. If I was to hazard a guess, the EU might swoop down on the Fairplay DRM which hinders iTunes from choosing a non-iPod MP3 player. Actually I seem to remember some newspaper printing a rumour about just that.

On the Mac and iPhone side I don't see any possible violations.

[chucker]

I'm not sure why you're taking this thread into the question of whether Apple is abusing a dominant position.

[torifile]

Originally Posted by turbulentfurball In certain markets, Apple already is dominant; with the iPod and iTunes. The iPhone is more of a niche product, but I do think it will become dominant in the smart-phone market, but never the mobile phone market as a whole. As for computers and OSs; Apple will never become dominant. Their market share will grow, but OS X will never overtake Windows. Apple aren't in the position to be able to do so, and their product range prohibits domination. (Headless Mac, I'm looking at you). The cost to businesses to make a switch to Mac is too great, considering not only hardware cost, but also proprietary software that requires Windows. To take my employer for example; the Management Information software runs on a Windows 95 box, all the tills are Celeron NT4 boxes, and the office computers run Win2000. To replace all of this across the business would be unfeasible. Apple will become more of a big player in the computer/OS market, but never dominant, IMO.

I disagree. In the current paradigm of desktop/laptop, you're right, Apple will not be the dominant player. But I think that SJ's comment about the death of the desktop is right on. If so, Apple stands to take over *that* space fairly easily.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by chucker I'm not sure why you're taking this thread into the question of whether Apple is abusing a dominant position.

Because in some mindsets, the two are synonymous. If you're dominant (and not the government), you must be abusing it *somehow*... it's just a matter of figuring out how to make a charge stick.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Mugge If I was to hazard a guess, the EU might swoop down on the Fairplay DRM which hinders iTunes from choosing a non-iPod MP3 player. Actually I seem to remember some newspaper printing a rumour about just that.

Not a rumor. It's what led to Steve's anti-DRM open letter - if you want to have us ditch DRM, talk to the labels - many of which are European-owned. Going after Apple directly is just going to end up killing the one music store that has a chance of killing off the labels once and for all, or making them adapt. Odd that the 'consumer groups' are pushing for that to fail, eh?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Odd that the 'consumer groups' are pushing for that to fail, eh?

Much like Greenpeace, it's all about populism. It's easy to paint Apple as the bad boy, precisely because of their market dominance.

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by chucker I'm not sure why you're taking this thread into the question of whether Apple is abusing a dominant position.

Because a dominant position is necessary in order to consider whether there is an abuse of said position happening, as far as EC law is concerned.

Originally Posted by Kickaha Because in some mindsets, the two are synonymous. If you're dominant (and not the government), you must be abusing it *somehow*... it's just a matter of figuring out how to make a charge stick.

Not in my mind. But once a company is in a dominant position, it can be pretty tricky to avoid accusations form competitors or politicians.

Originally Posted by Kickaha Not a rumor. It's what led to Steve's anti-DRM open letter - if you want to have us ditch DRM, talk to the labels - many of which are European-owned. Going after Apple directly is just going to end up killing the one music store that has a chance of killing off the labels once and for all, or making them adapt. Odd that the 'consumer groups' are pushing for that to fail, eh?

Again, not my opinion. Actually I agree with you, chucker. I was merely explaining the legal basis for the question. Perhaps someone should look into the cartel aspects of how the record industry prices their music. It's kinda funny how Apple is currently doing the EC's job.

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by chucker Much like Greenpeace, it's all about populism. It's easy to paint Apple as the bad boy, precisely because of their market dominance.

QFT!

Apple has more PR to loose than the rest of the industry, hence they are to most profitable target.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Mugge Because a dominant position is necessary in order to consider whether there is an abuse of said position happening, as far as EC law is concerned.

Well yeah, I know. I was just wondering since when this thread was about abuse at all.

Actually I agree with you, chucker. I was merely explaining the legal basis for the question.

Which question?

I really feel like I'm missing some part of this thread.

Originally Posted by Mugge QFT! Apple has more PR to lo[.]se than the rest of the industry, hence they are to most profitable target.

Indeed.

[Mugge]

Ok, perhaps I was skipping something. The point I was trying to make was that dominance is no problem unless it's also being abused. In relation to my last post I can then add that once a company achieves dominance, it's pretty difficult to avoid accusations of abuse.

The actual threshold for dominance in EC practice varies depending on the industry. If there are many small (>2%) companies and one big, I remember something about a 25% market-share being the threshold, but if there are several large companies the threshold has been suggested to be much more than 50%. It also depends on what kind of substitutes, entry barriers and the strength of the other links in the supply chain. Unfortunately I can't recall any case law that resembles Apple's situation, other than the Microsoft case.

[Chinney]

Back to the initial 'dominance' question, I think that the question is really about OS dominance. With Leopard just about to be released, and with the lukewarm reception to Vista so far, it is a question worth asking.

Say, just say, that OS X were to start to even partially dominate the PC market, and Apple gained a market share of say, 30-40% (not likely, under any dominance scenario). What would that mean, if a single company started to produce that many computers? Would, at the point, Apple consider licensing its OS ?

[kieran]

I don't see Apple ever licensing OS X. Ever.

Apple is a hardware company, if they license the OS, then it takes away from their profits on the hardware side.

[Windowsrookie]

Originally Posted by kieran23kk Apple is a hardware company, if they license the OS, then it takes away from their profits on the hardware side.

Just like Microsoft was a Software company, until the Xbox, Xbox 360, Zune, etc.

Remember it's just Apple inc. now, they dropped the "Apple Computer inc.".

[kieran]

It doesn't matter what their name is.

Where do they make their money?

Computers, iPods, iPhones, Apple TV, etc.

All hardware.

[Windowsrookie]

And all run Mac OS X.

(That's software)

[iFerret]

Originally Posted by Windowsrookie And all run Mac OS X. (That's software)

Just stepping in where I probably shouldn't, but what the hell is your point?

Apple's stuff runs OS X. That changes nothing. The money still comes off of the hardware. If Apple licensed OS X to standard manufacturers, then the money would stop rolling in. After all, it's not like the OS market is particularly profitable. For Apple, the profits would not be from the OS - it's common knowledge (and common sense, even) that teh moniez comes from teh hardwarez.

Remember when Apple licensed the Mac OS back when? Remember how much of a circus Apple was? Remember that El Steveo chopped the clones thing when got back in the drivers seat? The closed platform, our OS on our hardware thing seems to work for Apple.

OS licensing works for Microsoft because they have no (computer) hardware to sell. They're not selling you a system, only the OS.

I'm sure if Macs ran Windows, and there was no such thing as OS X, then sales of Macs would be considerably lower (after all, OS X is the one thing that makes a lot of people purchase a Mac as opposed to a generic white-box type PC. Except for the whole "Macs are much better looking that crap from Dell" type reason.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Windowsrookie Just like Microsoft was a Software company, until the Xbox, Xbox 360, Zune, etc.

And Microsoft licenses the Xbox 360 OS? Or that of the Zune? Or any of their other devices? Can I license the blueprints for their keyboards and mice?

No.

Because their OS licensing only extends to the point where it doesn't compete with hardware of their own.

[iFerret]

Originally Posted by chucker And Microsoft licenses the Xbox 360 OS? Or that of the Zune? Or any of their other devices? Can I license the blueprints for their keyboards and mice? No. Because their OS licensing only extends to the point where it doesn't compete with hardware of their own.

Bingo. This is exactly my point, except more succint. This doesn't work for Apple - if Apple licenses their OS and software for use on other hardware from other companies, it infringes on and competes with their own hardware, meaning that Apple loses.

[chucker]

What I can imagine – and have always considered a distinct, if faint, possibility – is Apple licensing OS X specifically for the kinds of machines Apple is unwilling to produce on their own, whether that's a tablet PC, an enterprise workstation or a high-end server. Heck, they showed willingness to license it for the OLPC, but their offer wasn't "free" enough.

Anything Apple does produce, however, and does run OS X on? They won't license it for those. Not a desktop, not a laptop, not a smartphone, not a set-top box.

[iFerret]

Originally Posted by chucker What I can imagine – and have always considered a distinct, if faint, possibility – is Apple licensing OS X specifically for the kinds of machines Apple is unwilling to produce on their own, whether that's a tablet PC, an enterprise workstation or a high-end server. Heck, they showed willingness to license it for the OLPC, but their offer wasn't "free" enough. Anything Apple does produce, however, and does run OS X on? They won't license it for those. Not a desktop, not a laptop, not a smartphone, not a set-top box.

Ooh. I did not think of that. That's really good. Jeez, Chucker, are you like... a god or something? All the answers, all the time.

I have a new opinion, and it's just like Chucker's. Absolutely Apple wouldn't license OS X for anything they make and sell OS X on (just like back in the old days, this is what they did, this is what was wrong). But I too can see a distinct (but, faint, yeah) possibility that this might happen. It would work, but would Apple do it?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by iFerret Jeez, Chucker, are you like... a god or something? All the answers, all the time.

Nah. I just owe it to myself to deeply understand the company whose products I buy every now and then, and whose stock I own a few shares of. Even when they do something I don't approve of, don't agree with or would have done differently – or not at all – , I need to at least try to understand their rationale.

This isn't gonna be a popular opinion, but I think here's something Apple and Microsoft do have in common: they hate partners. Which ties in with your question:

It would work, but would Apple do it?

Consider PlaysForSure. Microsoft wanted – nay, needed – a solid competitor to the growing threat of Apple's iPod+iTunes dominance, so they tried to build up a competing platform (though they prefer the term "ecosystem"). But even though they touted the large choice of different players from different brands (Samsung, SanDisk, Creative, etc.) as an advantage to their customers, they did not actually believe in that themselves. If it had been up to them at the time, there would have been exactly one vendor of PlaysForSure players, namely themselves. Sound familiar? Yes, not only is that pretty much the iPod model; it's also precisely what they did as soon as they could, with the Zune.

Then, consider the iPhone. Only a fool would think Apple likes being with AT&T. That's a big corporation with the image of a big corporation, and not positively so at all. They're one of those old nasty giants, brand-wise, even though the actual company that now owns the brand has resulted from a bunch of recent mergers no average person could possibly understand. As soon as Apple can, they will get rid of their contract with AT&T. The only reason they made one to begin with is that they were running out of time in shipping the iPhone. Competitors would have killed off the iPod through superior smartphones too early on. The iPhone, while not a perfect solution (due to AT&T, or O2 in the UK, or T-Mobile in Germany, or possibly even Orange in France), is more than good enough at providing a strong contender in the smartphone space while the iPod continues to battle (and win, by a wide margin) in the portable media player field. By the time those do become outdated, all other phone vendors will have been busy trying to imitate the iPhone (and fail, just like music player makers did with the legendary "iPod killer"), whereas Apple will already have been working on revisions three, four and five. And AT&T? They won't be needed any more. By then, if things go as planned, cellular networks will be on the way out in favor of WiMAX. The iPhone will continue to offer cellular radio for years to come, but many will prefer to use WiMAX, or, where possible, WiFi.

Or the iTunes Store. All the shenanigans with NBC Universal or UMG? Apple has better things to do. The only reason they did partner with such customer-hostile companies to begin with is that they weren't given much of a choice; independent content is definitely on the rise, but won't be sufficiently popular with the mainstream for a long time.

Any major instance of Apple partnering up with a different company is one where Apple would rather not, and one where they have a long-term exit plan, no matter how vague. For the benefit of themselves, and of their customer base.

[drewprops]

Nice post Chucker.

I'm curious as to the possibility that Apple will team with other existing companies to extend their human interface ethos into other hardware systems.

For instance, a few month ago there were rumors about Apple working with Volkswagen to develop an automotive OS... not that far a stretch really. The big 3 Japanese automakers are said to be teaming to create a common platform for their products and over the years Microsoft hasn't been shy about plunking versions of their own OS into dedicated systems here and there.... why hasn't Apple done the same?

Has it simply been a matter of the company's size/income up until now? Of course it is possible that they simply feel that it's too easy to become embroiled in so many side projects that you neglect what "brought you to the dance".

[chucker]

Originally Posted by drewprops Nice post Chucker. I'm curious as to the possibility that Apple will team with other existing companies to extend their human interface ethos into other hardware systems.

Certainly a relevant topic.

For instance, a few month ago there were rumors about Apple working with Volkswagen to develop an automotive OS... not that far a stretch really. The big 3 Japanese automakers are said to be teaming to create a common platform for their products and over the years Microsoft hasn't been shy about plunking versions of their own OS into dedicated systems here and there.... why hasn't Apple done the same?

A few things on that:

Similarly to how Apple does the iPhone because the iPod's success will eventually fade, Microsoft has Windows CE because they're afraid Windows in PCs might eventually play a smaller role (we're obviously talking very-long-term). The media tend to paint this as Microsoft "extending its dominance", and indeed, there have been instances where they leveraged their monopoly in this direction, sometimes in manners proven to be illegal. But I view the growth potential as limited. When was the last time you thought about what operating system the cashier in the supermarket uses at his or her point of sale? Or what's underneath the GUI of your car's navigation system? Or even just the dishwasher? Does the brand Wincor-Nixdorf even ring a bell to many here?

The ultimate embedded operating system is the one you never see. Contrast that to a desktop OS where the GUI and underpinnings are far more woven together. (Sure, you can skin Windows to imitate Mac OS X, or Mac OS to imitate Windows XP, but any trained eye will nonetheless see the differences.) Microsoft's desire to have its brand exposed to consumers is far lower than Apple's, especially because the Microsoft brand is not only ubiquitous, but also not exactly highly-regarded (which would be why the Zune doesn't flaunt Microsoft's logo anywhere on it). Contrast that to the illuminated Apple logo on Mac laptops of recent years. They're careful never to make it in-your-face, but still subtly yet clearly noticeable.

How many times have you heard of Windows for Automotives, even? Did you know its first build dates as far back as January 1998? You could cite the above paragraph as the reason we're hardly exposed to this embedded OS, but the true reason is: it hasn't been much of a success at all. Microsoft keeps rebranding its CE-based systems out of desperation, but it isn't helping. The only area they have any noteworthy foothold at all is smartphones, and only so in the US. Sure, (non-low-end) cars need an OS these days, especially with navigation systems, satellite radio and whatever other extras they might have. But does it have to be Windows? Does it offer any real benefits over more specialized choices? Regardless of what some pundits claim, most car makers seem to feel indifferent on what OS it is, as long as it's ridiculously stable (for obvious reasons), and as for the GUI, they tend to prefer to brand that all by themselves anyway. Which leaves exactly what of Windows? Or of OS X, for that matter? For now, it's looking like simpler cores like Linux or even QNX are superior choices.

Finally:

Has it simply been a matter of the company's size/income up until now? Of course it is possible that they simply feel that it's too easy to become embroiled in so many side projects that you neglect what "brought you to the dance".

Company size is hard to measure. There's many indicators ranging from employees to market cap to accumulated capital through machinery, facilities, etc. None of them are particularly valid, especially with a high-tech company like Apple. (Is Apple really larger than HP, as its market cap would imply? Yes, because it dares to radically innovate more. No, because HP has more customers. Yes, because Apple is a far stronger brand. No, because HP has more employees and has existed for longer. It has more revenue growth. It has less income. This could go on and on, and you'd never actually find a straight answer.)

Manpower for software development, however, is even harder to ascertain. You don't even have to look as far as the colossal Windows Vista development boo-boo. Instead, just consider the Leopard delay. What was the reason given? More personnel for the iPhone.

OS X in the iPhone is designed to share as many components with Mac OS X as possible. This isn't just an excellent strategy because it saves Apple a lot of resources, but also because it gives OS X far more credibility. I doubt even Steve would have imagined that, in 2007, many components of his NeXTstep OS would eventually end up on a phone. A phone! "Pretty cool, huh?"

But this strategy also comes with one giant downside, and one that hid Apple's engineers pretty hard this year. What happens to Windows Vista updates as well as future versions (such as Windows 7) when the Zune's OS, or any other Windows CE-based one (say, Windows Mobile), has development hiccups? Just about nothing. Despite the branding and some shared UI cues, Windows CE and Windows NT are completely separate pieces of software. Microsoft couldn't even possibly drag a few Windows guys over to Windows CE and ask them to help out so Windows Wherever™ can ship a bit sooner: those people would generally have just as little experience with CE as anyone outside Microsoft, since the code is just completely different. With Apple, not so much. Yes, iPhone development benefits Mac development, and vice versa. But iPhone development troubles hurt Mac development as well, and vice versa, too.

In that crucial moment where you want to meet timelines, managers are tempted to pull hundreds of engineers from one group to another. Well, it doesn't work like that, and while – as Aperture 1.0 apparently demonstrated [1][2] – some managers at Apple occasionally has to be reminded of that, this "mythical man-month" is generally well-known to the entire industry (and while I haven't checked, I'm fairly sure it's been discussed here previously as well).

This is to say: Apple cannot stretch out their existing engineers much more to pull an OS X for Cars out of Steve's jeans pocket, nor can they simply hire new ones and expect those to achieve it. Development growth doesn't work proportionally like that. It can happen, but not very predictably, and not very quickly. Give OS X some time to establish itself as a popular, respected desktop/laptop OS (it has pretty much succeeded in that, I'd wager to say), one on phones (jury's out), on portable media players (hohum) and on set-top boxes (meh), and possibly even tablet/PDA/UMPC thingamaboojies AppleInsider recently talked about. But cars? That's simply way beyond Apple's current potential, and no amount of money is going to solve that.

I'm sorry if this was too long-winded.

[Doxxic]

Dominance can mean a lot of things. I'd rather see Apple's rising star as a sign that they are getting more independent and free to be the way they want to be, than that they are becoming ubiquitous and commanding the industry, just for the sake of commanding it.
The latter is what I associate more with dominance, so the step towards abuse or not is not so strange, I think.

But if Apple does get some major clout, precisely their intractability will make them be perceived as very dominant and power-hungry anyway.

If they grow really big, I reckon they'd be generating a lot more friction and controversy than even Microsoft has.

Meanwhile, I wonder if Jobs has done anything to prevent Apple from becoming just as dull as your average dominant industry player when he leaves.

[Electric Monk]

Originally Posted by turbulentfurball In certain markets, Apple already is dominant; with the iPod and iTunes. The iPhone is more of a niche product, but I do think it will become dominant in the smart-phone market, but never the mobile phone market as a whole. As for computers and OSs; Apple will never become dominant. Their market share will grow, but OS X will never overtake Windows. Apple aren't in the position to be able to do so, and their product range prohibits domination. (Headless Mac, I'm looking at you). Apple will become more of a big player in the computer/OS market, but never dominant, IMO.

Agreed. One thing to keep in mind that outside the US/Canada/UK/some of Europe the iPod isn't really dominant, and in advanced mobile markets it slips against music phones. Which is why the iPhone, of course, but it's too late to shoot for dominance outside the high-end market.

Which might be ok with Apple, except that the iPod has given them a taste of much vaster success.

I think the limitations of the line-up are more a factor of sales, then anything. If sales keep increasing I imagine we will get the 15" MacBook, the 13" MacBook Pro, etc….

Originally Posted by torifile I disagree. In the current paradigm of desktop/laptop, you're right, Apple will not be the dominant player. But I think that SJ's comment about the death of the desktop is right on. If so, Apple stands to take over *that* space fairly easily.

The Newton space? . Actually I agree, I think desktops are going to be regulated to professionals (as they are now in Apple-land, but the rest of the world hasn't made the switch) while laptops and computing appliances (iPhone, Newton2 of whatever size) are the growth areas.

Originally Posted by Chinney Back to the initial 'dominance' question, I think that the question is really about OS dominance. With Leopard just about to be released, and with the lukewarm reception to Vista so far, it is a question worth asking. Say, just say, that OS X were to start to even partially dominate the PC market, and Apple gained a market share of say, 30-40% (not likely, under any dominance scenario). What would that mean, if a single company started to produce that many computers? Would, at the point, Apple consider licensing its OS ?

I think Apple can reasonably hope for 10% of the overall US market, ~20% of the US laptop market, and maybe 5% globally (higher in Japan/Europe if they make a big push, much lower in India/China because of the low per capita GDP of those countries). That would double their current marketshare, roughly speaking.

That would basically mean a return to the Apple of the late 80s/early 90s (minus some dysfunction) in marketshare which is entirely sustainable. Arguably the current marketshare is sustainable, but that's mostly because it continues to climb. Back in 2002-4 marketshare was sliding south as sales held flat. That was reversed by the iPod, but if it had continued the platform certainly wouldn't be as vibrant as today.

Originally Posted by chucker What I can imagine – and have always considered a distinct, if faint, possibility – is Apple licensing OS X specifically for the kinds of machines Apple is unwilling to produce on their own, whether that's a tablet PC, an enterprise workstation or a high-end server. Heck, they showed willingness to license it for the OLPC, but their offer wasn't "free" enough. Anything Apple does produce, however, and does run OS X on? They won't license it for those. Not a desktop, not a laptop, not a smartphone, not a set-top box.

Hmm. I don't know. I think this would restrict Apple's ability to operate how they feel. Maybe they'd license OS X Server to anybody, which would be an interesting compromise.

Originally Posted by chucker This isn't gonna be a popular opinion, but I think here's something Apple and Microsoft do have in common: they hate partners. Which ties in with your question: Consider PlaysForSure. Microsoft wanted – nay, needed – a solid competitor to the growing threat of Apple's iPod+iTunes dominance, so they tried to build up a competing platform (though they prefer the term "ecosystem"). But even though they touted the large choice of different players from different brands (Samsung, SanDisk, Creative, etc.) as an advantage to their customers, they did not actually believe in that themselves. If it had been up to them at the time, there would have been exactly one vendor of PlaysForSure players, namely themselves. Sound familiar? Yes, not only is that pretty much the iPod model; it's also precisely what they did as soon as they could, with the Zune. Then, consider the iPhone. Only a fool would think Apple likes being with AT&T. That's a big corporation with the image of a big corporation, and not positively so at all. They're one of those old nasty giants, brand-wise, even though the actual company that now owns the brand has resulted from a bunch of recent mergers no average person could possibly understand. As soon as Apple can, they will get rid of their contract with AT&T. The only reason they made one to begin with is that they were running out of time in shipping the iPhone. Competitors would have killed off the iPod through superior smartphones too early on. The iPhone, while not a perfect solution (due to AT&T, or O2 in the UK, or T-Mobile in Germany, or possibly even Orange in France), is more than good enough at providing a strong contender in the smartphone space while the iPod continues to battle (and win, by a wide margin) in the portable media player field. By the time those do become outdated, all other phone vendors will have been busy trying to imitate the iPhone (and fail, just like music player makers did with the legendary "iPod killer"), whereas Apple will already have been working on revisions three, four and five. And AT&T? They won't be needed any more. By then, if things go as planned, cellular networks will be on the way out in favor of WiMAX. The iPhone will continue to offer cellular radio for years to come, but many will prefer to use WiMAX, or, where possible, WiFi. Or the iTunes Store. All the shenanigans with NBC Universal or UMG? Apple has better things to do. The only reason they did partner with such customer-hostile companies to begin with is that they weren't given much of a choice; independent content is definitely on the rise, but won't be sufficiently popular with the mainstream for a long time. Any major instance of Apple partnering up with a different company is one where Apple would rather not, and one where they have a long-term exit plan, no matter how vague. For the benefit of themselves, and of their customer base.

Oh I agree, Apple doesn't like third parties of whatever sort. It's their corporate culture:

Originally Posted by Infinite Loop by Michael S. Malone As bad as the hardware problem was for the [Apple] III, it masked a deep, and ultimately more far-reaching failure in the machine. Because of that, Apple never learned what should have been the real lesson of the III debacle. In an executive meeting several months before the III introduction [Steve] Jobs and [Mike] Markkula got into a long conversation about the incredible numbers of new companies—board builders, software developers, hardware makers—that had sprung up surronding the Apple II. According to an attendee at the meeting, the two executives then began to ask each other, "Why should we allow people to make money off of us? Off of our innovations?" "It was a turning point," recalled that individual fifteen years later. "From that moment on, Apple fought all third-party development. It even killed Radius, a $300-million monitor company that was doing a great job. Over time it got worse, and it became not just about money but ego. This attitude developed at Apple that nobody could do anything better than Apple could. That's why the company kept building its own keyboards and everything else—and why Apple computers became so much more expensive than everyone else"

Originally Posted by chucker By then, if things go as planned, cellular networks will be on the way out in favor of WiMAX. The iPhone will continue to offer cellular radio for years to come, but many will prefer to use WiMAX, or, where possible, WiFi.

Not so much, IMO. Oh I think operators are going to become ISPs, basically, by the time 4G is up and running but I don't think this WiFi/WiMAX for free or cheap is going to work out. It hasn't anywhere where there's a good cellular network (i.e. Europe, Japan, South Korea).

The failure of municipal WiFi seems like the end of public good wireless, and the technical difficulties experienced clearly show that the operators—the only guys with knowledge in continent wide networks—remain pretty secure in that field. They're going to hate to become ISPs, though, but I can't see them escaping their fate.

What I imagine is the case, though, is that you simply sigh with AT&T the ISP and then your phone and laptop and whatever all use their 4G network. If you don't have 4G coverage, or want higher speeds/more bandwidth you go to a wired ISP offering limited coverage via last mile WiMAX or a direct fiber connection.

[drewprops]

This is what my gut says to me when I begin to think about Apple making an OS for other companies to use in their hardware, or when it comes to licensing the Mac OS.

Hardware is "hard".
It's finicky, it comes in batches, bits and pieces can change due to market forces and varying legal restrictions. It breaks, untested third-party components can fail in spectacular ways and bad press is only a recall away.

Software can be changed.


Now my gut says to "make the poop".
Gotta go.

[Chinney]

The "licensing" issue is one we have discussed before - quite a bit, for years actually - but in different contexts. The reason I brought it up again in this 'dominance' discussion was that I just can't imagine Apple being in an actual dominant position in the PC market and continuing with their current business model. It is just is not realistic for one company to be supplying that many computers. I am not sure it is something that Apple would want...or that most of us would want either.

On the other hand, I don't see Apple licensing OS X either, because the very nature of their PC design is software/hardware integration. Realistically, Apple is probably not going to get, or even shoot for, more than 10-20% of new sales, at best.

The residual question I would have, though, is what if demand keeps growing beyond that? Should Apple supply it and grow into a behemoth or self-limit through price or other means?