On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 14:29, Scot McSweeney-Roberts <bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk> wrote:
> Remember when you could buy a Mac clone with Apple's full permission? > That you can run an alternative OS on a Mac with ease these days is > more due to a grudging acceptance of market demands than a great step > towards openness. Yup. it nearly put them out of business. I'm not sure 'open to the point of financial ruin' is a beneficial strategy for anybody concerned. > I'd say Apple are less open since SJ's return - the death of the > clones, the death of the Newton (which was licensed to 3rd parties > like Siemens), iTunes Fairplay DRM, the iPhone/Pad lock down and Apple > TV only working with iTunes. What have they done that's open? http://opensource.apple.com/ http://www.macosforge.org/ http://www.llvm.org/ (well, big chunks) http://www.cups.org/ The Apple TV, I'll grant you, though it will actually work as a standalone device if you really want. It's a bit of a dubious argument, though. Fairplay? How would the iTunes Store have possibly existed without it? (and I don't mean in technical terms, where would they have got any content from?) iPhone OS lockdown, covered ad nauseum, >> I wouldn't be so sure. I think Apple/Jobs realised that they actually >> *can't* lock down Macs and still sell them. The vision of utility >> get-stuff-done computing is incongruous with the expectations many >> people have of what a computer should let them do. Thus, the solution >> is to create a new category of computing product which pulls elements >> from both. This way, the new platform can be as locked down or as open >> as required with no legacy baggage, while the (rather profitable) more >> open systems continue to sell to those who need that sort of thing. > > What I expect to see is more and more iPhone OS "computers" (like more > or less permanently docked iPads with 15 or 17 inch screens) and fewer > and fewer midrange Macs (and no low end Macs at all). That makes no sense from a business perspective. >> Plus, I don't actually think iPhone OS will remain as locked down as >> it is now for too long. Give it 18 months. Two years tops. > > So you're expecting Steve Jobs to leave in 18 months to two years? > That's the about the only way I could see that happening. Right. > But there are other products that are also well designed and have 100% > functionality, they're just not as fashionable. I think it has more > to do with some people wanting to be followers of fashion (and a > fashion item is something that Apple products have become since SJ's > return) and then finding that fashionable straight jacket is too > tight. It's just not rational behaviour. "some people" doesn't account for the sales figures. Show me a product which does everything my iPod touch does, weighs no more, has an equally accurate touchscreen, a usable OS that my six year old is capable of using (actually, my three year old does a pretty good job of it), doesn't require manual faffing in order to get media and apps (and actually HAS a good selection of well-written, well-designed applications) onto it _and_ doesn't have the drawbacks of iPhone OS. Oh, and costs the same or less. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
