Should Apple be split into two different companies?

[Bernard SG]

Actually, there's a theory floating out there that the iPhone and iPad successes could give a real boost to the Mac in the coming years as far as corporate IT guys, as well as their CEO's, using the "i-stuff" get acquainted with Apple and begin to wonder "Why not Macs in our company?".
While Macs are expensive to buy, the running costs are substantially lower than in the PC world, so it makes sense, economically.
There's a real possibility that the "i-stuff" will trigger a new boost for the Mac, including in terms of more attractive pricing.

 

[nanofrog]

While Macs are expensive to buy, the running costs are substantially lower than in the PC world, so it makes sense, economically.

How did you determine this?

I ask, as even if you skip out on issues like software licenses and training (part of the real cost of switching), you still have to have an IT Dept. So the additional cost of the machines alone would get the Accounting Dept.'s attention.

The only thing I can think of, is if they're trying to go without an IT Dept. all together, or the OS X software is superior enough to any other OS version, that the increase in productivity of each user more than makes up the cost differences (i.e. more contracts taken on = more profit per Quarter after the system costs have been accounted for).

 

[spinnerlys]

How did you determine this?

I ask, as even if you skip out on issues like software licenses and training (part of the real cost of switching), you still have to have an IT Dept. So the additional cost of the machines alone would get the Accounting Dept.'s attention.

A friend of mine wrote her diploma on changing the editing infrastructure of one international TV network. As they currently use Avid and all the technology needed for broadcasting (servers, licenses, converters, ....), she researched the possibility to change to Final Cut Pro (Studio), which also meant a change from Windows to Mac OS X.
The result was, that changing to FCP was only a third of the price of updating the Avid infrastructure, the change included new Mac Pros, servers, conversion devices and training the current personnels (50+) on Mac OS X and FCP.

In the end, that network stayed with Avid.

 

[nanofrog]

A friend of mine wrote her diploma on changing the editing infrastructure of one international TV network. As they currently use Avid and all the technology needed for broadcasting (servers, licenses, converters, ....), she researched the possibility to change to Final Cut Pro (Studio), which also meant a change from Windows to Mac OS X.
The result was, that changing to FCP was only a third of the price of updating the Avid infrastructure, the change included new Mac Pros, servers, conversion devices and training the current personnels (50+) on Mac OS X and FCP.

In the end, that network stayed with Avid.

I wasn't thinking in terms of specialized equipment (such as Avid), just personnel (training and workload output), systems, and licensing. Just a basic switch-over. Presumed items like networking, ... to clusters would remain the same (upgrades in these areas would essentially remain the same in terms of hardware).

 

[leekohler]

No, but I wish this site would. Take your iRumors.com and get out! Seriously, I'm tired of coming to this place and seeing nothing but iPhone this iPhone that on the home page.

I heard that, and I agree.

Actually, there's a theory floating out there that the iPhone and iPad successes could give a real boost to the Mac in the coming years as far as corporate IT guys, as well as their CEO's, using the "i-stuff" get acquainted with Apple and begin to wonder "Why not Macs in our company?".
While Macs are expensive to buy, the running costs are substantially lower than in the PC world, so it makes sense, economically.
There's a real possibility that the "i-stuff" will trigger a new boost for the Mac, including in terms of more attractive pricing.

Sorry- but this is exactly where Apple is blowing it. This could be a real possibility, but the I hear a lot of talk about Apple's hardware being expensive, and not as reliable as it used to be. Not to mention the fact that they simply aren't keeping up on the computer side of the company.

 

[Tilpots]

The "two companies" talk is nonsense. You don't see Ford splitting into a company for every car they produce, or even every car category they produce. Same with any other company. Hostess will never breakout into Ho-Ho's Inc. and Twinkies Inc. Diversification is good for business.

We all want better Macs, but as has been mentioned, the PC market is pretty mature right now. The differences between brands is pretty slim in the big scheme of things. And it's not like Apple has ever been the company to give you choice or to update their products on some sort of regular schedule. When they feel there's a product worth updating, they update it.

I, for one, am glad they've spent so much effort on the iPhone. It's an amazing piece of machinery. In 30 years (the same age as the PC now), imagine where the technology's going to be because of the effort they're putting into it now.

I think a lot of the debate around this issue is better focused on this site rather than Apple. MacRumors has done a good job of covering what the rumors are, not what we'd like them to be. If there's Apple news, they report it, iDevice or Mac or other. I don't think they've withheld information about Macs simply to push iPhone news. It doesn't make any sense for them to do that. Apple rumors are covered, period. And they've never covered as much information as they have recently.

 

[rhett7660]

Nope, don't think they should split. Maybe it is time for them to hire a few more engineers and stick them on the OS side! Instead of pulling from there to help out on the iOS side.

 

[nanofrog]

Nope, don't think they should split. Maybe it is time for them to hire a few more engineers and stick them on the OS side! Instead of pulling from there to help out on the iOS side.

OS X and iOS are closely tied together (iOS needs OS X, as that's what it's based off of). But they need sufficient personnel for both, as there's OS X developers needed for validation on products other than the iDevices (desktops and laptops). Pulling them from one area to focus on another, is causing problems (more bugs - software and hardware - are creeping into products, not just delays).

 

[Bernard SG]

How did you determine this?

I ask, as even if you skip out on issues like software licenses and training (part of the real cost of switching), you still have to have an IT Dept. So the additional cost of the machines alone would get the Accounting Dept.'s attention.

The only thing I can think of, is if they're trying to go without an IT Dept. all together, or the OS X software is superior enough to any other OS version, that the increase in productivity of each user more than makes up the cost differences (i.e. more contracts taken on = more profit per Quarter after the system costs have been accounted for).

Here's an article about it:
http://infoworld.com/d/mac/mac-it-pros-say-macs-cost-less-manage-pcs-053

 

[nanofrog]

Here's an article about it:
http://infoworld.com/d/mac/mac-it-pros-say-macs-cost-less-manage-pcs-053

I'll give it a read. Thanks for the link.

 

[RawBert]

I'm sure Apple is not ignoring the Mac. Although it may seem like they are.
They are and have been reinventing the Mac. OS X is probably being outfitted with a touch interface. This takes a lot of time and recources because Apple wouldn't just slap a touch screen on a Mac and call it a day - like that HP/win7 train wReck. If OS X or XI is going down this route, it will have to work flawlessly and effortlessly.
I think next year is The Return of the Mac.
*queue that Mark Morrison song*

 

[_Matt]

I thought Apple was a software company first, according to Steve.

Mac OS X (soon to be iOS) and iOS 4 are their most important products.

 

[DylanLikesPorn]

Apple has not prominently featured a Mac on their home page for the last 9 months. That should tell you everything you need to know.

 

[rhett7660]

OS X and iOS are closely tied together (iOS needs OS X, as that's what it's based off of). But they need sufficient personnel for both, as there's OS X developers needed for validation on products other than the iDevices (desktops and laptops). Pulling them from one area to focus on another, is causing problems (more bugs - software and hardware - are creeping into products, not just delays).

Pretty much what I was saying!

 

[blunderboy]

Splitting Apple wouldn't work. For one, the Mac OS is required in order to build applications for the iDevices, and there's a strong connection between Mac OS and iOS. Secondly, Apple is not a monopoly in the same sense Microsoft is. While Apple does have strong presences in the mobile/music areas, they are not a total monopoly in the same sense that Microsoft is.

I do agree with some of the other posters here that MacRumors should be split up. Make MacRumors be about the Mac, and make a separate site for the iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, and iPod. I've been noticing constant posts about iPhones and iPads on blogs and forums that are ostensibly about the Mac. If I wanted to read about iDevices, I would go to a forum that was just about Apple products in general, or about the iDevices in particular. I don't have an iPhone, nor do I want one. I'm a bit too "old-school" to get too interested in the iDevices as opposed to the Mac.

 

[djellison]

Secondly, Apple is not a monopoly in the same sense Microsoft is. .

How and why are they different, exactly?

 

[blunderboy]

How and why are they different, exactly?

In the 90s, especially, Microsoft had a stranglehold on the operating system market. The Mac was marginalised, particularly in the Sculley/Amelio days, and the Linux desktop wasn't mature enough for typical, day-to-day uses.

Apple is the largest provider of digital music, but they do have competitors. There is Amazon, and there is eMusic, and people have heard of these. (Not to mention, er, Microsoft.) They can still compete with iTunes; it's not as though Apple is trying to obliterate Amazon and eMusic out of the market in the same way Microsoft did with Netscape back in the 90s.

Phones? Apple isn't the biggest mobile manufacturer, by a long shot. The BlackBerry has a larger market share, and there are definitely more 'dumb' phones around than ANY variety of smartphone.

The Mac is definitely not a monopoly on the desktop; that's still Windows, thanks to Microsoft's aggressive bundling and deals with PC OEMs. The iPad competes with cheap netbooks, but there's so much competition there between Acer, Dell, HP and the rest of them anyway that Apple's just another part of that.

 

[djellison]

The Mac is definitely not a monopoly on the desktop; that's still Windows, thanks to Microsoft's aggressive bundling and deals with PC OEMs..

It's not a monopoly. You can buy a mac or a pc. They're both out there. Neither has a monopoly on the market. One - by far - leads in market share. That doesn't automatically make it a monopoly.