Replies

The real reason is competition and cost. Apple set itself up as a monopoly. IBM opened up its design. If I were a CEO of a company and I looked at going to a closed source or an open source, there would be no issue.

There are many exceptional products that died because of short-sightedness (Beta anyone?). Look at the way Apple goes after any innovation of the Mac outside its company walls. Microsoft is the same to an extent, which is why you see alternate server software as well as whole new OS's and open source programs (another reason that IBM clones will be dominant).

If you are satisfied to be spoon fed, Apple is for you. If you want to innovate and go beyond what Steve Job's says is adequate, then its an IBM clone.

Closed source VS open source hmmmmm the debate rages on. In my experience propeitary software protects that data much better and for one good reason, control. OS/400 keeps the data safe and hackers out. But for small scale take your pick Windows, Apple, Linux. Either way it takes more people to support those systems.