This past Tuesday, Slashdot featured an article,
Apple Considering a Break-Up?, by a chap called Joshua
Jaffe on
thedeal.com that discusses the benefit of a breakup of
Apple into independent hardware and software companies, as
shareholders are apparently grumpy about the constant loss in
market share.
Apparently Apple's software division would immediately soar to
immense heights on the strengths of a Windows-ported OS X and
their productivity software, while the hardware division would be
able to flog off i386 compatible computers running Windows.
Somehow I cannot see Steve Jobs ever let his biggest competitor
run his operating system on "Apple" branded machines (apart from
Virtual PC as a middle man). What would be the use?
If you want a Wintel/AMD machine fitting in with your interior
design (like a Mac), you're already able to build your own machine
with the case of your choice to match your sofa; you don't need a
Mac for that anymore.
Similarly, why would Apple want to sell OS X for AMD/Intel
machines? With the current perceived speed difference, they would
probably not sell one of their PowerPC machines anymore, leaving
that architecture to die a slow death.
As Jaffe obviously sees benefit in the breakup of Apple, he
certainly doesn't like the prospect of Jobs turning the company
into a multimedia empire, with the acquisition of Universal and the
inclusion of Pixar in the brand.
But, really, why not? Jobs certainly would be able to learn from
the mistakes from the AOL/Warner/Turner disaster. There would be no
ailing ISP to write off, no CNN to get into line. All you would
have would be one of the most prestigious brands globally reaping
the benefits of including Universal's back catalogue and present
artists into the iTunes Music Store and one of the most creative
film studios ever being rebranded.
I am sure that a Disney/Apple movie would increase exposure to
the same brand's hardware, and just think about the possible
merchandising deals (the Pixar Lamp looks like an iMac anyway).
Am I wrong ? Let me know!