Rather, the true reason is that Apple is a hardware vendor, not a software vendor. Think Sun for a good example in this vein. Apple will never, ever do anything to undercut its hardware sales, even if that is the most sensible move it could make.
That is unfortunate. Mac OS X users have *every* reason to buy MacTel, but Windows users? I think not. Concisely, MacTel is too bloody expensive. There exists a considerable array of less exorbitant sexy machines on the market, primarily from the Japanese vendors. Only someone who really wants the sexiness of Mac OS X combined with the sexy Apple hardware would pay Apple's premiums.
However, when you can run Windows applications on that Apple hardware, what is the motivation to write applications for Mac OS X? There are is but a small number of vendors truly committed to Mac OS X. All others will definitely review their plans for the next rev of their Mac OS X release. I remain unconvinced that this was a smart move on the part of Apple - given that Apple will never license, open source, or otherwise give away Mac OS X.
Oracle's bid for MySQL was not an attempt to gain greater coverage in markets where Oracle already plays, but rather another attempt to break into the "pocket database" (small end/developers database) niche, where the company has yet to find success. Cannibalism thus can never apply - Oracle is simply not selling its prior attempts at a pocket database, and its successful products neither target nor are purchased by the same people who would seek out MySQL.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather, the true reason is that Apple is a hardware vendor, not a software vendor. Think Sun for a good example in this vein. Apple will never, ever do anything to undercut its hardware sales, even if that is the most sensible move it could make.
That is unfortunate. Mac OS X users have *every* reason to buy MacTel, but Windows users? I think not. Concisely, MacTel is too bloody expensive. There exists a considerable array of less exorbitant sexy machines on the market, primarily from the Japanese vendors. Only someone who really wants the sexiness of Mac OS X combined with the sexy Apple hardware would pay Apple's premiums.
However, when you can run Windows applications on that Apple hardware, what is the motivation to write applications for Mac OS X? There are is but a small number of vendors truly committed to Mac OS X. All others will definitely review their plans for the next rev of their Mac OS X release. I remain unconvinced that this was a smart move on the part of Apple - given that Apple will never license, open source, or otherwise give away Mac OS X.
Oracle's bid for MySQL was not an attempt to gain greater coverage in markets where Oracle already plays, but rather another attempt to break into the "pocket database" (small end/developers database) niche, where the company has yet to find success. Cannibalism thus can never apply - Oracle is simply not selling its prior attempts at a pocket database, and its successful products neither target nor are purchased by the same people who would seek out MySQL.