Apple switching to MS Windows? Not likely
John Dvorak discusses the possibility of Apple dumping OS-X and switching to Windows.
The idea that Apple would ditch its own OS for Microsoft Windows came to me from Yakov Epstein, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University, who wrote to me convinced that the process had already begun. I was amused, but after mulling over various coincidences, I’m convinced he may be right. This would be the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop computing.
ADVERTISEMENTEpstein made four observations. The first was that the Apple Switch ad campaign was over, and nobody switched. The second was that the iPod lost its FireWire connector because the PC world was the new target audience. Also, although the iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, this didn’t happen. And, of course, that Apple had switched to the Intel microprocessor.
Bleh - where to begin…
First, I’m not a Mac fanboy. I have a couple here I use for porting purposes, but I find them less-than-ideal for development. If I was a college student just using a word processor, web browser, and iTunes, perhaps I’d be more enthusiastic. Still…
Ignoring the firewire on iPod thing (I don’t understand how this ties in at all), he really has two points:
1) People aren’t switching from Windows to Mac - the ad campaign and the success of the iPod both failed to sway users.
2) The Apple switch to Intel microprocessor will lead to an OS switch.
Re: 1) Apple doesn’t have to get people to switch from Windows to Mac to stick with Mac OS-X. All they have to do is
A) Make money off the mac.
B) Hold on to their market share, so it doesn’t go into long-term decline.
Apple is making a lot of money. While they don’t break out iPod profitibality from Mac profitability, overall, their revenues for their most recent quarter were $5.7 billion, a 65% jump from the same quarter, previous year. They earned $565 million - a very fat 10% net margin. They have net current assets (surplus of cash and receivables over payables) of $7 billion. They are financially stronger than they’ve ever been.
As for market share, while they still only have around 2% of the worldwide market, their Mac unit sales grew in 2005 by 34%, more than twice the growth rate of the overall industry. And that’s with the looming shadow of a processor switch, which normally would have held down sales as users wait for the new Intel models. I suspect that the latter half of 2006 and early 2007 will be banner times for Mac sales, as the Intel transition completes and software is fully ported to the Intel variant.
Re: 2) The Intel Switch. Mac switched to Intel to get a better lineup of processors, presumably at a better price. While it does leave the door open to two strategic options - Dvorak’s mused switch to Windows, and also an opposite tack - selling OS-X to run on conventional PCs, I see neither as likely barring a major shift in Apple’s fortunes. They’re doing very well with their current business plan. The could NOT maintain 10% net margins competing as a commodity player in the Windows marketplace (and they’d probably lose market share to boot). And there’s little reason for them to give up the halo effect of the all-in-one Mac experience to chase a trickle of sales to PC users who also want to run OS-X. Remember, Steve Jobs is the guy who pulled the plug on Mac clone sales about a decade ago.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:35 am
I think the smartest thing Apple could do is to release a retail version of their OS, WITHOUT OFFICIALLY SUPPORTING NON-MAC HARDWARE, but allowing for the OSS community to develop the necessary drivers and such. This would position Apple to be _the_ *nix distribution for the geek hobbyist community, many of whom like OS X, but chafe at the hardware restrictions. I blogged about this a while ago, if you’re interested in a longer response.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Yeah, I agree. A version of OS-X that runs on general PCs that’s not officially supported, but runs out-of-the-box, or with a minor, easy-to-download unofficial patch, would help Apple with the hacker crowd, and bring in a bit of money with little additional cost for Apple and little risk of cannibalizing existing Mac sales.
But ‘official’ support for OS-X on non-Mac PCs would require a lot of development effort/testing, and customer support follow-up. And by giving their official blessing to running OS-X on non-Mac PCs, Apple would be encouraging businesses who use Mac (all the graphics design shops, etc ), to buy cheaper 3rd party hardware and slap OS-X on it.
February 25th, 2006 at 11:36 am
I long ago gave up on Dvorak. He’s been preaching the demise of Apple “any day now” for well over the past decade now, even when their sales were going gangbusters. It’s a shame that he has as large a readership as he does.
I think an unofficial patch that allowed OS X to run on most PCs would be fantastic. I think it’s only a matter of time until it happens. I also think people who talk about their small marketshare miss the point: it’s not about being the biggest fish in the pond, it’s about being big enough to not get swallowed. As long as their maintaining that (ie, continuing to see some growth, and good profits), who cares if they have 5% or 50%?