2 ms·

They were not wrong in terms of what had to be done to make the OC platform the dominant one, except they didn't get to profit from the PC business for too long

• toyg 3y ago
  And Apple almost died because of that opposition to openness. They only returned to profitability once they promised to be as open as everyone else: having intel processors and a standard Unix userland. (They then got filthy rich by effectively pivoting to portable computing, a world where openness and standardization were never essential.)
  • lmm 3y ago
    > And Apple almost died because of that opposition to openness. They only returned to profitability once they promised to be as open as everyone else: having intel processors and a standard Unix userland. Not really. The brief time when they allowed what we would now call "hackintoshes" was when they came closest to dying. They adopted intel processors for cost reasons, but went out of their way to keep their system "different". (And IIRC that was after they'd recovered to healthy profitability on the back of the iMacs and iPod)
  • qwytw 3y ago
    > They only returned to profitability once they promised to be as open as everyone else: having intel They were profitable in the early 2000s with PowerPC and they probably would've stayed on it had it remained competitive with Intel.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]