• Welcome to the Off-Topic/Schweb's Lounge

    In addition to the Mac-Forums Community Guidelines, there are a few things you should pay attention to while in The Lounge.

    Lounge Rules
    • If your post belongs in a different forum, please post it there.
    • While this area is for off-topic conversations, that doesn't mean that every conversation will be permitted. The moderators will, at their sole discretion, close or delete any threads which do not serve a beneficial purpose to the community.

    Understand that while The Lounge is here as a place to relax and discuss random topics, that doesn't mean we will allow any topic. Topics which are inflammatory, hurtful, or otherwise clash with our Mac-Forums Community Guidelines will be removed.

The Apple Clones Disaster

Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
4,576
Reaction score
378
Points
83
Location
St. Somewhere
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Studio, M1 Max, 32 GB RAM, 2 TB SSD
In another thread (closed, so I couldn't post this there), Zoolook said:

Because Apple have decided that OS X will only be allowed to run on Apple hardware. The whole clones distaster (sic) of the mid-90's probably has something to do with it.

Could anyone elaborate on this? Personally, I agree with Apple's policy of running its software only on its hardware. This provides complete control over the quality of the total product and the complete end user experience. However, I have never understood what caused Apple to yank the clones experiment after opening that door in the 90s.

Zoolook suggests it went badly. Can anyone fill in the history? It would be interesting. Thanks.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
12,455
Reaction score
604
Points
113
Location
PA
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook
As you know, Dells, Gateways, HPs, Sonys, etc are all clones of the IBM platform.
After Steve Jobs was fired from Apple, they followed the same strategy. They licensed out the software and hardware specs to companies so they could build machines that would run the Macintosh operating system.
Companies like Motorola (who at the time made the PPC chip), UMAX, Radius, and Power Computing all had machines that would run Apple's software. They were nothing more than a beige box like any other computer, but they ran Mac System Software. They were also much cheaper than buying a "real" Mac.
When Steve Jobs returned, he scrapped the program after the cloner companies refused to pay a higher royalty.

It never panned out for Apple, since IBM started leasing out to cloners much earlier and secured a foothold on the market already.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Cambridge UK
Hi Mod. A few minor modifications.

After Steve Jobs was fired from Apple, they followed the same strategy. They licensed out the software and hardware specs to companies so they could build machines that would run the Macintosh operating system.
Not quite. Actually not even close.

Steve Jobs was never fired from Apple. Sculley got a vote of confidence against him when Sculley was told (guesses are it was Mike M) Jobs was trying to maneuver him out. Jobs was banished by the board to the back lot - "Siberia" - and told he'd be kept in the loop but was instead abandoned. Jobs quit - he wasn't fired.

The only proprietary part of the original PC was the ROM BIOS. This was not particularly hard to duplicate either as IBM freely gave out the annotated assembly source to anyone who wanted it. (I have a copy given me directly by IBM for example.)

The "cloning" of the ROM BIOS was an arduous legal process entailing use of "virgins": two teams, temporarily employed; one write the spec for the BIOS (after which they get the sack). The second team who all sign a waiver they've no prior knowledge, now go in armed only with the specs and write the code for a BIOS chip. (I believe Compaq were first with this. Other companies got into the "BIOS" business and did the same as Compaq and then licensed their product - AMI as an example.)
Companies like Motorola (who at the time made the PPC chip)
The PowerPC was always a joint venture between Apple, IBM, and Motorola. The PPC borrows overreaching design decisions from Motorola chips but it was very much a "three company" IBM project (or at least a two company with IBM taking the lead and Apple looking on). The Power architecture is IBM's own - to this day.
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
4,934
Reaction score
207
Points
63
Location
Anytown, USA
Your Mac's Specs
27" iMac 2.7GHz Core i5, iPhone 6, iPad Air 2, 4th gen Apple TV
Steve Jobs was never fired from Apple. Sculley got a vote of confidence against him when Sculley was told (guesses are it was Mike M) Jobs was trying to maneuver him out. Jobs was banished by the board to the back lot - "Siberia" - and told he'd be kept in the loop but was instead abandoned. Jobs quit - he wasn't fired.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Upper management like that aren't fired directly unless they do something really horrible or illegal. This move was a signal to Jobs that they really didn't want him around any more and he took the hint and left.
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
449
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Location
Loughborough, England
Your Mac's Specs
15" MacBook Pro (Early 2008) 2.4GHz 4GB RAM running 10.5.4
How's Cambridge, is the Grand Arcade opened yet?
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
12,455
Reaction score
604
Points
113
Location
PA
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook
Steve Jobs was never fired from Apple. .... Jobs quit - he wasn't fired.
In the man's own words:
Steve Jobs (Stanford Commencement Speech 2005) said:
"We had just released our finest creation — the Macintosh — a year earlier, and I had just turned 30. And then I got fired. How can you get fired from a company you started? "

"I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me."

"I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn't been fired from Apple"

Link to entire transcript
Link to video (Macintosh story starts around 5:40)
The PowerPC was always a joint venture between Apple, IBM, and Motorola. The PPC borrows overreaching design decisions from Motorola chips but it was very much a "three company" IBM project (or at least a two company with IBM taking the lead and Apple looking on). The Power architecture is IBM's own - to this day.
Understood and I am well aware of that. However, Motorola did manufacture the chip at that time (which I believe is all I stated-no real need to elaborate :)), and that is one reason that led to the company becoming one of the few who were given permission to sell clones. :)
 
M

MacHeadCase

Guest
My first "Mac" was actually a Mac clone. It was a PowerComputing PowerCenter desktop 150.

The thing with the clones was that Apple took the decision about 6-7 years too late and when they allowed clone makers to sell Mac clones, Apple had already lost considerable market share to Windoze boxes. What the then CEO hoped allowing for Mac clones would do (Apple gaining market share) backfired: the Mac clones didn't gain any market share on WinBox but rather canibalized Apple's own market share!

Why? It's easy: clone manufacturers weren't tied with contracts for logic board makers, sound card makers, hard drive markers, etc. So they made a cheaper product that outperformed the equivalent Apple models.

My PowerCenter cost $1,000CAN less than the Power Mac 7200 which was slower. The 7200 ran on the PowerPC 603 chip while the PowerCenter ran on a PowerPC 604 chip and it used a Tanzania motherboard. The Power Mac 8500 used the 604 chip but was considered a high end model back then and the high end PowerComputing was the PowerTower Pro.

Another thing the Mac clone makers had in their favour: they were smaller companies (or spinoffs) and were swifter in taking decisions and making moves than Apple was at the time. PowerComputing was the first to come out with a G3 prototype. Apple, feeling caught with its pants down I suppose, then got on the drawing board to develop one.

Those were confusing times: Jobs had just come back to the company and Amelio had just been evicted from the CEO chair. So the clone makers were to negociate with Jobs for the renewal of the Apple licecnce agreement. Things were not as easy, as Jobs asked much much MUCH more of the Mac clone makers for the right to licence the Mac OS on their machines.

The rumour circulated that what did the clone makers in, that Jobs decided they simply would not be allowed to make Mac clones anymore was in the 1997 Macworld, PowerComputing's kiosk showed off their G3 prototype right next to Apple's G3 (which had been hastily released) and the PowerComputing drew circles around the Apple PowerMac G3, it was so much faster: it seems His Steveness was not pleased at all... :)

Sorry for the long post, guys.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
2,766
Reaction score
232
Points
63
Location
Brooklyn, New York
Your Mac's Specs
15" 2014 MacBook Pro, i7 2.5Ghz, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD; iPad 3, iPhone 6
I've never had anyone 'sic' me before! :Shouting: I should watch my typing.

There is a great clip on YouTube where Jobs ends the clones agreement, it's pretty infamous now.

Although there has been an awful of of spin on this, I'd echo the comments that have already been made. Apple was not really getting anything out of the agreement.

The whole point about the competition's machines being quicker, and cheaper, is nothing new. In the 1980's and 1990's, IBM machines were always slower and more expensive than the IBM 'compatibles' - i.e. those machines running Windows, DOS or OS/2.

Now the world would become very interesting indeed, if Microsoft suddenly decided to build their own hardware, and refuse to license windows to any other manufacturer.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
313
Reaction score
7
Points
18
I don't know first-hand but it sounds to me like Apple was on its way out when Jobs went back to work there. I'd imagine they were in "circle the wagons" mode probably looking to cut off any money going out that they could. As best I remember the Apple clones were bland little ugly things, maybe Jobs didn't want cheap crappy versions of the computers he was trying to sell out there. Apple HAS to charge more for every computer they sell because their market share is so much smaller. In order to justify this they need to inflate the value of what they are selling. One sure way to do this is to make sure you can't get it anywhere else. Also, with Jobs at least, it might have been a pride thing. Apple is his "baby" so he probably isn't looking to have cheap knock offs out there. You don't see Mercedes Benz licensing some Chinese out fit to build "clones" either.
 
OP
mac57
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
4,576
Reaction score
378
Points
83
Location
St. Somewhere
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Studio, M1 Max, 32 GB RAM, 2 TB SSD
Now the world would become very interesting indeed, if Microsoft suddenly decided to build their own hardware, and refuse to license windows to any other manufacturer.

Wow, news to me. Microsoft is still rampantly licensing Windows to all comers, isn't it? Do tell more...

Sorry for the "(sic)" Zoolook - no intent to pick on you, but I am picky about spelling and didn't want the typo to be considered to be mine! Look at it this we - we are collectively raising the composition standards here at M-F! :D
 
OP
mac57
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
4,576
Reaction score
378
Points
83
Location
St. Somewhere
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Studio, M1 Max, 32 GB RAM, 2 TB SSD
Whoops! I see you said "if" vs. stating it as a fact. As the kids say "my bad".
 
OP
mac57
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
4,576
Reaction score
378
Points
83
Location
St. Somewhere
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Studio, M1 Max, 32 GB RAM, 2 TB SSD
My first "Mac" was actually a Mac clone. It was a PowerComputing PowerCenter desktop 150.

At the risk of starting off a "my first Mac" thread, your post brings back fond memories MHC. My first Mac was pretty much Apple's equivalent of your first machine. I had just been promoted into management at my company, and managers all had to use Macs, whilst the engineers got to play with HP-UX Unix boxes. At first I was appalled at having to use a Mac, referring to it as a Macintrash, but I was quickly hooked. I almost cried when my company, like so many others, decided that Windows 95 was "good enough" and switched to PCs as a cost saving measure. Sad day...

I never forgot though. Outside of the workplace, I continued to use PCs right up to a year or so ago, for pretty much the same reason my company made the switch - it always seemed that I could get more umphhh for the dollar with a PC vs. a Mac. Last year, when I decided it was time for a new PC, the halo effect from my iPod and my favorable memories of that first Mac got me considering Macs again, and I was delighted to find that the PowerMac G5 outperformed the competition both in dollars and throughput. The rest is history... another happy switcher!
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
I don't know first-hand but it sounds to me like Apple was on its way out when Jobs went back to work there. I'd imagine they were in "circle the wagons" mode probably looking to cut off any money going out that they could. As best I remember the Apple clones were bland little ugly things, maybe Jobs didn't want cheap crappy versions of the computers he was trying to sell out there. Apple HAS to charge more for every computer they sell because their market share is so much smaller. In order to justify this they need to inflate the value of what they are selling. One sure way to do this is to make sure you can't get it anywhere else. Also, with Jobs at least, it might have been a pride thing. Apple is his "baby" so he probably isn't looking to have cheap knock offs out there. You don't see Mercedes Benz licensing some Chinese out fit to build "clones" either.

Apple was certainly on the skids when Jobs came back, but "on the way out" is open for debate. The press at the time might have lead one to believe that Apple was on it's last run, but the reality is open to debate.

Amelio had some interesting things planned for Apple and they had a fairly large wad of cash in the bank at the time (which Jobs used to fund the first iMac and the iPod projects). Amelio opened the Mac to licensing with the expectation that the clones and the Macs would be on-par, which never really happened. Amelio has made claims that his intention was to negotiate with the clone makers and even that he was considering shutting down Apples hardware side and simply concentrating on the OS itself instead.

Either way though, the point turned out to be moot. What I find most interesting though is what the possibilities for the Mac might have been if Apple/Amelio had purchased Be vice NeXT for the basis of the next OS. If they had bought Be, they would not have brought back Jobs (Gasse would have come back instead) so the things that we know and love about Apple today, including the iPod, might never have happened.

Apple has always had high margins, especially on the Mac, since day one though. While he margins remain high today, they are competitive with the rest of the industry when compared to similarly spec'd machines from others. The fact that Apple doesn't compete in the low end market is often misconstrued that Macs are more expensive when in reality they are not.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2005
Messages
6,188
Reaction score
254
Points
83
Location
New Jersey
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Pro 8x3.0ghz 12gb ram 8800GT , MBP 2.16 2GB Ram 17 inch.

dtravis7


Retired Staff
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
30,133
Reaction score
703
Points
113
Location
Modesto, Ca.
Your Mac's Specs
MacMini M-1 MacOS Monterey, iMac 2010 27"Quad I7 , MBPLate2011, iPad Pro10.5", iPhoneSE
My first "Mac" was actually a Mac clone. It was a PowerComputing PowerCenter desktop 150.

I still have that very PowerComputing machine. Still works. It does look like a Beige PC though! :D

I can say a lot more but everything I would say has already been covered by someone else. Good Job all.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top