To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RichterKuato,
"They gimp their versions to get people to pay more. They design obsoletence into their software."
Yes, that's where they cross the line into unethical territory in my opinion. (Not saying that they're alone, mind you).
It's one thing to leave out features which are in the higher versions like VPN security and network file sharing. But to actually spend *more* R&D to deliberately make it *worse* than it would have been, that's distasteful.
Apple offers Quicktime Pro for which users have to pay to unlock "Pro" (give me a break) features of Quicktime Player. For years, one of those "pro" features users had to pay to unlock was simply the ability to play a video at full screen size. lol
It's not like MS is the only one that does "gimps" features to get users to pay to "ungimp" said features.
As for "building in obsolesence", Microsoft supports their software for long periods of time (too long, lots of the bashers say). Apple's policy is to support only the latest two iterations of OS X. If you have a version older than that, you get no support, no bug fixes, no security updates; can't even run the latest version of Safari. And Apple's policy regarding much of their OS X software (like iLife and iWork) is for their latest versions to run only on the most recent two OSX releases, arbitrarily so, just to force you to upgrade the OS in order to run the latest versions of those apps. Yet Apple gets a free pass from the "tech geek" crowd.
While MS supports XP for 14 years and gets villified for building in "obsolesence", Apple supports any given version of OSX for about 2 years only, and gets praised to the heights. Funny, that.
Edited 2012-03-03 19:29 UTC





Member since:
2010-05-14
They gimp their versions to get people to pay more. They design obsoletence into their software. So buying their products feels more like paying a service fee. They only innovate too keep their monopoly rather than to you know improve customer satisfaction. They keep putting more of these little checks in to their software to test if you're payed for it.
I wouldn't know any of this if I'd just bought a PC from the big computer companies like Dell, HP etc. But years ago when they were much more expensive I got one off Ebay. Which is how I first heard about Windows' licensing since the one that was installed was already in use. That's why if given the choice I'll buy a device that doesn't have Microsoft's software installed on it. Which in turn is why I don't like PC's.