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 371579
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: It's just common sense.
by kaiwai on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 15:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's just common sense."
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Dell and other OEMs are happily shipping Ubuntu on their hardware, which requires a similar amount of "control" in respect of the hardware they select. Why would it suddenly be different for Apple? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that Dell would fall over themselves if Apple offered them to option to ship OS X on their machines.


What have they done for Ubuntu? there are still the same incompatibilities; they still are choosing to ship BroadCom even though their drivers are shonky, they continue to provide ATI GPU's with Linux laptop seven though the drivers are more or less a joke. Then there is the firmware itself - where as a nice, clean and efficient UEFI would do, they hobble it with a buggy BIOS.

I'd say that Dell did the least amount humanly possible.

I have no idea if that was aimed at me or just a general comment, but it's bizarre reasoning on your part either way.


It was a general comment; the feeling I get from some people here is if they can't get something - they'd sooner see Apple get destroyed. Its akin to saying, "I really want a Ferrari, but because they don't provide a cheap one or allow cheap clones - I want the to go bust instead". Call it the extension of the, "I want now" syndrome.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3