Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 31st Jul 2008 22:03 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 325265
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Finally someone
.
Apple does not want OS X running on 3rd party hardware, because that would be a mess to support. And even without support, it would be bad for them from marketing POV. People would run it on unexpected HW combinations and sometimes it would not work. People would complain and an idea "OS X does not work on ...." would fly around.
Apple does not want that, I believe.
Finally someone
. Apple does not want OS X running on 3rd party hardware, because that would be a mess to support. And even without support, it would be bad for them from marketing POV. People would run it on unexpected HW combinations and sometimes it would not work. People would complain and an idea "OS X does not work on ...." would fly around. Apple does not want that, I believe.
. Apple does not want OS X running on 3rd party hardware, because that would be a mess to support. And even without support, it would be bad for them from marketing POV. People would run it on unexpected HW combinations and sometimes it would not work. People would complain and an idea "OS X does not work on ...." would fly around. Apple does not want that, I believe. Exactly. More to wit: "OSX does not work! OSX Sucks!" would fly around and would, ultimately, hurt Apple.
People would expect Apple to make OSX work with the infinate combinations that people expect Microsoft's OSs to work with.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with Apple's approach. They treat their set up as an application and as a result have a very decent reputation for having a 'solid' platform. Given that, why would they want to sully it by exposing themselves to such a headache? Course, I am a PC guy, but that has more to do with my current Music and Gaming software investments than anything else.




Member since:
2008-04-10
On one hand, I hope Psystar win, simply because I like to see regulations like this destroyed. If I bought a copy of OS X, I'd like to be able to install it on anything. Apple still get their money from the sale of OS X, and what I do with it shouldn't concern them. However, poking out of my other sleeve is the predictable other hand. I think Apple's stance on only supporting the hardware they choose and doing it (for the most part) well is quite a reasonable stance to take. I think the middle ground here would be letting people install OS X on whatever they want but not providing tech support for people on unapproved hardware; which is kind of what happens with Hackintoshes already. Throw in a disclaimer that software updates may break existing functionality, and that's already more than most software providers would do.
Edited 2008-08-01 09:56 UTC