Comment Question for the Woz (Score 3) 365
Steve,
Two questions for you (I've been dying to ask these for a while.)
First, in the Newsweek article "How we Failed at Apple" you said the following:
"The company's strategy was. Apple saw itself as a hardware company; in order to protect our hardware profits, we didn't license our operating system. We had the most beautiful operating system, but to get it you had to buy our hardware at twice the price."
Apple still today holds very very tight restrictions third party producers yet is succeeding - partially because prices for Apple systems is now much cheaper relative to market cost. In general though Apple as a company still behaves much the same as it did in 1984. Do you believe Apples continued restrictions on third party use of MacOS will spell trouble long term for Apple?
Secondly, when Microsoft was declared a monopoly a few months ago you had a posting to your website that included an analogy between car companies and Monopoly power. If I remember correctly the analogy basically came down to the idea of car companies owning the gasoline companies and requiring drivers to buy gas from only them - hence they could set the price on the gas.
This however is also a perfect analogy for how Apple behaves with respect to their hardware and software. If Apple had succeeded, today we would be in a world where we would have absolutly no choices in reguards to what hardware we purchaced (much like now we have little choice as to what operating system software is bundeled with our hardware.) If/when Apple becomes a very dominate player in the computer industry, how would you justify Apples continued control on hardware before the DOJ?
Thanks!
j
Two questions for you (I've been dying to ask these for a while.)
First, in the Newsweek article "How we Failed at Apple" you said the following:
"The company's strategy was. Apple saw itself as a hardware company; in order to protect our hardware profits, we didn't license our operating system. We had the most beautiful operating system, but to get it you had to buy our hardware at twice the price."
Apple still today holds very very tight restrictions third party producers yet is succeeding - partially because prices for Apple systems is now much cheaper relative to market cost. In general though Apple as a company still behaves much the same as it did in 1984. Do you believe Apples continued restrictions on third party use of MacOS will spell trouble long term for Apple?
Secondly, when Microsoft was declared a monopoly a few months ago you had a posting to your website that included an analogy between car companies and Monopoly power. If I remember correctly the analogy basically came down to the idea of car companies owning the gasoline companies and requiring drivers to buy gas from only them - hence they could set the price on the gas.
This however is also a perfect analogy for how Apple behaves with respect to their hardware and software. If Apple had succeeded, today we would be in a world where we would have absolutly no choices in reguards to what hardware we purchaced (much like now we have little choice as to what operating system software is bundeled with our hardware.) If/when Apple becomes a very dominate player in the computer industry, how would you justify Apples continued control on hardware before the DOJ?
Thanks!
j
