Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Oct 2009 12:51 UTC
Editorial A couple of years ago, a professor at my university had a very interesting thought exchange with the class I was in. We were a small group, and I knew most of them, they were my friends. Anyway, we had a talk about language purism - not an unimportant subject if you study English in The Netherlands.
Thread beginning with comment 391139
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:


The "how" was described in that part of my post that you didn't quote.

What would be their incentive?

If it's profitable, that's usually incentive enough for publicly-traded companies like Apple. There's also the incentive of increasing the OS X userbase/marketshare while letting someone else do the grunt work of selling the individual machines.

Apple is already making more money than any other OEM.

What relevance does that have? Their goal as a business is to make as much money as possible - not to simply make more money than their competitors.

So what would drive Apple to license OS X to other OEMs? It's not gonna be money. I don't see what else.

If they were to do it, I'm sure it be done in a strategically-careful way, Apple being Apple. Partnering with the right OEM could help get Apple into markets where OS X has almost no presence, E.g. commercial hosting.

OS X is an advantage they have built for themselves (anybody could have taken a *BSD or Linux flavor and done the same).

Anybody? I take you meant "anybody with a few hundred million dollars lying around to buy the underlying technology and the company that developed it"?

Why would they give it up for scraps?

Is that some sort of dry, subtle satire on the elitist Mac user stereotype? Or are you seriously trying to imply that all users of non-Apple computers are "scraps"?

Reply Parent Score: 3