4 ms·

I'll try: If the product in question is a netbook form factor. Apple does not produce this type of product however they do no impede a customer's ability to bu

by jsz0 17y ago

I'll try: If the product in question is a netbook form factor. Apple does not produce this type of product however they do no impede a customer's ability to buy one from another vendor. You can walk into BestBuy and get one in about 15 minutes. Apple doesn't have a bunch of thugs wearing two layers of brightly colored polo shirts there to stop you by taking your credit card and forcing you to buy a MacBook instead. Additionally Apple offers software for Windows to interoperate with their services: iTunes for iPods/iPhones and iTunes Store and also a MobileMe control panel. They also offer QuickTime & Safari for Windows. If you want to use Apple's operating system then you have to buy an Apple computer. If that prevents you from buying the type of machine you want I would seriously reconsider using Apple's operating system in the first place. Other companies such as Microsoft have a business model of selling software so they don't care what hardware you buy. Apple makes it quite easy to install Windows on a Mac so they don't lock you into using OSX on their hardware. Apple is a hardware company. Your example of vendor lock-in would be more along the lines of going to an Dell Store (I know they don't exist, play along) and demanding they sell you an Apple computer instead.

fnid 17y ago
The problem with this line of arguing is that Apple's entire marketing strategy is about how an Apple is better than a Windows machine. Thus, their product, contrary to what you are saying, is not hardware, it's software. Their ads say nothing about hardware manufacturers, they say everything about Windows. It's not Mac Book's are faster than Dells. It's Apple's are more secure than Windows. It's about Windows 7 vs Apple, not HP vs Apple. Therefore, inhibiting a consumer's ability to run that product, which is OSX as much as it is a physical device, is vendor lock-in. It is vendor lockin, because they are saying, "To run our product, OSX, you must buy Mac Hardware." And before you argue that OSX is not a product, they do in fact sell OSX: http://store.apple.com/us/search?find=osx http://store.apple.com/us/search?find=osx
- jsz0 17y ago
  Marketing has little or nothing to do with reality. "requires a Mac with an Intel processor."
  - fnid 17y ago
    Yep, exactly. That's the vendor lock-in part. Requiring one of your products to use one of your products is vendor lock-in.
    - invisible 17y ago
      I think that's a slippery slope to go down as far as what is predatory vendor lock-in and what is not. It is most definitely vendor lock-in if you had to use an iPod ($200) with a Mac because the software only works on Apple hardware ($600, can break and may need to be replaced within a year). Whereas with OSX, you purchase it with the intent to use it on your Mac that already came preloaded with an older version of OSX. Does the software work on PC? Sort of, but it's unsupported. Should they be forced to support it? Probably not, because it may heavily impact their business model, bottom line, and stability. What if they don't want the no-name-brand manufacturer to make customers think their product (OSX) sucks? The fact is that Microsoft locks in customers by mere quantity. OSX has prestige and quality, but it requires the customer to acknowledge they don't have a genuine choice in hardware vendors unless they want to manipulate it into working (although I do think Apple's license is dumb with regard to saying it can't be (pre)installed on a PC).
      - fnid 17y ago
        I think you are simply biased against microsoft and pro apple. What Apple is doing, if they are intentionally not working on ATOM is essentially what Microsoft would be doing if it didn't allow its software to run on apple hardware. Vendor lockin, whether intentional, or simply because the vendor doesn't care to make their products work with others, or whatever, doesn't change the vendor lockin.
        jsz0 17y ago
        It's not that they don't care -- it's not their business model. I believe a company should have the right to control their own products as long as they are not breaking any laws.

by jsz0 17y ago

fnid 17y ago

The problem with this line of arguing is that Apple's entire marketing strategy is about how an Apple is better than a Windows machine. Thus, their product, contrary to what you are saying, is not hardware, it's software. Their ads say nothing about hardware manufacturers, they say everything about Windows. It's not Mac Book's are faster than Dells. It's Apple's are more secure than Windows. It's about Windows 7 vs Apple, not HP vs Apple. Therefore, inhibiting a consumer's ability to run that product, which is OSX as much as it is a physical device, is vendor lock-in. It is vendor lockin, because they are saying, "To run our product, OSX, you must buy Mac Hardware." And before you argue that OSX is not a product, they do in fact sell OSX: http://store.apple.com/us/search?find=osx http://store.apple.com/us/search?find=osx

jsz0 17y ago
Marketing has little or nothing to do with reality. "requires a Mac with an Intel processor."
- fnid 17y ago
  Yep, exactly. That's the vendor lock-in part. Requiring one of your products to use one of your products is vendor lock-in.
  - invisible 17y ago
    I think that's a slippery slope to go down as far as what is predatory vendor lock-in and what is not. It is most definitely vendor lock-in if you had to use an iPod ($200) with a Mac because the software only works on Apple hardware ($600, can break and may need to be replaced within a year). Whereas with OSX, you purchase it with the intent to use it on your Mac that already came preloaded with an older version of OSX. Does the software work on PC? Sort of, but it's unsupported. Should they be forced to support it? Probably not, because it may heavily impact their business model, bottom line, and stability. What if they don't want the no-name-brand manufacturer to make customers think their product (OSX) sucks? The fact is that Microsoft locks in customers by mere quantity. OSX has prestige and quality, but it requires the customer to acknowledge they don't have a genuine choice in hardware vendors unless they want to manipulate it into working (although I do think Apple's license is dumb with regard to saying it can't be (pre)installed on a PC).
    - fnid 17y ago
      I think you are simply biased against microsoft and pro apple. What Apple is doing, if they are intentionally not working on ATOM is essentially what Microsoft would be doing if it didn't allow its software to run on apple hardware. Vendor lockin, whether intentional, or simply because the vendor doesn't care to make their products work with others, or whatever, doesn't change the vendor lockin.
      - jsz0 17y ago
        It's not that they don't care -- it's not their business model. I believe a company should have the right to control their own products as long as they are not breaking any laws.