Bob,
Great link. Thanks.
I reread the memo, I can't see where it indicates an end to cloning. The only thing I see is Job's statement that they won't be licensing a CHRP OS. I don't have a problem with this. The way I see it, Apple was subsidizing the clone makers with a bad (for Apple) licensing deal. We have to remember, we're not Microsoft here. Apple's major revenues come from hardware. If Apple holds onto CHRP and implements reduced production, distribution and sales methods (via the Power acquisition), then they can produce cheap Macs as well. Current Apple box prices have already come down a heap. With their new capabilities (and CHRP), this trend could accelerate.
Motorola, Umax et al, will get their OS 8 deal and can continue to sell clones. And if they want to pony up, they can join in on future technologies. But the deal must be profitable for Apple.
The real selling point of the clones, up to this point, has been price. I currently own a Power box, and it was price/performance that sold me. But the cloners were able to maintain their low prices because of Apple R&D subsidy. The U.S. government likes to subsidize things and take a look at THEIR books. If Apple can get the price down, then who will give a happy dang about the clones. Apple make's higher quality boxes, and everybody knows it.
In the SJMN article, the author made the statement that it was IBM's allowance of the possibility of clones that allow the expansion of the PC market possible. What she didn't mention was that it all but killed IBM's personal computer business. And what's more, the statement is incorrect anyway. IBM's BIOS chips were reverse engineered by outsiders, and that's what allowed cloning. If IBM could have stopped it, they would have. The difference with Apple is they control the OS, which IBM did not. If they handle it right and don't let the cloner walk all over them, Apple could end up smelling like a rose.
Regards,
Scott |
