Five Reasons Why There Will Be No Macs in 2010

by Chris Seibold Mar 07, 2006

The Mac, and Apple, have been counted out more times than Gabby Jay. Unlike Super Punch Out’s resident tomato can, the Mac keeps getting up off the mat. Credit the people who love the platform, or OS X for the machine’s resilience, but don’t count on the Mac being there forever. The era of the all-in-one hardware and software solution has been gone for at least the last ten years, even though Apple hasn’t quite caught on yet. Here are five reasons why Apple will catch on and abandon Mac hardware by the start of the next decade.


Vista:

The most common complaint users have about Windows XP isn’t the playskool look or lack of a decent bundled version of iMovie (Windows Movie Maker, what were they thinking?). The most common complaint concerns security. For the tech savvy, security isn’t a big deal. For those who either don’t like mucking with the computer or who are galled by constantly running programs in the background, security is a major source of frustration.

Vista aims to change all that. By beefing up security, Window’s users should get a more secure feeling rolling around in the graphically enhanced Vista. A Version of Windows that includes a much better look, Mac like niceties plus enhanced security? That is a recipe for wiping out a lot of interest in OS X. Yes, many people will argue (perhaps correctly) that OS X is still superior to Vista but the argument will fall on mostly deaf ears because, for almost everyone, the comparison won’t be Vista versus OS X, it will be Vista versus XP. How great does Vista really have to be to look fantastic next to XP?

Cat names:

There are plenty of cat names to go around if you count every species of cat. However, Apple can’t just throw any cat name on their OS, it has to be a cool feline capable of taking down substantial sized prey. So, Leopard (obviously) would be in, but OS X Munchkin is straight out. With that in mind, we realize that the pool of useable cat names is dwindling quickly. No cool cat names, no OS revisions. No OS revisions, no reason to go Mac. Unless Steve and company start genetically engineering new cats, the Mac is in serious trouble.

The Switch to Intel:

You wouldn’t think that a chip change would be a big deal, but when you go from being the only home computer maker using a chip to using the same chips most computer makers use, price comparisons are suddenly very easy. Put differently, when Apple was using the PowerPC people justified the Mac’s price by glomming on to the perceived superiority of the PowerPC. When everyone is using Intel, it is hard to make the argument that a Mac is somehow technically superior to another box using identical components. You now have compelling price comparisons where an HP is $400 dollars less than a similarly equipped Mac.

Sure, Macs aren’t the most expensive computers out there, look at the AlienWare’s version of the iMac or AOpen’s naked aping of the mini. Still, when most people think reasonably priced computers they look to Dell or Hewlett-Packard. In those comparisons Mac prices don’t fare as well. Without the perceived, if erroneous, justification for Mac prices a lot of people might decide not to subsidize development of OS X.

The iPod

In 2004, Mac market share hit an all time low of 1.98%. You would think that it would have been a terrible year for shares of Apple stock but it wasn’t, the iPod was there to pick up the slack. This year the iPod passed the Mac as the major source of revenue for Apple. Smart companies focus on the products providing growth and revenue, for Apple that product is the iPod.

Apple is following the expected path in this case and trying to extend the iPod brand as evidenced by last Tuesday’s introduction of speakers. Even more telling might have been the introduction of the seemingly ridiculous iPod sleeve. The sleeve isn’t nearly as functional as any random competing iPod case, and it is horrendously overpriced.* On the other hand the case would be perfect for a true video iPod where you’re either staring directly at the screen or have the thing tucked away.

As the iPod continues to grow and its brand continues to expand, reliance on the Mac and the manpower spent designing the computers will continue to decrease.

Dollars and Cents

More compelling than even the dwindling supply of large, predatory cat names is the bottom line. Currently, Apple’s profit margins runs anywhere from 15 to 25 percent on Macintoshes. Hence, a brand new MacBook likely nets Apple a profit of $700 where a mini brings $100 into Apple coffers. Those are nice numbers but they could easily be replaced by sales of OS X and the iLife Suite. That scenario doesn’t take into account increased sales of all of Apple’s other programs like Final Cut Pro and Logic. Which option seems more profitable: selling Final Cut to only people who have purchased Macs, or selling it to anyone who has shelled out $129 for a copy of OS X? The answer is obvious: If Apple thinks that by opening OS X for any capable machine instead of tying the system artificially to Apple subcontracted boxes would increase software sales enough to offset the loss of hardware revenue they would be foolish to continue making and selling computers. Apple’s software does have a pretty great reputation after all.

Here most people will argue that Apple is a hardware company, the software, they’ll say, is there to drive sales of the hardware. A nice notion 20 years ago but antiquated in today’s market. Apple is there to make great products in hopes of generating even greater piles of cash. Income from software fills up the balance sheet just as nicely (well more nicely because the profit margin is higher) than income from hardware sales. When people read articles that point out the cost savings realized when using Macs they’re undoubtedly itching to try OS X out but are stymied by the high cost of entry. Apple could rectify that situation…easily.

It Won’t Be a Bad Thing

When all this comes about, when Apple is seen not as a computer company but as an electronics giant, when you can install a shrink-wrapped copy of OS X on any computer that meets the specs, Mac users everywhere will howl and moan. Nevertheless, when those same users save the cost of OS X and iLife in their initial purchase of a computer a lot of the sting will be taken out. When people realize that they can now customize their purchase to their specific needs via any of a million generic PC makers the pain will further be dulled. To cite one example: every MacBook Pro and iMac ship with an integrated iSight. How many people would rather swap the cost of an iSight for a little more hard drive space? In the end, the change will be a winning situation for Mac fans everywhere.


*Well, maybe not. The sleeve is made from fine Italian leather. Sure, $99 is far too much for average Moroccan leather, but Italian cows simply produce the finest dead-animal-based iPod case material known to man.


Digg This Article

Comments

  • Of course I read eveyone’s comments LMW, they get get mailed to me. The reaason I don’t comment more on comments is because they are usually good points and add something to the discussion. I don’t want to argue with people who were kind enough to read my article, and I’ve usually said about all I can say in the column. I love the comments.

    As for me being J Dvoraks illegitimate love child, I am adopted so I guess it is a possibility. On the other hand it is hard to imagine how a human could spring from a carnal event betwixt John and his beloved command line IBM PCs (John thought the mouse would never catch on)

    If Apple adopts Windows as their OS, I’ll adopt linux or plain Windows as my OS.

    chrisseibold had this to say on Mar 07, 2006 Posts: 48
  • mikataur: “People love Mac hardware, and will continue to do so.  The main reason Mac marketshare is limited is that Windows has a monopoly on the industry - it’s what everyone uses at work and home and most people don’t want to rock the boat, so they go with the no-brainer choice, safety in numbers.”

    Sorry, but that’s circular reasoning. The question is, why did MS become successful in the first place? Seibold implies that it’s because they license their OS, but that claim makes no sense (iTMS is doing just fine tied to the iPod, and the game consoles are doing just fine tieing hardware and software).

    The best explanation I’ve heard is that Apple lost marketshare because it abandoned the Apple II at its prime, not even bothering to include its command line into the Mac.

    The conclusion? Apple won’t be gone in 2010, at least as long as they don’t abandon their successful product again (the iPod). If they find a way to tie it into the Mac that provides iPod owners tremendous value, I see their marketshare going way up. They seem to be slowly doing that with Frontrow…

    Oskar had this to say on Mar 07, 2006 Posts: 86
  • In no particular order:

    1. Network World seems to think the total cost of ownership of Macs is about half that of Windows.
    http://www.networkworld.com/best/2006/022706bestbreaker-schwartau.html?page=1

    2. We have a Windows PC in our office. It’s a Dell. After shuffling Macs around for years, I put my back out with the Dell. You know that comedy lifting where you give someone something that *looks* very solid, so they over-lift and hit themselves in the face with it and topple over? Great gag.

    3. We all know the iPod has a limited life span.

    4. I must have the software, but not necessarily the hardware. But I do need really good hardware, so I’m not sure who else is going to make it. It needs to work flawlessly. Apple is getting there.

    5. I chucked all our consumer electronics in the living room and replaced them with a Mac. Now all we need is a better Bluetooth phone remote. I don’t think a phone should crash more than a computer. As a result, the wireless keyboard and mouse are slowly replacing the phone.

    Xerox Flouride had this to say on Mar 08, 2006 Posts: 1
  • I think this Mac OSX vs. Vista is way overblown…  Trying reading

    http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT8288296398.html

    Titled; “Why Windows Vista will suck”

    Ben Dover had this to say on Mar 08, 2006 Posts: 1
  • When computers become commodity products, the one major differentiator left is style.  Apple has style in spades - and people are happy to pay for it.  Not everyone, but enough of us.  I am sure there is a Dell or HP out there that works just as well as my powerbook G4 and costs less - but am I interested?  Not on your life.  My gorgeous aluminium powerbook is easily worth the premium.  Ask anyone who buys a BMW why they didnt buy the cheaper, faster chevrolet…

    sydneystephen had this to say on Mar 08, 2006 Posts: 124
  • It does make sense about the iPods. Always the iPod had a premium over the other mp3 players. But for that extra few dollars, the ‘coolness’ was worth it. Now I think the Mac line is more balanced as to people being able to directly weigh up how much of a premium there is in a Mac over a PC.

    ..or maybe not.

    Luke Mildenhall-Ward had this to say on Mar 08, 2006 Posts: 299
  • Frankly, I am sick and tired of hearing the Dell vs. Apple concerning costs comparison. It’s true; Dell’s are typically less expensive than Macs. In the past there were a number of reasons tied to the Mac specific hardware in the box that were partially responsible for this, along with the fact that, as a closed system, Apple can charge a little bit more simply becuase their are no other direct competitors in the OS X / Apple OS -compatible hardware market.

    Macs more than likely will never be as cheap as Dell’s cheapest machine. And there isn’t any problem with this fact. This is because to achieve the lowest price possible Dell works as many cheats into their hardware as they can. The result is that very few professionals who use, for instance, multimedia software, on a regular basis use Dells.

    A better comparison in terms of price/performance would be the Sony multimedia computers; the Vaio laptop line, for instance. When one compares a Vaio with a similarly equipped PowerBook / MacBook Pro the prices are very very similar, and no longer a hinderance to switching.

    Comparing Dells to Macs is like comparing Volkswagens to Audis: If you want to be a cheap and efficient car that gets you from one place to another reasonably well, then buy a Volkswagen. If you want to buy a car equipped with all-wheel drive, a screamer of an engine, and a great chassis/body/interior, then you buy an Audi, or one of its competitors, like BMW, etc….. You don’t buy a Volkswagen.

    rogueprof had this to say on Mar 08, 2006 Posts: 17
  • The answer to this question is really simple.  Yes, there will be Macs in 2010, and there will be Macs in 3010 too.  Apple has always been ahead of the curve, and Jobs will not let this advantage slip.  The Black Division at Apple is busy working on prototypes of OS XI and beyond for all we now.  By 2010, we’ll have the iWatch with bluetooth, and Macs will no longer need keyboards at all because all Macs will be connected to the Apple DataNet. Windows will be doing what it always does, nothing.  There is no inovation or desire to produce a good product at Microsoft, and there probably will never be.  Microsoft is fat and happy, and that is what is killing their OS.  Competition will only increase as other players like Google, Yahoo, and Linux continue to grow, while Apple will remain at the tip of the spear of computer and operating system advancement.  In the coming months or years, I predict Apple will come out with hardware that even the Dharma Corporation couldn’t conjure up.    The Mac faithful will witness the 2nd Advent of the Age of Apple as it will be called by historians.  iTunes an entity all by itself once Apple starts release content that will play on multiple hardware platforms.  You will be able to purchase software, ebooks, shareware apps, music, video, movies, or anything else from the iTunes Mall.  I don’t think we’ve seen the tip of the iceberg in terms of what Apple has in store for the world.  As Apple continues to grow, the entertainment industry will take the next step with Apple leading the way into true acceptance of time shifting entertainment.

    Within a year, Apple will release a movie service that will be similiar to something like Netflix or Pay-Per-View.

    The list goes on and on.  Microsoft hasn’t gotten the media center concept right and they have been trying to perfect this for years.  Google Video sucks big time.  Everybody and their mother can’t make a product that compares or even approaches the ease and innovation of the iPod.  And don’t get me started on Apple hardware, it works, it is like having Einstein in a box!  If the Starship Enterprise ran on Windows, the human race would be done, finsihed!  That is why Apple, Macs, iPods, and iTunes, will be around in 2010 and 3010.

    Apple is like the Borg, resistance is futile.

    eha1990 had this to say on Mar 08, 2006 Posts: 1
  • This Seibold guy’s piece of text is a joke, right? I mean, I thought this website was called AppleMatters, mostly dealing with Mac news and rumors…

    Or is he trying to become Dvorak’s ridiculous partner in Op-Ed articles? Gimme a break, please…

    brlawyer had this to say on Mar 08, 2006 Posts: 7
  • Skipping WAY ahead… I’m throwing in my vote for a mobile flavor of OS X. You know, one that doesn’t require multiple gigabytes of disk space and doesn’t need 512MB of RAM to run comfortably. Or, maybe OS X should be more scalable. Think: Amiga OS 4.

    Waa had this to say on Mar 08, 2006 Posts: 110
  • The main reason Mac marketshare is limited is that Windows has a monopoly on the industry - it’s what everyone uses at work and home and most people don’t want to rock the boat, so they go with the no-brainer choice, safety in numbers.


    This explanation applies as much to iPod’s monopoly as it does Windows.

    The main reason the Dell DJ marketshare is limited is that Apple has a monopoly on the industry - it’s what everyone uses and most people don’t want to rock the boat, so they go with the no-brainer choice, safety in numbers.

    And yet, the fanatics will argue, with no sense of irony whatsoever, that marketshare is all about quality - but only when discussing the iPod.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Mar 08, 2006 Posts: 2220
  • I mean, I thought this website was called AppleMatters, mostly dealing with Mac news and rumors…

    The subtitle of the site is: “A serious yet IRREVERENT look at all things Apple.”

    The problem of course is that irreverence falls outside the world view comprehension of most Apple drones, and is greeted with predictable hostility and bloviating.

    Frankly, it’s a source of unending entertainment for me.  Keep up the good work, Chris.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Mar 08, 2006 Posts: 2220
  • Based on my current experience with the Vista beta, I find it to be truly a pain.

    Installing anything on the platform requires that you acknowledge several security dialogs due to installs not being digitally signed. While this may not be a problem for newer apps, this will certaily be a problem for countless legacy apps.

    Secondly, Vista often requires that one enters the password credentials for an admin user to modify settings on the system. These are clearly behavors that current Windows users aren’t used to and will cause a great deal of confusion for those transitioning to Vista. While it may be more secure, the headaches certainly don’t seem to be worth it.

    Finally, the file structure displayed in Explorer seems to have been reorganized to resemble Linux or OS X and I can’t find a way to restore the old behavior of the folder. I find this very annoying.

    I expect one of two things to happen with Vista’s release:

    1. Microsoft’s revenue will shrink due to the number of people returning Vista
    2. Microsoft’s support revenue will see record numbers smile

    Keith Sheehan had this to say on Mar 08, 2006 Posts: 11
  • I can’t believe that a couple of people took the “cat names” bit seriously (both here and over at MDN <shudder>).  Geez, people, get a sense of humor!

    MojoJojo had this to say on Mar 08, 2006 Posts: 14
  • Vista often requires that one enters the password credentials for an admin user to modify settings on the system. These are clearly behavors that current Windows users aren’t used to and will cause a great deal of confusion for those transitioning to Vista. While it may be more secure, the headaches certainly don’t seem to be worth it.

    I agree, but they’d have to do exactly the same thing if they transitioned to OS X.  That’s simply going to be the future of OS security, and users have no real choice but to get used to it (or stick with XP).

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Mar 08, 2006 Posts: 2220
  • Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >
You need log in, or register, in order to comment