Originally Posted by Hudson1
I think your argument is based on the assumption that Apple is going to expand the overall market share of OS X by selling it independent of their computers. I disagree and I think history supports that conclusion.
Back in the 90s, Apple did just that and they were going up against a total abomination called Windows 95 (you think Vista is bad, well ...). It turned out that they didn't expand Mac OS market share at all but instead only shrunk their computer business. It almost ruined the company.
This is Argument 1: Cannibalization
If Apple's business is hardware. As it was in the 90s - It is really really
important that the hardware be commercially competetive. But back then it was not.
In the 90s, the *only* reason to buy a Mac - was Mac OS.
Which was why it was profoundly dumb to licence the OS to clone makers. They were selling Mac clones which were CHEAPER AND FASTER than Apple's own product. Cannibalization was inevitable.
But that was then and this is now. Has anyone noticed that Apple's hardware stopped sucking a while back?
Once the suckage stops, licensing is a win win!
Macintosh OS from the 90s never did go up against Windows, Apple OS ran on PowerPC hardware, while Windows 95 ran on Intel. They were never in the ring together.
You forgot to mention that Microsoft created OS/2. And after the trial run, went on to create OS/3 which became Windows NT.
You forgot to mention that NEXTSTEP's failure might have been because it was TIED TO OVERPRICED HARDWARE for most of its existence. Remember the Magnesium Cube? The hardware requirements of NextStep meant that it did not compete with Windows until it was much too late. Fortunately NextStep was salvaged.
BeOS was very clever but very not finished.