2 ms·

> You realize that when you get an osx license it says it is only valid when run on apple hardware right? Yes, that is exactly my point. > This isn't that big

> You realize that when you get an osx license it says it is only valid when run on apple hardware right? Yes, that is exactly my point. > This isn't that big of a deal It's a big deal to me. It's the only operating system that I know of that I can't legally run on my computer. All I'm saying is that I wish that Apple were more focused on creating the best products they can and letting people use them, rather than erecting artificial walls to keep people in and out.

shurcooL 13y ago
> All I'm saying is that I wish that Apple were more focused > on creating the best products they can and letting people > use them, rather than erecting artificial walls to keep > people in and out. It's ironic because that's precisely what they're doing yet you don't realize it. They limit the scope of hardware that OS X is meant to run on so they don't need to spend as much time on making drivers and ensuring the millions of hardware combinations work with as few issues. Just ask Microsoft about the effort involved. Now, if you want to make the best product possible, wouldn't you make a single piece of hardware and software made specifically for it and take it to perfection? Rather than certifying tons of 3rd party hardware and fixing associated problems. The fact that OS X runs mostly without issues on customacs is a lucky coincidence, but Apple doesn't want to be responsible or guarantee that it'll work properly.
- bornhuetter 13y ago
  > if you want to make the best product possible, wouldn't you make a single piece of hardware and software made specifically for it and take it to perfection? No, that is exactly what I wouldn't do. Apple are a rare exception where this model actually seems to work. When Steve Jobs was asked to give examples of other companies that have succeeded with the same closed model over open competitors, he couldn't come up with a single example. > Apple doesn't want to be responsible or guarantee that it'll work properly. They don't have to. They just have to not put up legal and technical barriers to people using it on other systems.

shurcooL 13y ago

> All I'm saying is that I wish that Apple were more focused > on creating the best products they can and letting people > use them, rather than erecting artificial walls to keep > people in and out. It's ironic because that's precisely what they're doing yet you don't realize it. They limit the scope of hardware that OS X is meant to run on so they don't need to spend as much time on making drivers and ensuring the millions of hardware combinations work with as few issues. Just ask Microsoft about the effort involved. Now, if you want to make the best product possible, wouldn't you make a single piece of hardware and software made specifically for it and take it to perfection? Rather than certifying tons of 3rd party hardware and fixing associated problems. The fact that OS X runs mostly without issues on customacs is a lucky coincidence, but Apple doesn't want to be responsible or guarantee that it'll work properly.

bornhuetter 13y ago
> if you want to make the best product possible, wouldn't you make a single piece of hardware and software made specifically for it and take it to perfection? No, that is exactly what I wouldn't do. Apple are a rare exception where this model actually seems to work. When Steve Jobs was asked to give examples of other companies that have succeeded with the same closed model over open competitors, he couldn't come up with a single example. > Apple doesn't want to be responsible or guarantee that it'll work properly. They don't have to. They just have to not put up legal and technical barriers to people using it on other systems.