There is another aspect. By giving rewards that were not expected, there is no judgement as whether Apple was fair or not.
They gave a gift to whomever they thought deserved it. Since nobody was expecting anything, nobody can complain about unfairness.
There is no metric on how much to give, how soon, or to whom.
X-Prizes are different in this aspect too.
Charities, country aid, etc. I am wondering, what makes a state more efficient at capturing money through taxes, than microsoft or buffet?
If these guys do as they say, fine with me.. At the end they are taking money from the system, and giving it back to the system.
Gates was telling about giving away his fortune when he turned 40 at some point. It seems that he is doing that, but gradually.
I am usually a M$ basher, but on this, he seems to be right, as long as he sees himself as a redistribution means. AFAIK his work is more efficient than the one run by the UN
Part of Apple's problem is the lack of installed base. Not only there are not enough applications, but also there are not enough users that know and love OSX.
If letting PCs run OSX (original or pirated) is going to increase the installed base by wooing users like me (who have never owned a Mac) to actually try and learn OSX, so be it!
Once the OS gets momentum, by stealing some market on the linux side (because not all of us are smart enough to learn terminal lingo, but still trust on unix), and some on the PC side (because most of us are sick of M$), they can launch OS XI, and get a little more demanding on hardware requirements (what? your PC doesnt handle superHDTV with 18 sound channels?)
Sure a OSX PC will be less stable, and/or less capable than the real deal. Some of us will choose to go high end, and buy Apple's hardware, others will choose to stay on the cheap side, and deal some glitches. The market will do an auto-segmentation!
Slashdot Mirror
There is another aspect. By giving rewards that were not expected, there is no judgement as whether Apple was fair or not. They gave a gift to whomever they thought deserved it. Since nobody was expecting anything, nobody can complain about unfairness. There is no metric on how much to give, how soon, or to whom. X-Prizes are different in this aspect too.
Charities, country aid, etc. I am wondering, what makes a state more efficient at capturing money through taxes, than microsoft or buffet?
If these guys do as they say, fine with me.. At the end they are taking money from the system, and giving it back to the system.
Gates was telling about giving away his fortune when he turned 40 at some point. It seems that he is doing that, but gradually.
I am usually a M$ basher, but on this, he seems to be right, as long as he sees himself as a redistribution means. AFAIK his work is more efficient than the one run by the UN
If letting PCs run OSX (original or pirated) is going to increase the installed base by wooing users like me (who have never owned a Mac) to actually try and learn OSX, so be it!
Once the OS gets momentum, by stealing some market on the linux side (because not all of us are smart enough to learn terminal lingo, but still trust on unix), and some on the PC side (because most of us are sick of M$), they can launch OS XI, and get a little more demanding on hardware requirements (what? your PC doesnt handle superHDTV with 18 sound channels?)
Sure a OSX PC will be less stable, and/or less capable than the real deal. Some of us will choose to go high end, and buy Apple's hardware, others will choose to stay on the cheap side, and deal some glitches. The market will do an auto-segmentation!