Star Why Do We Claim Mac OS X Is Subsidised at Retail?
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 11:27 UTC
Mac OS X Whenever we talk about Mac clone makers such as Psystar, we all more or less accept as a fact that Apple is selling copies of its Mac OS X operating system at a price lower than it would have been if Apple did not have a hardware business. Even though we treat this statement as fact - recently, I've been wondering: where is the proof?
E-mail Print r 0   · Read More · 85 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/gsr
Permalink for comment 371552
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: It's just common sense.
by kaiwai on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 13:45 UTC in reply to "RE: It's just common sense."
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Why do you think that? Surely if Apple were not a hardware company[1] they would license OS X to OEMs. They could stand to make much more money selling software this way, and there would be a corresponding saving in not have to design their own computers.

[1]: By "hardware" I'm referring to computers only. Devices such as the iPod & iPhone are a different class of device.


But to maintain a high quality it would involve a massive amount of control when it comes to licensing and many OEM's would simply refuse. How many OEM's right now have flat out refused to move to UEFI? On the issue of UEFI alone it epitomises the PC industries refusal to move beyond 30 years ago - why would Apple want to put up with that crap?

I can see it now, Apple would say, "ok, you need to do this, this, and this" and we would have whiners on here complaining that Apple's demands are too stringent. Its a no win situation with some idiots on this website - what it is all about is envy and jealousy. I can't have that product so I'd sooner see the company get destroyed instead.

Edited 2009-07-03 13:46 UTC

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2