Phillip, I think Apple's original idea was to license its technology to high-profile PC manufactururers like IBM, Compaq, and Gateway. Such license agreements would bring visibility and credibility to the Mac as a long-term alternative for individuals and corporations.
Unfortunately, the only companies that licensed Apple's technologies were small and had no brand-name recognition. They also did not spend any significant amounts of money in advertising. Their behavior has been decidedly parasitical. I don't blame them. This is a rational policy, from their point of view, since they would not have the resources to launch national advertising campaigns anyway. Some of them may start selling Wintel machines soon, which means they just used Apple as a stepping-stone.
So if Apple backpedals in its licensing policy by increasing fees, I also think that is rational, and good for Apple. Apple will make it or not depending on the features and marketing of Rhapsody, and not on the (mis-)behavior of a few motley clone-makers. I recently read that Apple will make Java the language of choice to write apps for Rhapsody. In several years, that was probably the first or second rational decision I have seen from Apple's management. (Not that I think that high of them, because they are still hanging on to the Newton dog.) I had posted here before that sticking to Objective C could be a major impediment to Rhapsody's success.
I am loaded with puts, so I think it is fair to say this is an unbiased opinion. I still think Apple will go down to $12 pretty soon. |
