4 ms·

This is going to make a lot of people very upset. But really, news like this becomes a lot easier to swallow once you simply accept that Apple is a proprietary

by mpk 17y ago

This is going to make a lot of people very upset. But really, news like this becomes a lot easier to swallow once you simply accept that Apple is a proprietary platform that works really hard at vendor lock-in.

tvon 17y ago
This is not vendor lock-in (if anything it's vendor lock-out, if anyone were to coin such a silly term). It is difficult to switch to Apple hardware, but switching away is as easy as installing Windows on a Mac.
- pyre 17y ago
  > It is difficult to switch to Apple hardware No it isn't. It's no different than getting a new computer, and then putting Windows on it. I think you meant OSX, not 'Apple hardware.'
  - tvon 17y ago
    Ah yes, I'm treating them as one in the same but I did mean OSX specifically and not just the hardware.
rbanffy 17y ago
I am not sure how can anyone in his right mind claim this is unexpected. Apple has always been one of the more closed companies in this market. It's is the only remaining computer maker from the 70s/80s that makes its own exclusive platform. The fact it uses a somewhat open Unix is a historical accident: Steve Jobs wanted to enter the Unix workstation market with NeXT and it had to be Unix-based.
- axod 17y ago
  >> "The fact it uses a somewhat open Unix is a historical accident" I don't think macs would be anywhere near as popular as they are today if this wasn't the case. I would not be using one now if it wasn't 'unixy'.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    Even if every Mac user here in HN used Macs because of their Unix core, that would be very little compared to the average user. To the average Mac user, OSX is nice despite its Unix heritage.
- tvon 17y ago
  You're saying that Jobs made a decision to create a Unix workstation so it's just a happy accident that he had to use Unix to make a Unix workstation?
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    It's a historic accident Apple currently uses NeXT's OS as the foundation of OSX. Before that, Apple failed miserably a couple times trying to make a better OS upon classic MacOS. And mind you they once did A/UX...
  - elblanco 17y ago
    It's a happy accident that when Jobs returned to Apple, he brought the NeXT OS stack with him and had Apple stick a decent GUI on the front end that turned into OSX.
    - tvon 17y ago
      Apple purchased NeXT with the explicit goal of making it the core of their next generation system. I fail to see how that can be called an accident.
      - rbanffy 17y ago
        The accident is that they were desperate and would have bought any decent OS they could to replace the gigantic failure Copland was. NeXT had the one with the more eloquent salesman and the only person who could have given back any semblance of credibility to Apple's lineup. Were NeXT based on VMS, Amiga, TOS, MP/M or anything like it, that would be OSXs base.
        elblanco 17y ago
        They should have gone with Plan-9 ;)
        rbanffy 17y ago
axod 17y ago
Or, you accept that their main focus, is making the software work with the hardware they say it works with :/ Do you also bemoan linksys for releasing firmware updates that only work with linksys products and not others?
- likpok 17y ago
  Atom is x86. So it should work with Atom. That it doesn't is a sign that they are (probably) deliberately checking.
  - axod 17y ago
    I'd be surprised if they did't do sanity checks to ensure the hardware is what they expect it to be.
    - pyre 17y ago
      Why? If it's not Apple hardware ('what they expect it to be') then they don't support it. So why spend the time to check if you're on non-Apple hardware, and then pop up a nice "Unsupported hardware" (or similar) error message? Unless, of course, you're trying to prevent non-Apple hardware, but that goes without saying. If you only support one platform, you just need to make sure that it works on that platform. People that try to run it on another platform are on their own if it breaks something/corrupts their data/etc just because you didn't do some sanity check somewhere. Putting that sanity check in is work on top of supporting your target platform (because your target platform will already be 'sane' by definition). [Note: I'm just arguing against axod's sanity checks surprise, not necessarily anything to do with the article]

by mpk 17y ago

tvon 17y ago

This is not vendor lock-in (if anything it's vendor lock-out, if anyone were to coin such a silly term). It is difficult to switch to Apple hardware, but switching away is as easy as installing Windows on a Mac.

pyre 17y ago
> It is difficult to switch to Apple hardware No it isn't. It's no different than getting a new computer, and then putting Windows on it. I think you meant OSX, not 'Apple hardware.'
- tvon 17y ago
  Ah yes, I'm treating them as one in the same but I did mean OSX specifically and not just the hardware.

rbanffy 17y ago

I am not sure how can anyone in his right mind claim this is unexpected. Apple has always been one of the more closed companies in this market. It's is the only remaining computer maker from the 70s/80s that makes its own exclusive platform. The fact it uses a somewhat open Unix is a historical accident: Steve Jobs wanted to enter the Unix workstation market with NeXT and it had to be Unix-based.

axod 17y ago
>> "The fact it uses a somewhat open Unix is a historical accident" I don't think macs would be anywhere near as popular as they are today if this wasn't the case. I would not be using one now if it wasn't 'unixy'.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  Even if every Mac user here in HN used Macs because of their Unix core, that would be very little compared to the average user. To the average Mac user, OSX is nice despite its Unix heritage.
tvon 17y ago
You're saying that Jobs made a decision to create a Unix workstation so it's just a happy accident that he had to use Unix to make a Unix workstation?
- rbanffy 17y ago
  It's a historic accident Apple currently uses NeXT's OS as the foundation of OSX. Before that, Apple failed miserably a couple times trying to make a better OS upon classic MacOS. And mind you they once did A/UX...
- elblanco 17y ago
  It's a happy accident that when Jobs returned to Apple, he brought the NeXT OS stack with him and had Apple stick a decent GUI on the front end that turned into OSX.
  - tvon 17y ago
    Apple purchased NeXT with the explicit goal of making it the core of their next generation system. I fail to see how that can be called an accident.
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      The accident is that they were desperate and would have bought any decent OS they could to replace the gigantic failure Copland was. NeXT had the one with the more eloquent salesman and the only person who could have given back any semblance of credibility to Apple's lineup. Were NeXT based on VMS, Amiga, TOS, MP/M or anything like it, that would be OSXs base.
      - elblanco 17y ago
        They should have gone with Plan-9 ;)
        rbanffy 17y ago

axod 17y ago

Or, you accept that their main focus, is making the software work with the hardware they say it works with :/ Do you also bemoan linksys for releasing firmware updates that only work with linksys products and not others?

likpok 17y ago
Atom is x86. So it should work with Atom. That it doesn't is a sign that they are (probably) deliberately checking.
- axod 17y ago
  I'd be surprised if they did't do sanity checks to ensure the hardware is what they expect it to be.
  - pyre 17y ago
    Why? If it's not Apple hardware ('what they expect it to be') then they don't support it. So why spend the time to check if you're on non-Apple hardware, and then pop up a nice "Unsupported hardware" (or similar) error message? Unless, of course, you're trying to prevent non-Apple hardware, but that goes without saying. If you only support one platform, you just need to make sure that it works on that platform. People that try to run it on another platform are on their own if it breaks something/corrupts their data/etc just because you didn't do some sanity check somewhere. Putting that sanity check in is work on top of supporting your target platform (because your target platform will already be 'sane' by definition). [Note: I'm just arguing against axod's sanity checks surprise, not necessarily anything to do with the article]