Re: Possibility of open-sourcing GS/OS

["Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com>]

Roger Johnstone wrote:
> In <hoSdneyACIKz1u3eRVn-qg@comcast.com> Michael J. Mahon wrote:
>
> > Roger Johnstone wrote:
> >
> > > Those they did license from about 1995 to 1997, at which time Steve 
> > > Jobs  returned to Apple, took one look at the books ("We're making 
> > > $50 in  license fees for each $1000 computer sale they take off us?!?!
> > > ") and  axed the clone licenses.
> >
> > Thus sealing Apple's fate to be a hardware manufacturer rather than
> > a software manufacturer.  Even though Apple has always managed to
> > command huge margins within its hardware niche, it doesn't begin to
> > compare to the margins that a truly large software company can
> > attain on its products.
> >
> > What Jobs should have considered is that he was getting $50 for
> > every clone sold *without having to design, build, stock, ship,
> > and warranty* every one of them!  His bet was that Macs and their
> > clones would never be more than a niche player in the computer
> > market, and he couldn't have clone manufacturers stealing his
> > niche sales.  He won.
>
>
> Yep. At the time Apple was doing very poorly, and the clones were 
> generally cheaper and faster, so instead of expanding the market as 
> originally intended they were mostly just taking sales away from Apple.
>  
>
> > If Apple had ever conceived of itself as a software company, they
> > might today be the company everyone loves to hate.  ;-)
>
>
> They have a huge problem now: they can't let go of the tiger's tail. If 
> they stop selling hardware, or even just lose too many sales to clone 
> makers, their income would plummet. Meanwhile Windows' 90% marketshare 
> wouldn't leave much room to make it up with software sales.
>
> Although with rising marketshare, the much more portable and respected 
> Mac OS X, and the move to Intel x86 CPUs some people have been 
> suggesting Apple should have another go at licensing the OS.

If they simply made it available as an alternative OS for installation
on new PCs (and as an "upgrade" for the aftermarket), they might go a
long way toward getting their foot in the door.

A winning campaign in the market could be made on the basis that it
is the "final solution" to spyware, viruses, etc.  Of course, this
claim would ultimately become specious, since as soon as their share
rose to a level of any significance, they would be a target, too.  But
for the first, formative couple of years, it would be correct--and
probably enough to win a significant market share increase.

(BTW, there is no such thing as "secure" and "commercially successful"
software, just as there is no such thing as "bug free" and "commercially
successful" software.  It's a math thing.  Attackers have a sustainable
advantage over defenders.)

You are correct, though, they have an economic "chicken and egg" problem
with sustaining cash flow during a transition from hardware vendor to
software vendor, which would require much higher volumes (but with much
lower costs, of course).

The thing that could make this transition more palatable would be the
continued growth of the iPod market, so that their computer hardware
business was a smaller slice of the Apple pie (!).

-michael

Music synthesis for 8-bit Apple II's!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it is seriously underused."