To Stephen Leung:
Stephen:
You also wrote:
"Also the hardware platform must be low enought to bring in the users to
use the software. Apple's monopolistic attitude (Now Power Computing is
starting to die) has killed off any hopes increasing MAC OS share. Apple
use to complain that Microsoft was engaging in unfair practices. Now
look what Apple is doing to the clone community and users in general.
A good example. Apple refuses to open up the notebook market. Their
notebooks are overpriced and underpowered when compared at a cost
comparison to wintel notebooks. They have to lower the barriers to free
enterprise. Apple does't understand this model and doesn't seem to want
to. The sooner they get an open-minded CEO the better and kick Jobs out.
Amelio is starting to look like a saint next to this guy.
With this I do not agree.
Apple is not a software only company, they are also a state of the art
manufacturers of hardware. The vast majority of income comes from
harware sales.
Power Computing was cannibalizig the Macintosh market taking advantage of the low cost of the license of the soul of the computer (The mac
os) plus their recognized ability to build very good hardware,
the recognized ability of good advertising and their low fixed costs.
But look at the ads, they use comparing with Apple manipulating the
information, costs, etc.
Without the Mac Os there's no clone, that's it.
Power Computing should have realized that they were biting their
most important asset providers.
Licensing does not make any sense unless you increase the overall market or take in net income via licensing equivalent to what you
would have netted if you had made the sale after all variable and
fixed expenses.
Would you give away the cost in r&d of more than 10 years to build
this platform every user loves?.
Licensing is not a panacea per se, a lot of people say licensing is
the key, etc., however, look at the strange coincidence of the concurring events of Apple starting to lose money and licensing.
Let's face it, the decline in Apple sales was at the expense of
the cloners, or very close to it.
Now, I beleive in licensing if and only if:
-The cloners expand the market.
-Apple gets decent net income taking into account the importance
of the Mac Os and the current and past expense made into what it
is.
We must remember that the Mac OS is the sine qua non condition
of the clone.
Do you think Coke would give away their recipe to a bottler?
Or do you think they would allow a bottler to take away their own
bottler share ?
You license to expand your market and have other sources of income.
Why do you want Apple to give away their most profitable item the
Powerbook? Do you think Apple is making too much money?.
Sure they are expensive, but they sell because we love them and the
market sets the price. They are a fine piece of engineering.
Don't you think that would be irresponsible to the shareholders?
Now, if some sort of agreement can be reached whereas the cloners
would sell at certain prices, deliver certain certified quality,
supply the unsatisfied demand and give Apple a decent profit, sounds
good to me. It can be done.
Respectfully,
Fernando
|
