are their degrees of success? I would agree with that and the point of my original post. Apple is not some benevolent, loveable company acting out the best interest of the user, they are just as greedy and shady as M$, their only M$ is a lot better at being a greedy monopoly.
They sue every company that makes a PC the same color or size as a Mac
Uh, it's called "trade dress," and they were certainly right to do it for some of those blatant iMac ripoffs. Same with the Aqua skins for Windows-- because there are plenty of people in this country who'd be dumb enough to think that a Windows machine with that skin was actually running OS X, and would develop a negative opinion of OS X as a result. If you don't think people in this country are sufficiently dumb for that to happen, I've got two words for you: WWE. NASCAR.
Apple.com is where I would look for the dumbest people. Letâ(TM)s pay twice as much for weaker hardware just because the icon moves when you mouse over it. Thatâ(TM)s all they offer. Granted their interface looks great, but too bad there isnâ(TM)t any software to run on it.
And most atrocious is their taking of open source software in the form of using Darwin for the under lying Mac OS along with other system tools and don't give back to the open source community by releasing the Aqua interface to the open source world. Seems like if you're going to take, you should also give back.
Uh, Aqua is one of the major things that makes a Mac a Mac. Apple was in a five year long lawsuit over the look and feel of their OS, and now you think they're just gonna give it to the Linux herd? Puhleeze! Furthermore, if you want examples of Apple "giving back," look at Safari.
Kind of makes my point. They had no problem taking all the system functionality from the open source world, all they things they would have to spend big piles of money on developing if it werenâ(TM)t for open source so in return they retain control of the only object of value they own. Where is the X86 version of Safari?
just imagine what they could do if they released Mac OS to the x86 world?
Uh, they'd go out of business in about six months to a year, because you cheap fucks wouldn't buy Apple hardware if you could avoid it. Get this fact through your thick fucking skull, moron: Apple is a HARDWARE company. Their software is what sells their hardware. Their hardware sales are what fund their software R&D. You remove half of that equation and Apple ceases to exist.
The Aqua interface makes a Mac a Mac according to you, yet they are a hardware company? Wouldnâ(TM)t great hardware make a Mac a Mac if it were a hardware company? They do have cool looking cases to pull more form over function types into their fold, but if you consider cases hardware, then youâ(TM)re an ido er, um typical Mac user. They use Aqua to force people to buy their overly expensive hardware because they donâ(TM)t other businesses competing with them. Sounds like another big company based in Redmond.
BTW, please tell us if you think Apple hardware is still crap after June 23, when they release the 970-based machines.
Next to the 64 bit x86 machines it will be. I guess that great hardware is why so much of the desktop publishing industry in moving to the PC platform.
I'm not a zealot of any OS, use both Linux and Windows, but Apple seems just as shady as Microsoft, they're just not as good at it. Apple wonâ(TM)t sell their operating system for none Apple hardware, hell they don't even allow companies to make Macs the way any manufacturer can make and sell IBM compatible hardware. They sue every company that makes a PC the same color or size as a Mac and have copyrighted the name Apple (the word Apple was never used before 1980?). And most atrocious is their taking of open source software in the form of using Darwin for the under lying Mac OS along with other system tools and don't give back to the open source community by releasing the Aqua interface to the open source world. Seems like if you're going to take, you should also give back. I'm not claiming M$ isn't as bad as a company as some here think, but simply don't understand the love affair with Mac. In my opinion they are equally if not more an unethical company as Microsoft. Theyâ(TM)re just not as successful for theyâ(TM)re too afraid or incompetent to make Mac OS available to the X86 world and allow other manufactures to make Mac compatible hardware. They did something right by moving to a *nix kernel, so theyâ(TM)ve just expanded the software that run on Macs by 100, but just imagine what they could do if they released Mac OS to the x86 world? How long would it be before they were the dominate OS? The power and stability of UNIX and the eye candy of Apple would be a hard combination to beat. But theyâ(TM)re too greedy and too short sighted to release it. Mac OS is the only reason people by their hardware for its less powerful and much more expensive than PC equivalents, so if they did open up the Mac OS to the PC world, then they would most likely shift to a software only company. Would they make more selling just software than they do now? Iâ(TM)d bet they could take on M$ and be much more successful.
Slashdot Mirror
My book on maintaing a cluster of 0-1 nodes will be out next month.
are their degrees of success? I would agree with that and the point of my original post. Apple is not some benevolent, loveable company acting out the best interest of the user, they are just as greedy and shady as M$, their only M$ is a lot better at being a greedy monopoly.
I'm not a zealot of any OS, use both Linux and Windows, but Apple seems just as shady as Microsoft, they're just not as good at it. Apple wonâ(TM)t sell their operating system for none Apple hardware, hell they don't even allow companies to make Macs the way any manufacturer can make and sell IBM compatible hardware. They sue every company that makes a PC the same color or size as a Mac and have copyrighted the name Apple (the word Apple was never used before 1980?). And most atrocious is their taking of open source software in the form of using Darwin for the under lying Mac OS along with other system tools and don't give back to the open source community by releasing the Aqua interface to the open source world. Seems like if you're going to take, you should also give back. I'm not claiming M$ isn't as bad as a company as some here think, but simply don't understand the love affair with Mac. In my opinion they are equally if not more an unethical company as Microsoft. Theyâ(TM)re just not as successful for theyâ(TM)re too afraid or incompetent to make Mac OS available to the X86 world and allow other manufactures to make Mac compatible hardware. They did something right by moving to a *nix kernel, so theyâ(TM)ve just expanded the software that run on Macs by 100, but just imagine what they could do if they released Mac OS to the x86 world? How long would it be before they were the dominate OS? The power and stability of UNIX and the eye candy of Apple would be a hard combination to beat. But theyâ(TM)re too greedy and too short sighted to release it. Mac OS is the only reason people by their hardware for its less powerful and much more expensive than PC equivalents, so if they did open up the Mac OS to the PC world, then they would most likely shift to a software only company. Would they make more selling just software than they do now? Iâ(TM)d bet they could take on M$ and be much more successful.