4 ms·

Sure, because it's obviously better to use closed, proprietary hardware from a single source than one that's not just open to global competition but lets you bu

• Razengan 11y ago
  Like I said, I was born in an era where there were many "closed" proprietary platforms, like the Commodore 64. It's not necessarily bad, it's just a different philosophy; some prefer computers to be appliances, like their TV or refrigerator, that "just work." Others prefer computers to be DIY-servicable machines, like cars, that require active and regular maintenance but can be improved if one is so inclined. Just because all the "appliance computer" manufacturers almost went out of business going into the 1990s, doesn't mean that philosophy failed, and the recent resurgence of Macs has proven as much. I suspect in an alternate universe/timeline with slightly different twists of fate, the IBM PC has died instead and closed proprietary hardware is the dominant paradigm.
  • scholia 11y ago
    > It's not necessarily bad It is necessarily bad if you make yourself (or, more important) your business totally dependent on somebody who is a monopoly supplier. > doesn't mean that philosophy failed, and the recent resurgence of Macs has proven as much. I think all the proprietary systems failed, and there were dozens if not hundreds of them. Apple was the only significant survivor, mainly for pseudo-religious reasons. The only areas where proprietary systems survived are in mainframes (perpetuation of IBM monopoly) and in games consoles (where hardware can be sold at a loss). If the IBM PC had died, the world of CP/M would have continued.... > the recent resurgence of Macs has proven as much Not really. The recent resurgence is mainly due to the fact that its lack of serious and/or business software is not the barrier it was when (a) most people can do most things online and (b) it has Unix underneath.
• pikachu_is_cool 11y ago
  Hackintosh.