Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Apple Corporate, Hardware, Steve Jobs, Apple, Apple History
Apple's 10 year comeback
9rules' Apple blog has an interesting look at the last ten years of the company that makes the Mac. In 1997, everyone from Wired to BusinessWeek was proclaiming the death of Apple, rumoring that they'd get out of hardware completely, or that they'd merge with Sony or even Nintendo (those rumors are still floating around, I think). Then, in 1998, Apple introduced that Bondi Blue iMac, and the rest is history. They became a company known for making simple, beautiful and iconic computer products, and in 2001, the deal was sealed with the iPod and in 2003, iTunes.And now, ten years later, it's 2007, the iPhone has been released, iTunes is the biggest online music store in the world, and bumping shoulders with even traditional retailers. Apple's not quite on top of the world (let's not forget that while they dominate the categories they choose to dominate, they're still a fraction of the overall market), but there is no question that Apple as a company is going gangbusters. Amazing to see the difference between where the company was just 10 years ago, and where Apple is headed in 2008 and beyond.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
something said 9:17AM on 10-16-2007
You know, if Apple can truly "dominate the categories they choose to dominate", I'd love to see them lift the Apple hardware restriction from OSX and see if they can dominate the OS market as well. Now that OSX runs on Intel processors there is no excuse other than Steve Jobs being a control freak. *cough*iPhone*cough"
Reply
ideapower said 9:37AM on 10-16-2007
What's with this revisionist history? iTunes came before the iPod by almost a year. Remember "Rip. Mix. Burn" ?
Reply
Aron Trimble said 9:44AM on 10-16-2007
I agree, it'd be interesting to see OS X widely available to the PC market... But I understand the Jobsian control over the OS. By controlling the hardware AND software you are guaranteed the best experience possible. (Backwards) Compatibility and interoperability are the thorns in Windows' side that will forever leave it lagging behind OS X and Linux.
Reply
Slevin said 10:05AM on 10-16-2007
@something
Apple makes its money on hardware sales not software. Thus if Apple licensed OS X it would lose allot of revenue. Not to mention the fact that OS X is designed for the hardware Apple uses and so it just works. No updating drivers, hardware conflicts, etc.
Besides, Apple tried licensing in the past... didn't work out too well.
Reply
something said 10:16AM on 10-16-2007
@Aron Trimble
The hardware is not that important to the equation now that it is even closer to the PC than ever before. The only REAL difference is the TPM chip. So I don't think it would be all that difficult to extend the "experience" to the PC, especially if they're as all-powerful as this story suggests. It's obviously meant to force people to purchase overpriced macs. That is why the OSX userbase will never overtake the Windows userbase. Apple refuses to be anything but a hardware company. I think allowing PC users a chance to use OSX would be a great way for Apple to get a foot in the door and persuade many users to look at Apple when it comes time to buy a new computer. Until Apple drops the elitist persona it will never win over the common user.
But then again, how much of its current user base would abandon Apple if it was no longer "exclusive"?....
Reply
something said 10:16AM on 10-16-2007
@ Slevin
Exactly. Apple will forever be a hardware company and that is why its software will never overtake Windows in terms of userbase. Apple fanboys love to chastise Microsoft and talk about how their OS is better. How can their OS be so superior if Apple refuses to compete? Lets level the playing field and see what happens. No matter who comes out on top we win.
Oh, and about the hardware conflicts, since the hardware is not that different anymore there would be few and those would be mostly left to the hardware manufacturers and would likely be resolved quickly. I think many would agree that a 80% effective OSX on a PC is better than nothing. Much like running Windows on a Mac.
Reply
MichiganJay said 10:45AM on 10-16-2007
@ideapower
iTunes began selling songs online in 2003. That was the big deal - the thing that made it profitable like the iPod. Obviously iTunes existed as offline software before the iPod came out, or else nobody would've been able to use the thing.
Reply
KerryB said 10:30AM on 10-16-2007
It's a pretty remarkable comeback, all in all. The licensing debacle Slevin@10:05 makes note of was perhaps at it's peak around the time that Wired came out.
I myself owned a PowerComputing brand mac clone, which served me reasonably well, but only for about 2 years when it inexplicably started experiencing extreme instability, random shutdowns, etc. Perhaps part of the blame was on the crappy power at university, but I knew many people who didn't have those problems, so, I remain unconvinced. That was in 1998.
That was the last "Mac" I owned until I bought my current PowerBook G4 about 4 years ago, which, considering it's still running great and just barely showing it's age, says something about the difference between the two pieces of hardware.
Anyway, Apple of late has been showing some unfortunate signs of laziness, hostility towards users and troublesome business practices. I see this article as a reminder of where a misguided company can end up, and hope Apple sees the light soon.
Like many who read this blog, I expect, I have that issue of Wired... it's a potent piece of history for any old time Mac head. May it never be repeated.
Reply
Frank said 10:49AM on 10-16-2007
@7: you're right -- i still have that issue, too. i also had a power computing box, and used it for, i think, 6 or 8 years. it was a workhorse. i actually should say that i HAVE it, because i still do, although it's now in the basement in my own little computer museum.
Reply
KerryB said 10:52AM on 10-16-2007
@something
This is a tired old saw. You simply cannot claim that the user experience of the MacOS would be equivalent on a commodity PC. Or rather, you can claim it, but it's not sensible.
I'm not a zealot, I've run every OS under the sun (no pun intended) on hardware ranging from generic WalMart cheapies to high end DEC Alphas and SGI boxes, including MacOS on a licensed PowerComputing clone. At the end of the day "superiority" is measured by the ability of the user to accomplish what they want to accomplish.
Your claim that "the hardware's not that different these days" makes no sense. If there's little to differentiate a Dell XPS from that $300 machine down at WalMart, why the price difference? Why do people buy the Dell? I don't mean to pile on, but the notion that hardware issues would be "left to the manufacturers" and "resolved quickly" is laughable. I could recite a litany of customer "service" experiences dating well back into the days of wonky TNT video cards that put that assertion to rest.
Windows can -- and does -- run great on a machine with good parts and good integration, and runs like shit with inexplicable instabilities, slowdowns and malfunctions on lesser hardware. OSX would likely suffer likewise.
Apple simply does not wish to contend with the enormous support burden of trying to run on everything from a good, well-built, well-tested machine to a cheap piece of crap that you KNOW people would try to install OSX on. If your metric for OS superiority is "runs on everything", then fine, OSX sucks, but that's not a good metric.
I consider OSX a superior desktop OS in major part because it runs on hardware that's well made and stable, on top of offering features that I like and a vibrant developer community. In other words, it lets me do what I want to do.
Now, if you wish to argue that the gap is diminishing because Apple's attention to detail and QA department has been slipping in the past year or so, I'll happily (well, not so happily, in truth) agree with you, but that's a different argument.
Reply
Jason Coleman said 10:53AM on 10-16-2007
I think there's some confusion in the article and comments regarding the dates of iTunes. iTunes was released in 2001, where-as the iTunes Music Store was added in v4, released in 2003. While the initial software was a very nice feature, I think that it was the iTMS that was game-changing for the industry and for Apple, making 2003 the more significant release.
Reply
Aron Trimble said 11:06AM on 10-16-2007
@KerryB - I couldn't agree more
Reply
something said 11:59AM on 10-16-2007
@KerryB
Don't be an idiot. When I said that hardware is not that different anymore I was obviously comparing that of a mac to a PC with similar specs, not a high end PC to one bought from WalMart. I'm trying to compare 2 OS's here. If OSX would have the same issues that Windows has if it were more open, doesn't that make the Windows the unfair scapegoat to a unchangeable pre-existing situation? In other words, if Microsoft started making hardware that worked exclusively with Windows, after all the Apple fanboy hypocrites whined about how Microsoft was being unfair and was a monopoly, wouldn't Windows be just as secure and offer "the best possible experience" with the same guaranteed backwards compatibility? We'll never know because Apple is afraid to make the leap and the government would never let Microsoft play Apple's game. As far as Windows running like crap on lesser hardware, isn't that what minimum system requirements are for? Even OSX has that.
As far as the hardware issue, this isn't "back in the day". Hardware is more interchangeable than ever. I can't remember the last time I tried to use a hardware component that I had the minimum system requirements for that didn't work. And yes, the hardware compatibility problem would "go away". If Apple opened it's software to the masses, the hardware manufacturers would be forced to make it compatible or they would be left behind. That's just common business sense.
BTW, my metric for a OS's superiority is its availability and useability for the COMMON USER. OSX lacks in availabiliy while Linux lacks in useability (though this is changing). I'm not some Microsoft fanboy, I like OSX and would like to see it used by more people. But wake up, as long as the conditions are as they are, Windows will always be used by far more people and therefore "superior".
Reply
TH said 12:04PM on 10-16-2007
Another important factor that wasn't really touched on was the shift to Intel processors and Bootcamp/Parallels. Incompatibility with the Windows computers at work or at home was always a perceived drawback of purchasing an Apple computer. IMHO, this is the main factor in the apparent surge in Macs on college campuses. Many iPod fans wanted a Mac, but didn't buy one because they still had a real or perceived need for Windows. That is no longer a factor.
Reply
something said 12:43PM on 10-16-2007
I think that Parallels/Bootcamp/VMWare Fusion makes it more evident than ever that the two system can co-exist on the same hardware.
For more proof go here: http://www.osx86project.org/
By all accounts it appears to run smoothly. The biggest problem this group has to overcome is the TPM chip. Imagine how much better this would be if the chip didn't exist and Apple's developers got involced.
@TH - If every new user that buys a Mac for the first time does so because they can also put Windows on it, how much ground does Apple actually gain?
Reply
Random Guy said 4:52PM on 10-16-2007
Anybody know if there was ever a poster-size version of the "Pray" cover?
Reply
Todd said 8:34PM on 10-16-2007
@someone
> I think many would agree that a 80% effective OSX on a PC is better than nothing. Much like running Windows on a Mac.
I don't think the argument works at all. Why does an OS have to be decoupled from the hardware it's designed to work with in order to compete? You're mistaking the OS as purely software, when by definition it needs to have hardware. As for Windows on a Mac being 80%, I'm repeatedly told by Mac owners that their machine is the best Windows one they've ever had. Then again, I'm sure they're just all fanboys to you, even the women.
Reply
Dimebag said 11:24AM on 10-25-2007
@ something
Having more users makes the Windows OS "superior"? What a very short sighted way of thinking. Sure Windows dominates in numbers, but that's due to the fact that average users want a cheap PC to browse the web, send email, and look up porn… Let's not fool ourselves, very few windows users are what I would consider to be "productive". If you buy a Mac (with the supposed outrageous cost) you have every intention of being productive in some sense. The only Windows user that defies this stereotype is "the gamer" and they are a different breed all together.
Reply
Code Chris said 12:02AM on 11-19-2007
@Dimebag
I couldn't agree with you more on that. There really is no price difference in my opinion between a mac and a pc. I think you get a better deal when you buy a mac. Look at how much longer they last compared to a pc. You have to buy a new pc every 2-3 years. Mac's last 10years and up. You will pay an initial higher price of course. Even that initial price has been coming down with apple increasing hardware specs without increasing the price. Even look at all the software you get with your mac. iLife Is a great set of programs that work flawless together. So in the long run, a mac is a better deal altogether.
Reply