• On TechRepublic: Five super-secret features in Windows 7
advertisement
March 9, 2004 12:10 AM PST

mac.column.ted: It's two...two companies in one

by CNET staff
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 26 comments
Ted Landau
March 2004

It's two...two companies in one

Making a variation on the tagline from an old commercial: "Apple is a hardware company. No, it's a software company. No, it's two...two companies in one."

Amidst all the buzz surrounding Apple's cool new products -- from the iPod mini to the Power Mac G5 -- what is less talked about is a central facet behind Apple's continued success: Apple's dual role as both a hardware and a software company. Apple is the only vendor that creates both the hardware that sits on your desk and the operating system that runs the hardware. For almost all the rest of the computing world, Microsoft makes the OS software while companies such as Dell and HP make the hardware.

It's hard to overstate the benefits of this arrangement. It allows Apple to optimize its software to work seamlessly with the hardware. When Apple designs an upgrade to Mac OS X, it barely needs to worry about what CPUs, sound cards, graphics cards or other hardware components are in your Mac. Apple knows exactly what components it puts in its Macs and can design the software to be optimized to match them. This is a big reason that Macs have traditionally had a huge "plug-and-play" advantage over PCs. True, the gap has narrowed substantially in recent years, but Apple continues to hold a lead.

Apple's hardware-software synergy extends beyond the relationship between Macs and Mac OS X. Apple has staked out a similar pairing between its iPod and iTunes. If you want to sync your iPod with the collection of music on your hard drive, you need iTunes. And if you are using the iTunes Music Store, you quickly become aware that the iPod is the only portable player that works with it.

The iSight camera and iChat AV software form yet another dynamic duo. Although iChat AV can create a video connection using any FireWire DV or Web camera, it's especially designed to work seamlessly with the iSight camera. Just twist the lens ring on the iSight and iChat automatically launches, detects the presence of the camera, and shows you a preview of what the camera sees. Similarly, with iMovie 4 and an iSight camera, just switch the slider on the iMovie screen from Edit to Record mode and a "Record with iSight" button appears.

Unfortunately, there is also a downside to this hardware-software one-two punch.

For one thing, it stifles what could otherwise be healthy competition from third parties. As an example, you don't see many companies offering an alternative to the iSight camera -- it's just too hard to compete with a product that emanates from the mother ship. If your product can't be better than what Apple makes, your only hope is that you can sell it for less. But Apple can also make it difficult to compete on price (which is the major reason, for example, that Adobe abandoned Premiere, leaving the market to Final Cut Pro). In some cases, Apple can afford to sell a software product for next to nothing, taking its profit from the additional hardware sales the software presumably generates. The low cost of the iLife '04 software (which until this year was entirely free!) is a prime example. In fact, if Apple had Microsoft's overall market share, it might be Apple that the DOJ was investigating for monopoly-like practices.

Another problem is that Apple's hardware-software combo can actually hurt Apple's market share, rather than boost it. Back when MS-DOS and Macs were still duking it out for dominance, so the story goes, large corporations shied away from the Mac, despite its advantages. There were several reasons for this, but one reason was the total dependence on Apple for Mac hardware. If Compaq went bankrupt, your next purchase could be a Gateway, and you would hardly miss a step -- MS-DOS (and later Windows) worked just fine on a variety of hardware components. But if Apple went belly up, your entire investment in Macs and the Mac OS would be at serious risk. The brief era of Mac clones was designed to partially address this issue. But when Steve Jobs returned to Apple, one of his first acts was terminate the clones. He decided (correctly in my view) that whatever advantage clones offered in terms of consumer choice, it was not worth Apple's lost hardware sales -- especially at a time when Apple was already bleeding red ink. Instead of clones, Steve gave us the iMac -- perhaps the ultimate example of the combination of hardware and software in an all-in-one package.

All of which leads to an intriguing, and often-asked, question: Which of the two ends of Apple's product line, hardware or software, is the dog and which is the tail? Is Apple primarily a hardware company that makes software, or a software company that makes hardware?

Historically, the answer to this question has been easy: It's a hardware company. True, Apple has sold software for the Mac almost from its inception -- the original MacDraw is an early example -- but it's bread-and-butter has always been hardware. That's why prior to System 7 the Mac OS was free. The logic was that the Mac OS was useless to anyone who did not own a Mac. And if someone owned a Mac, they had already paid a nice sum to Apple. They had also paid for the version of the Mac OS that came with their Mac, so let further updates be free. At some point, this logic became less compelling. Apple took a look north at Redmond and saw how much money could be made selling upgrades to the OS that came with your hardware. The result is that Apple now views software as playing a significantly larger role in the company's bottom line, and increasingly expects users to pay for any and all of its software. Heck, unless you upgrade to Panther, you have to pay extra to get the iChat software that's required to use the iSight camera you just purchased for $150 bucks.

Does this mean we are looking at a role reversal, with Apple now viewing itself as primarily a software company that happens to also sell hardware? Hardly. For example, the press release for Apple's January financial results clearly emphasized hardware over software:

    Apple shipped 829 thousand Macintosh units during the quarter, up 12 percent from the year-ago quarter, as well as 733 thousand iPod units, up 235 percent from the year-ago quarter.

Sales of Mac OS X were mentioned, but without specific sales numbers:

    We're kicking off 2004 with strong momentum, especially for Mac OS X, which is now used by almost 40 percent of our installed base.

Apple's Q1 '04 Summary Data revealed the specifics: Revenue from all of Apple's software accounted for less than 12% of Apple's total revenue ($238M/$2006M).

Even with Apple selling Panther upgrades for $129, reports indicate that Apple is barely breaking even on OS sales when the cost of developing the upgrade is figured in. Similarly, Apple admits that at 99 cents a song, the iTunes Music Store is not making much of a profit. The prime benefit of the Store remains that it helps sell iPods.

This has been and remains a delicate balancing act for Apple. For example, the iTunes-iPod link allows Apple to out-muscle Music Store competitors that cannot fall back on an MP3 player for profits. But it also means that Apple cannot risk going after the potential increase in Music Store sales that might derive from making the Store work with iPod competitors.

The one place where Apple has been willing to take some risk -- and with spectacular success thus far -- is in opening up the iPod and iTunes to Windows users. Apple has offered some Windows products before (QuickTime Player, AppleWorks), but not on this scale. The iPod and Music Store would almost certainly not have been on nearly everyone's best-of-the-year lists -- and would not have so successfully penetrated the pop culture -- if they had remained Mac-only products. Apple's recently announced "strategic alliance" to deliver an HP-branded iPod and to pre-install iTunes (and thus access to the Music Store) on HP computers further builds on this success.

Even more recently, Apple released a public beta iChat AV upgrade that "supports videoconferencing with the new AOL Instant Messenger 5.5 for Windows." This has led to speculation that Apple may eventually sell a version of its iSight camera (and perhaps iChat software) that works with Windows PCs, building on the business model that has been a success for the iPod.

I have absolutely no fear that any of this suggests Apple is thinking of abandoning the Mac in favor of a move to Windows. I expect the Mac and Mac OS X to be with us for many more years. In fact, with the introduction of the Power Mac G5 and iLife '04, I even have hope of seeing some market share increases this year for the Mac platform. But Apple has definitely been rethinking the relative balance between its software vs. hardware products, working to get more revenue from its Mac software and to expand its presence on the Windows platform without undermining its Macintosh hardware base.

The danger of a misstep is ever-present; Apple could too easily fall off its highwire. But for the past couple of years, Steve Jobs and the rest of the Apple crew have made the right step at every turn. Here's hoping that as this 20th anniversary year continues, Apple continues to wow the crowd with its daring feats on the highwire. Because one thing is certain in this very competitive field: Should Apple fall, they won't find a safety net waiting below.

Utility of the month: AppleJack

Starting up in single-user mode (by holding down Command-S at startup) is by now a well-known troubleshooting technique. For most users, it's main value is to run the fsck command (an alternative to having to boot from the Mac OS X Install CD and run Disk Utility's Repair Disk function). There is more you can do in single-user mode, but it can be risky to experiment here (especially if you are not proficient in Unix). Enter AppleJack. With AppleJack installed, you have a relatively safe and user-friendly way to run fsck, delete cache files, remove swap files, and more -- all from single-user mode.

 

Ted Landau is the creator of MacFixIt and author of the soon-to-be-published Mac OS X Help Desk (Peachpit, 2004). To send comments regarding this column directly to Ted, click here.

This is the latest in a series of monthly mac.column.ted articles by Ted Landau. To see a list of previous columns, click here.

Resources

  • press release
  • Apple's Q1 '04 Summary Data
  • strategic alliance
  • iChat AV upgrade
  • AppleJack
  • click here
  • click here
  • More from Mac Musings
  • Recent posts from MacFixIt
    Manage iCal's automatic e-mail generation for invitations
    CNET TV Apple Byte: Apple faces critics
    Weekly Utilities Update: Net Monitor, MiniUsage, TimeMachineEditor, more...
    Odds and Ends: Essential video codec packs for OS X
    Address Book: Unable to add, view contacts
    Persistent 'Faster Browser Search' overtaking Safari's default search
    Quick tip: Faster Time Machine backups
    MacFixIt Answers
    Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (26 Comments)
    by Slikkster March 9, 2004 2:29 AM PST
    This is no slap on the quality of Apple hardware, but this "two companies in one" is also a double-edged sword. Making the hardware and the software keeps prices inflated. Limited competition. Apple never seemed to get the fact that MS became successful for (among other reasons) they let others do the hardware. Yes, while that brought instability caused by poorly written third-party drivers, it also opened up a huge hardware base for their OS's. The market share story tells it all.
    Reply to this comment
    by Cowicide March 9, 2004 2:29 AM PST
    >
    This is a reply to a previous comment by Slikkster




    In regards to the previous poster's comment on marketshare...


    If I sold around 3% of all hotdogs on earth I'd be a pretty happy camper. I
    don't have a problem with Apple's marketshare. Microsoft has wonderful
    "marketshare" but it has been an infectious sore on American creativity and
    innovation. On top of everything else, MS has now become the typhoid mary
    of virus distribution. All in all, a world-wide productivity killer.


    I like my companies agile, innovative and powerful... giant, sloth-like, corrupt
    companies are slowing us all down. Microsoft gives large amounts of money
    to corrupt American political organizations including the DNC and RNC to
    protect its monopoly. Microsoft creates fictitious "home-grown" lobby
    groups to deceive legislators and their constituents. (Well documented, look
    it up anywhere). Microsoft will try to make you believe (overall) it has helped
    the American economy and way of life by becoming so huge. Lies... lies...
    lies...


    Where would American technology be right now if there had been more
    competition and innovation among companies who produced operating
    systems? We can choose from a host of DVD players on the market but we
    still only have basically TWO mainstream operating systems? Is it any wonder
    we have so much trouble with a product that lacks hearty competition?
    Microsoft spends a vast amount of money on thwarting other American
    companies instead of spending that time and energy on research and
    development. It's a huge cancer on American companies.


    Believe it or not, small business drives the United States economy. Small
    business hires far more people than these huge, unpatriotic corporations do.
    Far more money goes into the economy from small business and small
    business leaders give FAR more money to charity than big corporations do.
    Large corporations spend massive amounts of advertising money to distort
    the perception of actual volume in which they contribute to charity... thereby,
    creating a matrix in society that believes its lies. Small businesses for the
    most part are sovereign to the USA... large corporations sell out America in a
    heartbeat.


    This whole megalomanic approach to business entities is inefficient and it
    sways us closer and closer to a sort of "corporate communism". With a little
    research, you'll find that these things I say are true and you might rethink
    showering a company like Microsoft with accolades just because it learned a
    long time ago to payoff corrupt politicians. While I understand the business
    advantages and growth Microsoft has attained from using a different
    marketing and distribution approach than Apple.. it does NOT explain its
    meteoric rise to a vast monopoly that it has become today. They made it to
    this ridiculous point by cheating the American system and its citizens.


    Apple has been able to prosper without hurting America. That, to me... is
    true success.


    In the end, Apple has command of a sold 3% marketshare. If that is such a
    bad thing, then why are Apple products so much better than Microsoft's?
    Case and point.


    Reply to this comment
    by Cowicide March 9, 2004 8:00 AM PST


    In regards to the previous poster's comment on marketshare...


    If I sold around 3% of all hotdogs on earth I'd be a pretty happy camper. I
    don't have a problem with Apple's marketshare. Microsoft has wonderful
    "marketshare" but it has been an infectious sore on American creativity and
    innovation. On top of everything else, MS has now become the typhoid mary
    of virus distribution. All in all, a world-wide productivity killer.


    I like my companies agile, innovative and powerful... giant, sloth-like, corrupt
    companies are slowing us all down. Microsoft gives large amounts of money
    to corrupt American political organizations including the DNC and RNC to
    protect its monopoly. Microsoft creates fictitious "home-grown" lobby groups
    to deceive legislators and their constituents. (Well documented, look it up
    anywhere). Microsoft will try to make you believe (overall) it has helped the
    American economy and way of life by becoming so huge. Lies... lies... lies...


    Where would American technology be right now if there had been more
    competition and innovation among companies who produced operating
    systems? We can choose from a host of DVD players on the market but we
    still only have basically TWO mainstream operating systems? Is it any wonder
    we have so much trouble with a product that lacks hearty competition?
    Microsoft spends a vast amount of money on thwarting other American
    companies instead of spending that time and energy on research and
    development. It's a huge cancer on American companies.


    Believe it or not, small business drives the United States economy. Small
    business hires far more people than these huge, unpatriotic corporations do.
    Far more money goes into the economy from small business and small
    business leaders give FAR more money to charity than big corporations do.
    Large corporations spend massive amounts of advertising money to distort
    the perception of actual volume in which they contribute to charity... thereby,
    creating a matrix in society that believes its lies. Small businesses for the
    most part are sovereign to the USA... large corporations sell out America in a
    heartbeat.


    This whole megalomanic approach to business entities is inefficient and it
    sways us closer and closer to a sort of "corporate communism". With a little
    research, you'll find that these things I say are true and you might rethink
    showering a company like Microsoft with accolades just because it learned a
    long time ago to payoff corrupt politicians. While I understand the business
    advantages and growth Microsoft has attained from using a different
    marketing and distribution approach than Apple.. it does NOT explain its
    meteoric rise to a vast monopoly that it has become today. They made it to
    this ridiculous point by cheating the American system and its citizens.


    Apple has been able to prosper without hurting America. That, to me... is
    true success.


    In the end, Apple has command of a sold 3% marketshare. If that is such a
    bad thing, then why are Apple products so much better than Microsoft's?
    Case and point.


    Reply to this comment
    by Slikkster March 9, 2004 8:00 AM PST
    >
    This is a reply to a previous comment by Cowicide


    I made no arguments for or against Microsoft except to say that they avoided the hardware end, and hence let many, many other companies (e.g. jobs!) produce hardware that would run on their OS's. What's implicit in your post is that the masses of people that use MS products are somehow too stupid to know better. That's just arrogant. Think about that.

    I use and like both MS and Apple products, by the way. I find the debate about who's better and who's the devil to be pointless.
    Reply to this comment
    by Cowicide March 9, 2004 8:00 AM PST
    >>
    This is a reply to a previous comment by Slikkster




    > What's implicit in your post is that the masses of people that use MS
    > products are somehow too stupid to know better. That's just arrogant.


    No, what's implicit in my post is that marketshare doesn't always mean true
    success as you seem to imply. I use MS products... I guess I think I'm too
    stupid to know better too then, right? Hahaha... Wow, I'm so arrogant I think
    I'm stupid. Har!


    > I find the debate about who's better...to be pointless


    Then why bring it up in the first place? Nevermind... it's pointless, right? Har!
    Har!

    Reply to this comment
    by Slikkster March 9, 2004 8:00 AM PST
    >>>
    This is a reply to a previous comment by Cowicide


    As Joe Walsh once said, "You can't argue with a sick mind". 'nuff said.
    Reply to this comment
    by Cowicide March 9, 2004 8:00 AM PST
    >>>>
    This is a reply to a previous comment by Slikkster


    > As Joe Walsh once said, "You can't argue with a sick mind". 'nuff said.

    OK... now I have a "sick mind" because I disagree with you. I see you've
    gotten your debating skills from the Bush admin camp. I suppose I'm anti-
    American now too? Hahahaa... whatever, freak.
    Reply to this comment
    by Slikkster March 9, 2004 8:00 AM PST
    >>>>>
    This is a reply to a previous comment by Cowicide


    Boy, just quoting Joe Walsh and somehow someone must feel guilty..heheh. But, that's what idealogues do. If my debating skills come from the likes of George Bush, I'd have to say that yours (and your philosophy in general) come from the likes of Karl Marx, or Hegel, at the very least. It's a capitalistic country, son. If you turned that giant chip on your shoulder into something more profitable, pun intended, you'd be a lot better off. Grow up. I won't be returning to read your inane reply, so this, for all practical purposes is the last word on the subject, as frustrating as I'm sure that is to you. A reply to someone who will never read it is pretty pointless, kind of like the age-old question about "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it..."
    Reply to this comment
    by Cowicide March 9, 2004 8:00 AM PST
    >>>>>>
    This is a reply to a previous comment by Slikkster






    > your philosophy in general) come from the likes of Karl Marx
    > or Hegel, at the very least. It's a capitalistic country, son


    That shows everyone how incredibly clueless you are. Anyone who knows me
    and actually interprets my writing knows I'm pro-capitalism. Hahaha... whata'
    a maroon... That crazy remark shows that you've basically conceeded that
    you're outgunned here. Hey, if you think corruption is synonymous with
    capitalism, that's you're problem... not mine. Bye, little man... bye...


    Reply to this comment
    by Lou Zer March 9, 2004 8:00 AM PST
    >
    This is a reply to a previous comment by Cowicide


    Regarding your competition example:
    Where would American technology be right now if there had been more
    competition and innovation among companies who produced operating
    systems? We can choose from a host of DVD players on the market but we
    still only have basically TWO mainstream operating systems?


    The problem here is your comparing two different things as if they were the same. We have a host of DVD players, but they all basically work on a single standard format (the DVD format, whatever that is). The OS is more like the format, and the computer like the DVD player. Bringing this analogy further, Apple basically has a DVD player that only plays DVDs written specifically for it, whereas all the other DVD players follow a differnt disk (MS) standard. Now, some disk creators may make disks for both types of players, but many do not. Its not easy to convince a large majority of people that they should switch to a DVD player that won't play any of their existing movies, nor many of what might be out there, for the sake of a better experience alone.
    Reply to this comment
    by Cowicide March 9, 2004 8:00 AM PST
    >>
    This is a reply to a previous comment by Lou Zer




    > The problem here is your comparing two different things as if they were
    the same.


    No, I'm comparing 2 different things as if they were similar (not the same).
    There are many manufacturers that compete to produce DVD players. There
    are very few developers that compete to produce operating systems. We have
    quite a few choices of DVD players to choose from with very competitive
    pricing and various levels of quality. We have hardly any choices in operating
    systems and the price is set to almost any price Microsoft sees fit and by
    almost all accounts... the quality is horrible (security, stability, etc.).



    > We have a host of DVD players, but they all basically work on a single
    > standard format (the DVD format, whatever that is).


    I did not know that. I could've sworn every DVD player played it's own
    proprietary closed format. Hahaha.... I took DVD players only as one
    example of technology that has wide variety of choice for consumers
    compared to operating systems. There is no good reason that consumers
    don't have more choice when it comes to operating systems. Compatibility?
    Hahaha... I have better compatibility with Windows on my Mac than I do with
    my Windows machine... think about that.


    Competition is good for all products, including operating systems. Face it.


    Reply to this comment
    by Koelpien March 9, 2004 8:52 AM PST
    Once again, it is being stated that iTunes only works with iPods. While
    perhaps true with the Windows version, My old Rio 600 works just fine with
    iTunes for Macintosh, at least with MP3 files. Other players also incorporate
    iTunes support on the Mac.
    Reply to this comment
    by ted1--2008 March 9, 2004 8:52 AM PST
    >
    This is a reply to a previous comment by Koelpien


    I was not aware of this (or, if I was, I had forgotten). Thanks for the
    correction. Still, I believe it remains true that the iPod is the only device
    that can handle the AAC files you would get from the iTunes Store.

    - Ted
    Reply to this comment
    by ted1--2008 March 9, 2004 8:52 AM PST
    >>
    This is a reply to a previous comment by ted1--2008


    I might also add that what I said in the article is still accurate. I did not
    say that the iPod was the only player that worked with iTunes (sans the
    Store). What I said was:

    "If you want to sync your iPod with the collection of music on your hard
    drive, you need iTunes. And if you are using the iTunes Music Store, you
    quickly become aware that the iPod is the only portable player that
    works with it."

    - Ted
    Reply to this comment
    by miw--2008 March 9, 2004 9:26 AM PST
    "Apple is the only vendor that creates both the hardware that sits on your
    desk and the operating system that runs the hardware."
    Ever heard of Solaris and Sun workstations?
    Reply to this comment
    by ted1--2008 March 9, 2004 9:26 AM PST
    >
    This is a reply to a previous comment by miw--2008


    As usual, one has to be careful when using words like "only." I had in
    mind "mainstream" computers - as might be used by home users, small
    businesses etc, not workstations. Technically, you are right of course.
    Reply to this comment
    by macFanDave_reg March 9, 2004 9:26 AM PST
    >
    This is a reply to a previous comment by miw--2008


    "The danger of a misstep is ever-present; Apple could too easily fall off its highwire."

    Let's not get so dramatic. Five BILLION dollars in cash is a pretty good safety net. They CAN afford a misstep or two and God forbid Apple should be afraid to take a misstep.

    A lot of people thought the iMac was a misstep. They were wrong. A lot of people (including me) thought the Cube was a misstep and we were right. Apple is not perfect, but they are very good at what they do, even with the occassional flop.

    We Mac heads buy into the Apple monopoly freely and of our own accord. After weighing the pros and cons, I choose to pay more up front to use Macs because the overall experience (and long-term value) is worth it for me. I use Windows PC's all day at work and I don't anticipate switching anytime soon. If Steve Jobs gave Apple's $5 billion in cash to Osama Bin Laden, I'd defect, but barring idiocy like that, I'm sticking with Macs.
    Reply to this comment
    by ted1--2008 March 9, 2004 9:26 AM PST
    >>
    This is a reply to a previous comment by macFanDave_reg


    Yes. I guess I did not mean to suggest that even the slighest misstep
    would mean the ultimate disaster. I did like the metaphor however. :)

    All I was trying to suggest is that the computer market is
    relatively unforgiving of mistakes. And, despite all the good press Apple
    has had recently, it would not take much for the press commentary -
    and Apple's financial position - to turn sour. Apple could still recover
    again, of course -- as it did once before. But it would not be fun.

    - Ted
    Reply to this comment
    by ben-ameen March 9, 2004 9:26 AM PST
    >
    This is a reply to a previous comment by miw--2008


    The only thing that gets me when discussing the fact that Apple is both a
    hardware and software company is this: If you are in complete control over
    the hardware that runs the OS that you've created specifically for that
    hardware, then it should run FLAWLESSLY, right?

    Seriously (and I'm a mac guy through and through), if you're going to control
    the hardware and the software, then you should, in theory, be able to predict
    when something bad might happen, and take steps to avoid the misstep
    before it happens. So, the recent issues that Apple has had (iBooks?, etc)
    should have been foreseen, and eradicated before things were released.

    Just my opinion, but I'm curious as to what others think? If I write the book,
    and print it, then I shouldn't find any spelling mistakes after it's been printed.
    Reply to this comment
    by sjk March 9, 2004 9:26 AM PST
    >>
    This is a reply to a previous comment by ben-ameen


    I don't understand why you'd think Apple's being a combined hardware/
    software company could imply they're capable of producing "flawless"
    products. What's your definition of that in a complex world where no one has
    complete control and everyone makes mistakes?

    Mac OS X includes quite a bit of software written by non-Apple programmers,
    e.g. Unix command line utilities.

    Re: your book example. Browse archives of old e-mail you've written and I'm
    pretty sure you'll discover spelling mistakes you originally overlooked. :-)
    Reply to this comment
    Showing 1 of 2 pages (26 Comments)
    advertisement
    Click Here

    About MacFixIt

    MacFixIt is CNET's troubleshooting resource for all things Mac. The information here helps you navigate the ins-and-outs of Mac ownership with how-tos, troubleshooting information, news, reviews, and more.

    Add this feed to your online news reader