As the Mac Turns 30, Apple Ponders ‘Post-PC’ Era | Hacker News Reader

As the Mac Turns 30, Apple Ponders ‘Post-PC’ Era

blogs.wsj.com

40 pointsarikrak65 comments

In the end what matters in business is sustainable profit not marketshare. Of course if you include all of Apple's devices they have both. When I worked at Apple in the mid-90's they had neither and I gave up on them shortly before Steve came back. Aw, crap.

>In the end what matters in business is sustainable profit not marketshare.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people don't get this. They are so concerned with "winning" that they lose sight of what's important.

Yup, sure the PC won, but what did IBM get? 1.75 billion from Lenovo.

Isn't that 'just' for their server division?

I'm fairly certain IBM is up to much more than hardware sales at this point. Although for awhile they were the eponymous PC manufacturer.

Nope, he means the 2004 sale of the PC business. The servers sale now is 2.3B.

Ah so!

>In the end what matters in business is sustainable profit not marketshare.

With network effects and other market effects, sacrificing profit for marketshare for years/decades might be the longer/smarter play. For example, Amazon is happy to undercut their competition and lose money for years. Is that a bad decision? Remains to be seen, but if they'd focused on sustainable profit, I suspect they'd have a lot more competitors.

Walmart jumps into a new small-town and buries their competition with non-stop deep discounts. Competition closes, Walmart now has tremendous power to price however they want.

I think Apple's appetite for profit is awesome, but it leaves less room for their "partners" (carriers), which means every other player in the marketplace has incentives to push Android/etc. Result: http://www.statista.com/chart/1099/smartphone-operating-syst...

And from the existential side of things... Would you REALLY rather have the 40% margin business that owns 5% of the market or would you rather have the 1% margin business than owns 95%? Either way, you're a gazillionaire. I'd personally rather impact more lives.

It sounds as though you think the best way to impact more lives is to use predatory pricing to drive the competition out of business in order to establish a monopoly.

It's logically true that this might work as a strategy, but it's rather depressing.

Walmart certainly takes it to predatory levels. I only used them as an example of what can happen to businesses that focus on "sustainable profit" above all else.

I'm not sure the strategy of "earn zero-to-no profit to gain market share and scare away potential competitors" is inherently evil or predatory (though it certainly can be).

I think that the reason why it's problematic is that it is focused on reducing diversity of competition, which reduces the number of ideas that get developed and tested in the marketplace and retards progress.

Why are Microsoft's profits from Windows excluded from the numbers while profits from OS X are included? Why isn't MS considered part of the PC industry?

Because... Reasons... The headline doesn't look as clickbait-y otherwise most likely.

Or because Microsoft doesn't make "PCs"(well not really) and Mac does. But MS does make devices/phones/Xbox (which is a PC in console's clothing).

Edit: I'm glad that they at least lump it in with PCs now though... It used to be that people would get angry if you called their Apple Computer a PC. But now that they are just Intel PCs running OSX it seems hard to debate.

>It used to be that people would get angry if you called their Apple Computer a PC

People still get angry if you call their Apple branded personal computer a PC and will argue with you forever about why it isn't one.

It makes as much sense as saying the iPhone isn't a phone and the iPad isn't a tablet.

I notice that this is changing (albeit very slowly) and people generally give up the argument when you point out to them that any Intel based PC can run OSX (and any mac can natively run windows) because Apple PCs are just Intel computers with different shells.

It does amuse me when people refuse to lump iPads in with PC's (which points up the fact that Apple is by far the leading PC vendor).

Well in a sense they are not. The difference was made up by Apple many years ago (before the John Hodgeman commercials even) that Apple Computers were not PCs. The point made sense to the extent that they used their own architecture and chips (not just Intel computers running a different OS).

But in the classic sense yes iPads are Personal Computers. They just are not PCs in the 'I bought an IBM' (when you purchased a Gateway/Dell/Compaq) and you really mean an x86 sense.

OS X is free now.

It is 'free' if you buy their PC. The same way Windows is 'free' if you buy a windows PC from any PC manu who doesn't allow you to take it off the invoice.

It is folded into the cost of the hardware at this point. So yes I can see what you're saying in terms of profits on the OS vs another OS. But it is not free (as in beer) exactly.

No, OS X is also free if you upgrade in contrast to windows.

Not really a good comparison given that OSX 'upgrades' are available on a yearly (sometimes bi-yearly) basis. Which is about the same time span as Service Packs which are free.

And you've still paid for the hardware, which is where the price is wrapped into, since about Snow Leopard.

Not saying it isn't good (I am a half-time Mac user). But calling it 'free' is not entirely the case. I used to get pretty annoyed at having to pay for a new version of OSX from 10.2-10.5 every year or so.

Sure but he's pointing out that to get the free upgrades you had to pay for a license at some point that entitles you to free upgrades that Apple makes available.

Which is also not true. I never payed for OS X, like as a line item on an invoice. I do cover the cost of manufacturing, as with _every other good sold for profit_ out there.

I do cover the cost of the software on the hardware, but the same is true for about any device I buy.

The thing is: Microsoft is trading software as a good. Even if I buy a machine with Windows, I can actually, in some legislations, ask for my license money back and my machine gets cheaper. So I didn't get Windows "for free". So their market is software and should be counted as such.

Apple sells hardware as a good and doesn't ask for any fee for the software that comes with it. So that element is free. Even if I would ask for my money back, the answer would be "sure, here's your 0 Dollar".

Yes, it is an accounting question, especially because in the Microsoft case, your vendor pays the fee for you immediately.

You cannot buy an OS X license anywhere anymore.

As you pointed out, you did 'pay' for the software, because its wrapped up into the hardware cost.

My point is that it is not 'free' in that you can't freely download and install it onto a computer ala Linux/unix. You can not sell new computers with OSX preinstalled. That more or less defines that it is not 'free' when compared with an actual free OS.

Not being able to buy a license without the hardware doesn't make it free. It just makes it tied to the hardware. There is still a EULA (End User License Agreement) and thus a License.

The parent stated "free" (as beer). We're not talking "free" (as speech). And free as beer it is, it is never on a bill.

It is still paid for. As if you paid for an all inclusive meal at an establishment and received 'free' beer as part of the meal. Just because its not on an itemized list doesn't mean it is free.

Does that mean I can legally run it in a VM or on a non Mac computer? Can I load Macs on bare PCs and sell it?

http://m.computerworld.com/s/article/9110179/Apple_sues_Mac_...

Of course not silly! Cause free is a marketing euphemism for "You already paid for it with the purchase!" :)

Much like free healthcare ;)

Except that you don’t pay for OSX upgrades.

Unless the computer you are upgrading is more than what? 3 revisions old OSX wise? Seems analogous to Service Packs doesn't it?

It's free as in, new updates will be available for no cost. This has no relation with the EULA.

OS X is free, if you buy a $3000 dongle ;)

Microsoft doesn't sell much hardware directly. What you're seeing is a sign that this will change — and that every major PC vendor is probably now wishing they'd invested significantly in software back when they had the profits to do so because that's the only way off of the lowest-price treadmill.

Microsoft is already trying things like Surface to compete with Apple directly – I'm sure they actively weigh the benefits of a Microsoft desktop balanced against the likelihood that PC vendors will start pouring money into something like Linux. I'm tempted to say it would be worth it even if it accomplished nothing other than getting vendors to making the out-of-the-box Windows desktop experience so bad.

>Microsoft doesn't sell much hardware directly

But you're still comparing profits from (OS + hardware) to (hardware) by not including Windows' profits.

Because Microsoft is a supplier not a computer manufacturer. If you're going to include them, then why not include Intel or Samsung PC revenues as well?

This comment struck me:

"He compared the PCs changing status to how trucks took a diminished role when the U.S. shifted to an industrial nation from an agrarian one."

It seems myopic now as the F-150 is still the #1 best selling vehicle in the US.

I do see the point of the PC as the 'utilitarian' device vs. the iOS devices as the more mainstream, recreational devices. The analogy was just bad.

The F-150 might be the best selling vehicle, but are trucks the largest selling segment?

Yes

Yes.

"light-truck share at 51.2 percent with sales up 10.4 percent from last year." https://www.nada.org/Publications/NADADATA/

“light trucks” is a category that includes both things that are obviously “trucks” (F-150, Tacoma, Ram, etc) and things that no sane person would ever call a truck in casual conversation, but are classified as such by the manufacturer (Outback, CR-V, Odyssey, etc).

I think that has changed since 2006ish. Outback/CR-V, etc are now classified as Crossovers (at least for sales purposes).

The light duty truck classification has to do with loaded weight rather than anything else as far as I remember... But maybe that has changed also?

I thought I remembered something like that too, but when I looked around I found lots of announcements like the following (July 2013): "Honda light trucks posted record June sales on the strength of CR-V, Pilot and Odyssey”. (To say nothing of the absurdity that > 50% of Acura sales are “trucks”).

http://www.honda.com/newsandviews/article.aspx?id=7269-en

Haha that is pretty funny! And I thought somehow some minor semblance of sanity had been introduced. Fool me once... Point is can't get fooled again.

Directly from the report linked off that page: "In 2013, pickups held a market share of 13.6 percent of light-vehicle sales and 26.6 percent of light-truck sales"

From the accompanying graph, it looks like the definition of "light-truck" includes crossovers, SUVs, vans, and pickups.

https://www.nada.org/NR/rdonlyres/AAD0D79A-7C46-489F-B738-81...

F-150's aren't the "trucks" he's talking about. F-150s are cars for people who want to feel like they're in a truck. In fact I think by "truck" he pretty much means "trucks not sold directly to consumers." Like a semi, an actual delivery truck, MAYBE an F-450 in a pinch.

Uhm, I can say with some certainty that a lot of North Dakota farmers would take issue with your statement. F-150s are workhorses around here and there is a bit of concern with the 2014 F-150 given the vehicles many uses.

I can see this being true in the cities, but it is also sold to a lot of contractors who take it to job sites. The Super Duty (F-450) is actually something to buy if you have a specialized need.

Isn't that the point of Job's statement? The F-150 workhorse is to the traditional computer as a Dodge Dart is to the iPhone / iPad.

It also seems to be true that many people who own these trucks have no use for them. I wish I had a picture of my high schools parking lot.

I think it is the point, some people still need all the power.

I guess some people like trucks or think they are fashion statements, but the sales figures don't get that high without the large number of people and companies buying them for professional reasons.

They're worried the 2014 model has been influenced by liberals and it doesn't pollute enough.

No, they're worried that the new construction is not as durable as the old construction. There are some fairly major changes such as moving to unibody aluminum from a ladder-frame steel. Fundamental changes tend to illicit worries in something that is as well known, used, and liked. Surprises are unwelcome in tools.

Your statement is just ill-informed crap that disparages others.

The frame on the new F150 is still steel, it's the body that's changing to aluminum. It's still using a steel ladder frame design, although they're using a higher strength steel to remove some of the weight from the frame.

No, they switched to a unibody aluminum http://www.trucktrend.com/features/consumer/163_news_130401_...

(although I did say 2014 for year when I should have said 2015 model released in 2014 - friggin car years)

link to news, not rumors:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230361280...

Guess you are correct, I was even told by the dealer, guess we all believed the rumors and the demo pickup. I wonder if that will change anything.

http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/2015/

F150s are driven and used in MANY (perhaps most) capacities as trucks, for hauling/towing/etc, particularly outside the city. An F450 is a specialized Truck that is in a whole different price class and intention.

That's a bit like saying a Mercedes E300 isn't a luxury sedan, the only luxury sedan is a Bentley.

The farmers of Agrarian America did not drive semis and F-450's.

So F-150's are laptops then?

The analogy was perfectly good. Everyone knew what he meant. He wasn't saying that the statistics of trucks vs cars will apply to PCs vs Other devices.

The vast majority of F-150 drivers do not need their truck. They're urban cowboys and their truck has never seen a ranch road, hauled a boat or carried a load of dirt.

The vast majority of PC consumers will not need another PC, but many may still buy them.

So profit w low market share, thats just doomed to lose marketshare and profit, nice formula :D specially w/o including MS. On the other hand Free OSX? who cares, their file system is just horrid. Better start praying for another iPod idea Apple, or you will become Sega so fast not even Sonic ll be able to catch you.

microsoft is so stupid, haha

Someone has to be the 'professional' for someone else to be the 'hipster'.

Comparison is important to Apple's brand. Unless I was reading those John Hodgeman commercials all wrong.

Please don't dignify trolls with an answer. Just downvote them and move on.

But... but... funnies!

This is not a troll. You have to be legitimately stupid to be in such a position of power as Microsoft, and then to waste it all and to voluntarily hand it over to Apple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com