On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:23:00 -0700, ZnU wrote
(in article <znu-12A819.02230012052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
> In article <hdif24d93f2kfp7orjlu0jqm86pvn9sv5b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 00:33:16 -0400, ZnU <znu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <c4ff24118noq8u1folg89ukigeq1m6e7nq@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:03:34 -0400, ZnU <znu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <GHKVj.2487$ah4.231@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>>> "John Slade" <hhitman86@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The reason why OS X market share will remain small is becaue Apple
>>>>>> only wants to make it for a tiny segment of the computer market.
>>>>>> That being the Mac. If it was available to every other PC, it
>>>>>> might catch on and more companies would write software for it. As
>>>>>> it is now, it's just a niche OS.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've asked this question quite a lot previously, but I'll ask it
>>>>> again:
>>>>>
>>>>> Precisely what is supposed to be so much more compelling about OS X
>>>>> on, for instance, a Dell, vs. OS X on a Mac?
>>>>
>>>> The price of the HW...duh!
>>>
>>> OK, but as I've also mentioned many times before, it would be far
>>> easier for Apple to get OS X on cheaper machines by simply offering
>>> cheaper Macs than by attempting to sup****t a substantial fraction of
>>> the hardware out there in the generic x86 world.
>>
>> I think the desire for MacOS X on generic HW largely stems from the
>> realization that Apple isn't going to do that.
>
> Apple is more likely to ****p cheaper Macs than to officially offer OS X
> for non-Apple hardware, so that doesn't make much sense.
>
> I rather suspect most people who call for OS X on generic x86 hardware
> just haven't considered the logistics of sup****ting generic hardware vs.
> simply selling cheaper Macs. The rest are simply people who believe
> multi-vendor hardware platforms are inherently good, usually for some
> reason that isn't relevant to most users or to current market
conditions.
>
>
You're right. It would cost them a lot more to sup****t OSX on generic
Winboxes than it would probably cost them to make a really cheap Mac (and
even sell it as a loss-leader). But I don't see them ever doing that,
either.
Its just not Apple's style and let's face it, they don't have to despite
our
resident Windroids' protestations to the contrary. But, certainly they
could
if they wanted to. Look at the Apple TV. Its "almost" a complete computer
with HDD and memory, and it sells for less than US$250.
|
