Posted on 06/16/2008 11:08:41 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Totally untrue (Just talking desktops here)
If Apple wanted to, each year it could issue a list of ten configurations that have been tested to run OSX.
This way computer manufacturers could follow these configurations and HP could sell a Windows/Apple machine
Plus home hobbyists could build computers with these configurations
Apple wants to make big profits off the hardware you are forced to buy from Apple to run the OS. So Apple installs bugs in the OS and BIOS to force you to buy Apple hardware. Home hobbyists work around these crippling features as best they can -- And do in fact install OSX on their computers and certain Dell computers
The way things are the Apple advocates brag how they can run XP& Vista on an Apple computer.
But the converse would be true too--- If Apple allowed its OS to be legally installed on Windows computers
Yeah, apple already did that, it cannibalized their profits and for some reason, a company wants to make money.
Why do you hate capitalism?
Apple hates competition otherwise it wouldn’t block its OS from being installed on non-Apple machines. Pitiful for what you all call the best OS around. I thought you wanted to spread the love
If OS X were written to make it as runnable on a generic PC as Windows is, it would have to become as big and bloated as Windows. Even if that were done, it would still be compatible to the same chorus of hardware compatibility whines as any Windows installation.
If you really want the heart of the OS X experience on a generic PC, run Free BSD on it. Yes, that's "free, as in beer."
Apple could easily cover these configurations. They already do it for their own desktops
Apple could go to the trouble of writing an OS X for some small number of specified PC configurations, but the PC users would still bitch about the "limitation on their freedom." Meanwhile, those PC configurations would represent more regression testing time bogging down each OS X release.
It's apples to oranges (pun intended).
Apple saw that Microsoft whored it's OS to anyone who paid the fee. The fault in that model is obvious: manufacturers will pay the fee and cut corners anywhere and everywhere.
Customers will rightly scream that MS doesn't run on their machine, and MS will run around patching holes like idiots. Which is exactly what they've been doing for the last 10 years.
Apple is letting the market come to them. They've got a rock solid OS and they own the whole game-- har and software. There have been rumbles in the past about licensed hardware, but imho it's not worth the trouble.
While MS crumbles Apple will take more and more of the market until they're comfortable that they have what they need to dictate terms to vendors. Then they'll pull the trigger and MS will be a bad memory in the consumer market.
They're already the most reliable PC platform.
Watch, you're going to see anti-trust attacks on Apple within 5 years.
The problem is that if anyone deviates, the consumer will blame Apple. Yes, we know it's the OEM's fault, but that doesn't matter, the consumer will blame Apple. I know this because a lot of applications wouldn't work correctly with Windows, and consumers would blame Microsoft. The power of blame was so much that Microsoft coded workarounds to the application errors into Windows -- the release of NT code a few years ago was full of such hacks. Users didn't want to hear that their applcation vendor screwed up because in their minds "Windows isn't working." Remember, this is the same crowd that thinks "Explorer" is the Internet and "Outlook" is email (I've tried to explain the concept of other email clients before, not pretty). The dumber they are, the louder they scream.
Given that perception is as good as reality, Apple's public image would suffer for something entirely the fault of other companies. Apple would lose prestige and marketshare just to sell some extra copies of the OS, not worth it.
Some will, but it wasn't Microsoft doing it. They don't build the hardware.
If the OS is built for the hardware, hardware developers don't have a market for new technology until the OS vendor agrees to make their OS compatible. You can tell me that's not going to work to stifle hardware development, but I'm not going to believe it.
Precisely. They lost control of the hardware and are presiding over their own death by 10,000 paper cuts. Every peripheral manufacturer adds a tweak here and a band aid there and Microsoft is trying to account for it all. It's actually pretty funny, if you're not an MS user.
If the OS is built for the hardware, hardware developers don't have a market for new technology until the OS vendor agrees to make their OS compatible. You can tell me that's not going to work to stifle hardware development, but I'm not going to believe it.
Apple blesses technology that they feel enhances their platform and business model. Everything else you use at your own risk. If a worthwhile technology came out that wasn't available for the mac, it would be, and quickly. But that's old-school thinking: most computer innovation in the last 10 years has come about because of Apple, not in spite of it. So your premise falls flat just on that account.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to spend more than a minute or two connecting a new drive or installing memory, or whatever. If it says on the box 'mac compatible' I know that when I plug it in the drivers are already there and it will just work. There's something to be said for that.
But probably the biggest thing in my world is the fact that, working in video and design, I can literally do the work of 10 people with a Mac laptop and some simple equipment. Everything I connect to my computer will work every time; colleagues can access or borrow my work or peripherals. I reboot my computer every other month or so, usually because I've gotten a free OS update from Apple.
That's it. Can you say the same?
I think if everyone adopted the same model Apple has, new hardware development will suffer considerably. The only way a hardware manufacturer can survive will be through a partnership with an OS vendor, and the market will become incresingly balkanized. I’ve asked you directly and repeatedly if you think this would be a likely outcome. I think all the dancing around you’ve done to avoid any consideration of that possibility is rather suspicious.
That's it. Can you say the same?
No, I can't say the same. I can say that as much as I would like it the computer industry would not be better off if they made and did everything catered to me, what I do, and what I find convenient.
It's kind of hard to tell on these Apple threads what it is that the MS crowd wants to hear.
I guess I don't know what it is you're asking.
If I understand what I think you're asking, then I disagree with your premise. Apple has dictated the terms of its platform with a vertical market. Risky, but I believe it will succeed where MS has so miserably (and, in some cases dangerously) failed. The consumers are voting with their dollars.
You appear to think they're stupid.
If MS had built- or enforced- a workable software platform for the hardware they purport to make software for, your world might be different.
So, do I think Balkanization a likely outcome?
No. MS killed the competition-- a wiser company would have encouraged it.
I rather think that the fix that MS finds itself in is because exactly because it tried to own a market-- not for the good of the customer-- but for its own good. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The difference between Apple and MS is that Apple understands this.
Until you convince me that Apple poses a threat to the average consumer (much less MS) I think you're crying into your towel.
How many linux disto’s will survive under Apple’s model? How does an “open source” OS dictate the hardware it’s going to run on? Do you think destroying MS and that OS/hardware model in the marketplace is not going to have any unintended consequences, or that any collateral damage is not of any particular consequence because it doesn’t affect you?
Right now there's a fairly wide variety of different flavors of OS out there to choose from. Lots of development work has gone into them, with some interesting results. I think Apple may even have benefitted from some of it. The vast majority of them are running on computers originally built for and shipped with Windows. They're cheap, reliable if the parts are of good quality, and readily available.
What would that landscape look like if Windows had adopted Apples model 15 years ago?
All of those Windows computers that came from Dell, HP, Compaq, or built from ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte or any number of other manufacturers motherboards instead were built by Microsoft. Instead of being generic, general purpose, OS agnostic computers they came off the assembly line designed and built by Microsoft, explicitly for whatever the current version of Windows was and with a security chip to prevent any other OS from ever running on that machine.
How many linux disto’s will survive under Apple’s model?
Apple only needs one, as far as I can tell. Hobbyists might support another. But 'hey, it was free!' isn't going to make me any friends with my clients when it fails. Know what I mean?
How does an “open source” OS dictate the hardware it’s going to run on?
It seems to me that open source is, necessarily on the bleeding edge. ^Open source distros^ have to conform to the market, not vice-versa.
Apple charges a premium for working *every single time, right out of the box*. See my previous posts for more detail.
Do you think destroying MS and that OS/hardware model in the marketplace is not going to have any unintended consequences, or that any collateral damage is not of any particular consequence because it doesn’t affect you?
I think MS is arrogant and foolish. I've read plenty about Gates and his smug minions who thought the war was over in the mid 90s.
To the extent I care at all, I want a reliable and reasonably priced OS that functions next-to-invisibly and lets me be productive.
I'm not foolish enough and certainly Apple is not foolish enough to believe that there isn't some app-killer over the horizon that's going to change everything. There is, and it will be here soon enough
You seem to be a person who's hung up on some sort of need for regulation of all this. That view concerns me more than the market forces driving Apple
The exact opposite view of yours is what drew me to this site, more than 10 years ago.
Think on it, and if it bothers you, don't buy a mac.
Cheers.
That might be a good thing for you and your customers in the short term.
I'm not sure that's going to be a good thing for everyone in the long term, (but it doesn't bother me as long as I don't think about it).
The fallacy in your thinking is that you’re looking at it in terms of a closed loop.
There are successful hacks of Apple’s OS onto Intel PCs. I don’t think that’s a mistake, and it’s probably keeping worried lights on at night in Redmond.
What Apple can do is keep the lid on the OS and the hardware, and maybe someday let the genie out of the bottle, either by licensing clones or letting it loose in the wild.
I think the former is more likely, with a tightly controlled product line.
In the meantime, there’s no reason for them to abandon the current business model: it’s only a small part of the market as a whole, yet they’re making money hand over fist.
Deservedly so.
It sounds like the Mac is the best platform for the specific kind of work that you do, but distributing that work to your customers is problematic if they're running Windows. I can sympathize, and I can appreciate that putting MS out of business so they'll buy Mac's would make your life easier.
Every car manufacturer makes its own hardware, and the development is doing fine. Although just like Apple there's a lot of trading of parts and partnerships going on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.