Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 31st Jul 2008 22:03 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 325425
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
OK, but making the reasonable assumption that none of the people who are buying clones would be buying Apple's hardware in any event, I still fail to see how it harms Apple. I am, of course, speaking of people who have bought and paid for the OS not unbridled piracy.
That's a pretty big assumption to make; maybe they would have bought a Mac, but saw the clone was cheaper. The clone market is tiny right now, but if it became legitimised it's possible it could grow to be reasonably large—large enough to be problematic for Apple. Remember what the clones did to IBM, after all?
Personally, I consider my copies of Mac OS X to be subsidised in part by the hardware, and in practice retail copies are “Upgrade” versions, because every Mac sold similarly at retail already ships with a licensed version, and the license tells me I can't install it on anything else (I have, but the user experience and hassle of installing it on a Dell laptop was so poor I ended up re-installing XP on it and letting my Macs be the ones to run Mac OS X). Whether this is true, right now, in legal terms or not, I don't know. It's possible that Apple missed a trick, but they can always change the license terms to require that you must have a previously-licensed full version of Mac OS X in order to install retail copies and never actually sell them (or sell them at a much higher cost to cover the lost hardware sales).
Despite what some think, I can't for the life of me see why it's possibly in Apple's interests to “go mainstream” with Mac OS X: ask anybody who's done low-level hacking on an operating system kernel how much of a pain in the ass differing hardware configurations are; Apple already supports a fair number of its own, without having to deal with the multitude of unknown combinations customers might throw at it. There's a misapprehension that Apple clearly wants to have Mac OS X running on every desktop it can—perhaps it does, but not if the hardware isn't made by Apple; that route just isn't profitable (and frankly, Apple's business decisions haven't exactly done its shareholders a disservice since Jobs got back to the helm and put a stop to the Mac clones the first time around).




Member since:
2005-07-08
OK, but making the reasonable assumption that none of the people who are buying clones would be buying Apple's hardware in any event, I still fail to see how it harms Apple. I am, of course, speaking of people who have bought and paid for the OS not unbridled piracy.
As far as price goes, Leopard is for sale on Amazon for $120 while vista ultimate upgrade is $185. Vista home premium upgrade is $95. I chose upgrade prices since we are discussing a situation where that is the equivalent since if you have apple hardware by definition you must have purchased their OS as well. If you want to discuss OEM prices, the ones on newegg are similar to these prices. An Ubuntu ship-it cd is $0.00. In any event, given these prices, the idea that Apple is giving their OS away for a song while the competition is bankrupting their customers is obviously bogus.
Now, all this said, I don't have an agenda here at all. I was just interested in discussion that wasn't knee-jerk level "PYSTAR FTW!!!" or "APPLE FTW!!!" w/o some discourse.