Apple vs. Mac OS X Hackers

[Apple-Alt-Ctr]

Anyone planning to make money on hardware is a fool.
Take a look at Sony with the PS2 (PS3). They take a loss selling the hardware and make it up on software because they have several first-party software houses. Hardware doesn't make money. Software does.

Sony charge a license to develop and release software for their Playstation hardware. This would not be a good idea for Apple at all. Comparing games consoles to the Mac is a bit irrelevant don't you think?

that's why everybody should be able to use it after purchasing the f*** os, no matter which case you're using.

Just because you want something doesn't mean you should get it. I know that's **** but it's kind of the way the world works.

 

[MeatBiProduct]

A few points for all you cheap bastards clamoring for Apple to open OS X up to anyone with a Walmart PC clone..

1. Scenario...Apple licenses OS X to Dell. Cool you think? No..Imagine the response from Microsoft. I was an OS/2 user from 1992-2000. I know what it's like doing battle with the Microsoft FUD machine. For those of you who were too young to remember it, the Microsoft "behind the scenes" work to undermine OS/2 was something we don't need repeated with OS X. I'm quite sure Apple isn't that stupid..The last company they need to piss off is Microsoft.

2. OS X released to the "world" so to speak would destroy sales of Apple's hardware sales, plain and simple. And there would be no more Apple...Apple is company, they have to MAKE MONEY (wow, what a concept no one seems to understand) to continue to produce the quality products everyone seems to want to steal, hack, feel they have the "right" to use wherever, etc..

3. Apple has EVERY RIGHT to control what hardware OS X runs on. It's their software. What law says they have to make their software run on anything? I don't see people clamoring at Microsoft to make their software compatible with Linux..or Linux users screaming that Microsoft needs to release Office for Linux?

Want to run something better than Windows on your PC? There's a zillion Linux distros out there, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Plan9, Solaris, the list goes on. Install one and expand your horizons.

I've been involved with computers and this industry for over 20 years. My first computer was a Commodore VIC-20 I got in 8th grade in 1981. First PC clone in 1988..Bought my first Mac 4 months ago..Still wondering what too me so long. Hope to get a another (PPC) Mini before they switch to Intel.

I understand better than most why people like OS X...Let's just keep it on Apple hardware..

-Lyserjic

1. O/S2 went away because it sucked - point blank. Anyone that was forced to use it, knows that it was clunky - to state that microsoft did anything to stop this O/S is laughable, it came out of the doors with two legs broken. I remember seeing the full version for purchase 1 year after release for $19.99 in a bargin bin at CompUSA alongside copies of those discs that have 200 games on them. A rightful place for O/S2 and its inability to work with most any hardware and lack of any developers creating even decent software. (lol how many hardware vendors supported O/S2 and dev'd drivers? like 5?)

2. A software company shouldn't rely on hardware sales a hardware company should. After all it seems to me that adobe/macromedia, autodesk, oracle, red hat, microshaft, blizzard, steinberg, digidesign, and many more rely only on software sales and support - if apple's product was as quality as any of the companies above, they would have no problem existing on software licensing alone. I think the truth is apple is greedy and wants to be Dell & Microsoft rolled into 1.

3. Apple has every right to control what OS X runs on. This is correct, however users also have every want and need to do otherwise. If we lived in a perfect world maybe people would actually give a crap what apple wants or doesn't want. The truth is, unless your some chin stroking fanboi, you won't care. After all I've never cared about any other regulation or rule set on me by hardware companies or software companies just like millions of other users. People that live life like this should just be slaves to the machine. You'll die a pointless nobody just the way you came in if you follow every rule and thought process forced on you by people you don't know, won't meet, and have nothing in common with. They have what they wanted, your money - you didn't make them agree what they would spend it on did you?

Just remember if you are running linux (which I do, and it isn't better than windows for 99.999% of people out there) you won't be able to do much of anything with multimedia, configuring hardware properly can take days and require recompiling your own kernel, there is no real game selection to talk about besides other 'smart' games and desktop games (a few 3D ones but they are ported source codes). Audio/Video production software doesn't exist, the kernel has no high transport method to decrease multimedia latency with specific hardware enabling this. You will also need to learn a very difficult permissions system, admin system, network service configuration system, windows management system and more. Out of the box, Linux is not better than windows for anyone who is NOT a power user.

You're just as noobified as the rest of the apple fanboi's on this site. If you had really been computing all this time, you would understand that hardware should never matter. I mean your telling people to run linux, which can run on a 386 and is built to be scalable to multiple processors, architectures, and perform multitudes of tasks. Then you finish your statement by saying, oh yah - I just told everyone to use linux that has this giant openness too it, but I am as close minded as the rest of you and want to make sure this 1 flavor of BSD stays within our club and on our trendy designed, generic component, macs.

 

[jumpinjohn]

They are the cause of SOME human misery, while your laziness and the fallable trial & error method of human learning creates the rest.

Which is exactly why everything should be free. Everyone is so very upset that Apple is restricting MacOS to Apple hardware. A year ago, nobody cared that MacOS was restricted to Apple hardware. Now everybody is upset and yelling and not liking each other. If everything was free, nobody would care. I am certain that people who commit evil acts are only after money or are lazy, or probably it is only someone else's fault. Just like those inconsiderate folks who write ugly viruses.

I just find it amusing that I am happy that Apple is doing well in business when it is providing me something I want (like a stable laptop for once). But as soon as I believe that Apple is restricting what I want to do, then they are greedy evil people. That is all.

See 'ya

2. A software company shouldn't rely on hardware sales a hardware company should. After all it seems to me that adobe/macromedia, autodesk, oracle, red hat, microshaft, blizzard, steinberg, digidesign, and many more rely only on software sales and support - if apple's product was as quality as any of the companies above, they would have no problem existing on software licensing alone. I think the truth is apple is greedy and wants to be Dell & Microsoft rolled into 1.

3. Apple has every right to control what OS X runs on. This is correct, however users also have every want and need to do otherwise. If we lived in a perfect world maybe people would actually give a crap what apple wants or doesn't want. The truth is, unless your some chin stroking fanboi, you won't care. After all I've never cared about any other regulation or rule set on me by hardware companies or software companies just like millions of other users. People that live life like this should just be slaves to the machine. You'll die a pointless nobody just the way you came in if you follow every rule and thought process forced on you by people you don't know, won't meet, and have nothing in common with. They have what they wanted, your money - you didn't make them agree what they would spend it on did you?

<snip>

You're just as noobified as the rest of the apple fanboi's on this site. If you had really been computing all this time, you would understand that hardware should never matter. I mean your telling people to run linux, which can run on a 386 and is built to be scalable to multiple processors, architectures, and perform multitudes of tasks. Then you finish your statement by saying, oh yah - I just told everyone to use linux that has this giant openness too it, but I am as close minded as the rest of you and want to make sure this 1 flavor of BSD stays within our club and on our trendy designed, generic component, macs.

Sounds like somebody needs a hug.

See 'ya

 

[Maxx Power]

Which is exactly why everything should be free. Everyone is so very upset that Apple is restricting MacOS to Apple hardware. A year ago, nobody cared that MacOS was restricted to Apple hardware. Now everybody is upset and yelling and not liking each other. If everything was free, nobody would care. I am certain that people who commit evil acts are only after money or are lazy, or probably it is only someone else's fault. Just like those inconsiderate folks who write ugly viruses.

I just find it amusing that I am happy that Apple is doing well in business when it is providing me something I want (like a stable laptop for once). But as soon as I believe that Apple is restricting what I want to do, then they are greedy evil people. That is all.

See 'ya

Okay, I mis-interpreted you understanding that you were being entirely sarcastic. Good enough, I agree with you.

 

[rjgjonker]

licenSe agreements have a purpose. Therefore, they are not stupid. Maybe when you have an invention that is worth billions, you will know why you should protect your investment.

This is where you have crossed the line to make Freedom as an excuse for Abuse.

Ah, well, than perhaps your 'licenSe agreements' are something different from the licence agreements Apple provides me with*. I really don't see the connection between the inventions worth billions you mention and trying to prevent people from using the property the way they want and I really don't see the abuse connection. Would you care to elaborate on that?

By the way, I have no objection against buying Apple products. In fact, I'm sitting behind my Power Mac G4 here right now, with my PowerBook G4 lying next to me. They're great machines and they were both well worth their money. I just don't want Apple deciding what hardware I can and cannot use.

* It's really spelt 'licence', 'license' is a verb.

 

[jakemikey]

2. OS X released to the "world" so to speak would destroy sales of Apple's hardware sales, plain and simple. And there would be no more Apple...Apple is company, they have to MAKE MONEY (wow, what a concept no one seems understand) to continue to produce the quality products everyone seems to want to steal, hack, feel they have the "right" to use wherever, etc..

I am so SICK AND TIRED of people using the "Apple is a hardware company" argument. I guarantee that anyone making this assertion has not actually looked at their earnings report.

Look at this thread:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/143055/

Apple can more than make up for lost hardware sales (they wouldn't drop to zero!!) by huge increases in OS X (and other Apple SW) sales. In their earnings reports, Apple itself describes their software as "high margin". So please people, get off the "Apple will die if it licenses out OS X" mentality. There will always be snobs who just want a pretty computer - regardless of the price.

 

[jumpinjohn]

Okay, I mis-interpreted you understanding that you were being entirely sarcastic. Good enough, I agree with you.

Well, I've been lurking here for almost two years -- since I switched from MS to Apple. I just thought to introduce a bit of humor to the discussion, since I picture folks being red-faced and all. Saying ridiculous things as if Apple is forcing them to buy their stuff, and that computers are the most important things in the world and all. It sounds so... adolescent to me, and it makes me laugh a bit. I hope I didn't offend anyone. Just having a bit of fun.

I'll probably go back to lurking now..

See 'ya

 

[blumpy]

To all you who argue

Analogy:

You lease a car. It's new. Included in the lease price is oil changes and basic maintenance (tire rotation, etc.). Is it free? If you didn't lease the car, do you still get the service by just paying for the price of the oil and not the service?

Answer: No

This isn't the same as buying a Xbox and not being able to use the hardware as an anchor/paperweight/serving plate. You own the hardware, not the software.

You have to buy the computer to use the software.

 

[Lyserjic]

2. A software company shouldn't rely on hardware sales a hardware company should. After all it seems to me that adobe/macromedia, autodesk, oracle, red hat, microshaft, blizzard, steinberg, digidesign, and many more rely only on software sales and support - if apple's product was as quality as any of the companies above, they would have no problem existing on software licensing alone. I think the truth is apple is greedy and wants to be Dell & Microsoft rolled into 1..

Who has any right to dictate what Apple's business model should be? Apple is free to be a hardware and software vendor, they've been that way for years, why do they need to change? Simply because they now choose to use Intel processors and other commodity hardware? Not good enough. Apple isn't greedy, I'm sure they don't need or can afford the support nightmare of millions of users who would buy OS X and then bitch because it won't run this-or-that on their Dell. I *personally* feel it would be a bad move for Apple, but..I could be wrong.

The truth is, unless your some chin stroking fanboi, you won't care. After all I've never cared about any other regulation or rule set on me by hardware companies or software companies just like millions of other users. People that live life like this should just be slaves to the machine. You'll die a pointless nobody just the way you came in if you follow every rule and thought process forced on you by people you don't know, won't meet, and have nothing in common with. They have what they wanted, your money - you didn't make them agree what they would spend it on did you?..

Man, you do need a hug! Again, no one forces ANYONE to do anything with their PC or Mac. It's all about choice. The vast majority of PC users don't really care..They just want to use their computer. Those who have the smarts will seek out alternatives. I bought a Mac because I wanted to use OS X, turns out I happen to like it. It was my choice. OS X runs on Apple hardware. If I decided OS X was horrible, I'd either return the machine or put Yellowdog on it.

Just remember if you are running linux (which I do, and it isn't better than windows for 99.999% of people out there) you won't be able to do much of anything with multimedia, configuring hardware properly can take days and require recompiling your own kernel, there is no real game selection to talk about besides other 'smart' games and desktop games (a few 3D ones but they are ported source codes). Audio/Video production software doesn't exist, the kernel has no high transport method to decrease multimedia latency with specific hardware enabling this. You will also need to learn a very difficult permissions system, admin system, network service configuration system, windows management system and more.

Linux isn't for everyone, that's true. However, distro's such as Suse make it pretty easy. I personally find Linux to be more capable than Windows in the multimedia arena. As far as games go, you want to play games? Use Windows, that's what I do! Or buy a PS 3 when they arrive.

You're just as noobified as the rest of the apple fanboi's on this site. If you had really been computing all this time, you would understand that hardware should never matter. I mean your telling people to run linux, which can run on a 386 and is built to be scalable to multiple processors, architectures, and perform multitudes of tasks. Then you finish your statement by saying, oh yah - I just told everyone to use linux that has this giant openness too it, but I am as close minded as the rest of you and want to make sure this 1 flavor of BSD stays within our club and on our trendy designed, generic component, macs.

Wow! I'm n00bified. I feel so special. OSX isn't a BSD flavor, you should know that. It's a NEXTSTEP descendent with some BSD underpinnings. And it's Apple's. They can do whatever they want with it. Linux is released under the GPL, it's free. It's "mission" is to be everything for and on everything..That's great! I use it too.

OS X is Apple's, it's not free. Why is this a problem? Because you don't like it? I'm not closed minded about it at all. OS X is designed for Apple hardware. That's just the way it is. If Apple decided to open it up to run on any pc, it would garner not much more than a yawn from me.

I generally try to avoid the religious OS discussions, all operating systems have flaws, OS X included and they all have strengths. The OS is nothing more than a tool. Use the right tool for the right job.

-Lyserjic

 

[blumpy]

I am so SICK AND TIRED of people using the "Apple is a hardware company" argument. I guarantee that anyone making this assertion has not actually looked at their earnings report.

Look at this thread:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/143055/

Apple can more than make up for lost hardware sales (they wouldn't drop to zero!!) by huge increases in OS X (and other Apple SW) sales. In their earnings reports, Apple itself describes their software as "high margin". So please people, get off the "Apple will die if it licenses out OS X" mentality. There will always be snobs who just want a pretty computer - regardless of the price.

Apple is a hardware and software company. If you eliminate the hardware side of the company than the software side will triple it's prices and copy protect everything. Image what iLife would cost without the price of the hardware factored in?

 

[MonkeyClaw]

If apple only chooses such great equipment where are the SLI motherboards and multicore 64bit AMD chips? Your statement is just preaching from the hill to the choir, you just think that apple is giving you something special. Prove me wrong by providing a link to hardware that you can't purchase yourself. (other than the mobo/processor that apple holds so tight under wraps)

I don't need a link, most of the hardware is the same. But what Apple does is quality control. The control the hardware, it may be the same but they control what goes in and also their tolernances are much tighter for the quality of that stock hardware in comparison. That is what I meant, sorry for not making it clearer

 

[blumpy]

Unix is not free!

There are several implementations of Unix that are free/open source. OS X is not the only non-open source variance of Unix. There are many more that are proprietary mixed with open source.

 

[MeatBiProduct]

OS X is Apple's, it's not free. Why is this a problem? Because you don't like it? I'm not closed minded about it at all. OS X is designed for Apple hardware. That's just the way it is. If Apple decided to open it up to run on any pc, it would garner not much more than a yawn from me.

I generally try to avoid the religious OS discussions, all operating systems have flaws, OS X included and they all have strengths. The OS is nothing more than a tool. Use the right tool for the right job.

-Lyserjic

No ones asking for it to be free, in fact I've paid for linux (Red Hat Enterprise) for my own personal servers for web/home. OS X was designed for the powerpc CPU originally. The hardware is the exact same as PC. EIDE, SCSI, PCI, AGP, etc. There is no fundimental difference in the technology at all. Apple does not create the hardware, they have vendors manufacture it for them and they put a lock on the vendor from selling the exact same hardware out (so that you can't buy mac parts and build your own mac, apple has to do that). Apple does not manufacture any core component of their devices, they only have them assembled and their software installed on it. So sir, you are wrong and indeed a noob.

Now that Intel is powering all the new macs, and IBM laughed Apple off publicly, there is NOTHING different at ALL. The difference is the case and stickers on the hardware and the fact that Apple even locked Intel from selling core-duo (which is really a early version of the nextgen intel 64-bit multicores). That is why with just a software patch, OS X can now run on x86 equipment, without any set back. (Runs the same on P4 w/ SSE3 as on a powerpc chip).
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/180229/

So tell me what is the real difference? Nothing at all, other than the fact that Apple is making your choices for you (choosing the configuration and maximum power of your system).

 

[blumpy]

Apple designs it's hardware

Of course Apple designs their own hardware. They don't assemble it. Who else makes a computer with the same motherboard as the iMac Intel? MacBook Pro. The current crop of intel mac might be "off the shelf" parts but the design isn't.

Also, just an FYI. Apple designs chips. The vector processor in the G5 is Apples design. The i/o controller chip for the G5 (memory, PCI, etc) was an Apple chip design. Apple is sharing designs with Intel.

 

[MeatBiProduct]

Of course Apple designs their own hardware. They don't assemble it. Who else makes a computer with the same motherboard as the iMac Intel? MacBook Pro. The current crop of intel mac might be "off the shelf" parts but the design isn't.

Also, just an FYI. Apple designs chips. The vector processor in the G5 is Apples design. The i/o controller chip for the G5 (memory, PCI, etc) was an Apple chip design. Apple is sharing designs with Intel.

Apple didn't design the hard drive, the ram, the motherboard, the processor, the optical drives, the sound cards, or video cards. So what it did design is the case and where the hardware would be placed inside the machine and the software to operate it. (partially designed the O/S, mainly the O/S shell - not the underlying BSD snapshot it was started from that took nearly 25 years to create prior)

design and manufactuering are two different things. Dell designs its laptops, yet I wouldn't consider Dell = Apple, it's just another laptop. The vector processor, isn't hardware at all, it's software working with hardware on the powerpc chip created by IBM. It's an actual instruction set on the PowerPC cpu itself, not an additional piece of hardware. All CPU's have their own instruction sets, see 3DNow, SSE2, SSE3, MMX etc. etc. Btw, how come OS X runs fine on a cpu without this same instruction set and is advertised as running 4x faster on apples own website?

and no, apple is not sharing designs with intel, intel is a processor manufactuer and would be schooling apple on what is up. they wouldn't have went to intel if it was any other way, they could have just as easily "shared" this information to make the equipment "better" with IBM, their long time partner. Then they wouldn't have had to bring x86 into the picture which has been an Intel design since day 1. It would be the Intel PowerPC chip not the Intel x86 Core-Duo which is a scaled down 64-bit pc multicore scheduled for next year in the pc realm.

If Apple had designed the PowerPC chip, it wouldn't be for sale from IBM for other devices. (yes the same processor in the mac)
http://www-03.ibm.com/chips/power/powerpc/

G5 128-bit Velocity Engine
This powerful 128-bit vector processing unit accelerates data manipulation by applying a single instruction to multiple data at the same time, known as SIMD processing. Vector processing is useful for transforming large sets of data and other computationally intensive tasks, such as manipulating 3D images, rendering a video effect, encoding live media, or encrypting data. For example, when a designer uses a filter to apply a motion blur to an image, each pixel of the image must be changed according to the same set of instructions—a highly repetitive processing task.

The Velocity Engine on the PowerPC G5 has been optimized with two independent queues. It uses the same set of 162 instructions implemented in the PowerPC G4,enabling it to accelerate existing Mac OS X applications that have been optimized for the Velocity Engine. While operating concurrently with the integer and floating-point units, the Velocity Engine also supports highly parallel internal operations—for simulta-neous processing of up to 128 bits of data in four 32-bit integers, eight 16-bit integers,sixteen 8-bit integers, or four 32-bit single-precision floating-point values.

http://images.apple.com/powermac/pdf/PowerPCG5_WP_06092004.pdf

http://www.apple.com/powermac/dualcore.html

If you want to see what apple designs they have an entire section for it:

http://www.apple.com/powermac/design.html

Rather impressive isn't it....

What I would say is to actually read up on what your buying and not just take the word of mouth you seem to be operating off of.

 

[blumpy]

Um.... NO

Wrong

The AIM Apple IBM Motorola designed the G4 and then IBM and Apple the G5. The memory controller for the G5 was designed by Apple built by IBM. Intel will be collaborating with Apple on future chip designs.

Apple does not manufacture any hardware, but they design a great deal. Besides that, case designs influence motherboard designs. Hence the Macmini, imac, powerbooks, Xserver........

 

[cyberddot]

... Apple is sharing designs with Intel.

Having only recently come from a tour of labs at an Intel campus here in the NW -- which included a view of the door that lead to the "Apple lab", and the tiny list of people allowed to enter the room -- Apple is probably sharing more than sticker and case designs.

What do I know? I'm a Wintel user that finds that Apple makes products that I like spending money on occasionally. I'm betting that those offering business advice to Jobs and the other foolishly successful people at Apple are not able to bring life experience in business to the conversation, but thanks for the theory(ies).

3%...5%...whatever the marketshare is currently...it is all Apple's to squander as they will. Good luck Mr. Jobs. According to the 1337 labeler's of we dirty few...you sir, are going to fail.

dot

 

[jakemikey]

Apple is a hardware and software company. If you eliminate the hardware side of the company than the software side will triple it's prices and copy protect everything. Image what iLife would cost without the price of the hardware factored in?

You didn't read the thread I referenced, did you? Apple makes a tidy profit on the software by itself. Software has a much higher margin than HW, and the profit in dollars between HW and SW is in the same ballpark. Apple's HW DOES NOT subsidise their software. SW profit would increase by more volume, not by higher proces.

BTW I never suggested eliminating Apple's HW business.

 

[MeatBiProduct]

Wrong

The AIM Apple IBM Motorola designed the G4 and then IBM and Apple the G5. The memory controller for the G5 was designed by Apple built by IBM. Intel will be collaborating with Apple on future chip designs.

Apple does not manufacture any hardware, but they design a great deal. Besides that, case designs influence motherboard designs. Hence the Macmini, imac, powerbooks, Xserver........

if apple designed it how come the manufactuer holds the rights and patents and advertises it as an IBM product. The apple influence went a little something like this:

APPLE: Hey IBM, you know that new powerpc chip your making us?
IBM: Yah, what about it?
APPLE: Well we need an instruction set that will allow us to enable software developers to apply the same computation to an array of values for graphical purposes.
IBM: Ok we think we can do that, anything else?
APPLE: No - thanks for the help.

Years later, Apple leaves IBM behind for some reason, IBM still has the powerpc chip for sale, with the same instruction set. For sale right now, on its website and advertising to run linux on it. Go view the link I posted above and read.

Now do you think if Apple invested all it's time, millions of dollars, and effort into designing such an awesome CPU, that they would just allow IBM to wonder off with it? If you ask me this processor could be worth millions and if your hardware sales is all that is keeping you alive, loosing it could cost billions. To bad that IBM created it and owns all of the rights. After apple closed their contract it was fair game.

Also, memory and I/O management, is software on a hardware component built to a standard - not hardware design. Otherwise you wouldn't be using DDR you would be using something like iRAM.

In order to design hardware and processors it takes a lot more resources than what apple has - their costs of design alone would eat up all of their sales. Take a look at what goes into making a processor, there are lots of books, articles, and even documentarys.

 

[blumpy]

I'm not suggesting....

You didn't read the thread I referenced, did you? Apple makes a tidy profit on the software by itself. Software has a much higher margin than HW, and the profit in dollars between HW and SW is in the same ballpark. Apple's HW DOES NOT subsidise their software. SW profit would increase by more volume, not by higher proces.

BTW I never suggested eliminating Apple's HW business.

I'm not suggesting that Apple doesn't make a profit from it's software. However, if you buy a mac it comes with iLife. I content that iLife and other such apps were created to sell the computer and not the OS. At $100 for the OS, that's pretty cheap compared to MS. Apple would raise it's prices to a similar level as MS if it did not make money from it's hardware.

It's about integration. iPod with iTunes, Mac OS with Mac computer.

 

[windmaomao]

it may not be stealing but you are definitely violating something. by the way... you have to tell us all why would a doctor give a license agreement to his patient. that is very very very interesting because it is the very first time I have heard of it.

WHEN YOU BUY SOMETHING, YOU GET EVERYTHING THAT COMES WITH IT, ESPECIALLY RULES AND REGULATIONS

it's because the doctor try to protect his patient from getting hurt, and don't want to support it 'cause the leg is not water proof. It's exactly the point I want to make how ridiculous the agreement is

You'll also need to repurchase it for each ear you wish to listen with.

oh, i got it, as long as they can reproduce everything on one ear, I'll only pay one copy.

Some of the beauty behind the OS is that Apple has very strict quality control tolerances. By choosing the hardware that goes into their machines, they can control the way the OS functions and reacts. A Mac is not simply the OS, it is the hardware. Without one, you can't have the other perform like its supposed to.

Thats why you pay a little more because in return you are given a complete working model of efficiency. If Apple started slapping OS X on every Dell regardless of hardware, stuff would go wrong, and the model that Apple has worked long and hard to make would be broken.

Thats why right now it is useless to install OS X on a PC because while some stuff is possible, the model has been broken therefore rendering the OS rather crippled. If you want OS X, then buy a Mac, it's that simple.

Oh by the way everyone, I'm new here Great forums you have going, I've been reading them for some time now and thought I would like to make a contribution in some small way, lol.

that's why I was saying that they should start a service charge people to build their computer for 200$ for example and put an apple sticker on it. They can install whatever sh** they think is better for the user, ex OSX. But it's a service when we are talking about things others than apple cases.

Analogy:

You lease a car. It's new. Included in the lease price is oil changes and basic maintenance (tire rotation, etc.). Is it free? If you didn't lease the car, do you still get the service by just paying for the price of the oil and not the service?

Answer: No

This isn't the same as buying a Xbox and not being able to use the hardware as an anchor/paperweight/serving plate. You own the hardware, not the software.

You have to buy the computer to use the software.

Answer: Yes,
I still can draw the oil for other purpuse. Ex, light my house, would they care how I eventually used the oil?
It's not free or not what we are talking about. It's about after payment, where and how we be able to use it!!

 

[blumpy]

Answer: Yes,
I still can draw the oil for other purpuse. Ex, light my house, would they care how I eventually used the oil?
It's not free or not what we are talking about. It's about after payment, where and how we be able to use it!!

Obviously you don't understand the analogy.

 

[jakemikey]

Apple would raise it's prices to a similar level as MS if it did not make money from it's hardware.

You keep making this assertion, but you have absolutely no evidence or precedent to back it up. Your assumption requires that 1) Apple loses basically all hardware sales as a result of licensing and 2) by licensing OS X, it would not gain any additional sales of OS X, but would have to offset net losses by raising prices of software. That makes absolutely no sense. Any loss of hardware sales would definitely be offset by gains in software sales - and software development costs remain fixed, so those extra sales are pure profit. So if these extra sales are pure profit, please explain to me why Apple would *have* to raise their software prices.

It's about integration. iPod with iTunes, Mac OS with Mac computer.

Man, you've bought the Apple PR machine hype hook, line, and sinker. What you call integration is just artificial constraints - forcing software to run only on specific, limited hardware when its potential is so much more. Mac OS X runs just as well on 80%+ of modern commodity PCs as it does on a Mac, something I know first hand.

If Apple wants sustained growth, they have to look outside PC hardware. With the Intel transition, they've entered a cutthroat market where they'll be crucified price-wise. They'd be able to double software sales through licensing far easier than they could double hardware sales of overpriced hardware in a commodity market.

 

[nataku]

Ah, well, than perhaps your 'licenSe agreements' are something different from the licence agreements Apple provides me with*. I really don't see the connection between the inventions worth billions you mention and trying to prevent people from using the property the way they want and I really don't see the abuse connection. Would you care to elaborate on that?

By the way, I have no objection against buying Apple products. In fact, I'm sitting behind my Power Mac G4 here right now, with my PowerBook G4 lying next to me. They're great machines and they were both well worth their money. I just don't want Apple deciding what hardware I can and cannot use.

* It's really spelt 'licence', 'license' is a verb.

look man. i have already made an analogy about this (the religious books) If you want to be a big company, you have to keep people coming back to you for your new stuff. you make your product for a specific purpose,to be able to operate an Apple-built computer, and a specific audience, who are the Mac users. People who try to make the Mac OS run on their PC are clearly too cheap to buy a Mac. As I said in almost all of my posts in this thread:

"WHEN YOU BUY SOMETHING, YOU GET EVERYTHING THAT COMES WITH IT"

plain and simple. don't force the issue anymore. there is nothing you can do to change Apple's mind. it is a reality of life. you have to deal with it.

it's because the doctor try to protect his patient from getting hurt, and don't want to support it 'cause the leg is not water proof. It's exactly the point I want to make how ridiculous the agreement is

wow. i did not understand anything that you said. Whatever it is, if you hate Apple for imposing such a rule on your Mac, then maybe you should stop using a Mac. You keep telling how ridiculous the agreement is. There is nothing you can do anyway.

By the way, YOU CANNOT CALL IT A LICENSE AGREEMENT. Please look up the meaning of License in the dictionary.

 

[gwangung]

You keep making this assertion, but you have absolutely no evidence or precedent to back it up. Your assumption requires that 1) Apple loses basically all hardware sales as a result of licensing and 2) by licensing OS X, it would not gain any additional sales of OS X, but would have to offset net losses by raising prices of software. That makes absolutely no sense. Any loss of hardware sales would definitely be offset by gains in software sales - and software development costs remain fixed, so those extra sales are pure profit.

That's an assumption on your part., and ignores that sales and marketing support would have to be retooled and redeployed for a software basis. It also ignores the math.

Remember that sales of software would not have to match losses of hardware sales one for one....it would have to at least quadruple to match the loss in revenues--the discounts for large lot sales of hardware means much larger sales that have to be made for software.

Let's do the math here. Say Apple has a 50% margin on software. So a sale of OSX would have an operating profit of about $65. Say Apple has a 25% margin on hardware. The cheapest iBook is $1000. Operating profit is $250. To match the lost revenue of just the cheapest ibook, they would have to at least sell four times as many copies of OS X. Hm. Wonder what you would have to do to replace the revenue from a top of the line Quad PC?

I think you're waaaayyyyy underestimating the difficulties here of transitioning to a sales model where you have to quadruple (at the very least and probably a lot more) your system sales.