There. You said it yourself. The bond between Apple's hardware and its OS is the difference. My generic bucket of bolts PC ("xHack" as I like to call it) also runs OS X 100%. It, too, must be a Mac.
You know, you're right about one thing though... It wasn't a completely native install. In fact, just yesterday I realized that my digital audio (something I never use anyway) wasn't working... not because OS X couldn't support the hardware but because it denied being able to support the hardware when in reality, it could do so natively. Here's what I mean:
An audio driver that comes standard with OS X (AppleAzaliaAudio.kext) has a number of flags within its properties... one of them includes a list of vendors that it is allowed to talk to. The vendor for my motherboard's audio card was not listed. I added it and the card worked perfectly. It required NO FANCY FOOTWORK. I didn't have to write my own driver, I didn't have to hack anything, all I did was open up the kext's info.plist via terminal and added a vendor ID.
If that's not an artificial bond, I don't know what is.
It's no fancy footwork for you. But try to explain that over the phone to the grandma that wants to save a few bucks on a "Mac".
And the "artificail bond" is real for Apple. Because Apple does not want to put the effort into making OSX work on all generic PCs. So they bond it to their hardware for this reason. There is a difference between OSX working on all generic PC and OSX can be made to work on all generic PCs. You only have to worry about getting OSX to work on your "xHack". Apple would have to make it work on what? A million different generic PC congifurations? You getting OSX to work on one generic PC is a far cry from OSX being "native" for all PCs.
Quote:
You are so insistent that you have to "hack" OS X in order to get it to work and your implication that "hack" is such a naughty word is just a hyperbole.
It just saves me the time of typing out "to alter or altereded it in such a way in which it was not initially intended".
Quote:
All hackers are doing is unlocking OS X to give it greater potential. Apple is stifling OS X by hand-cuffing it to their hardware. The same was true for iPhone hackers who wanted to give it more potential. They started an avalanche of creativity which blossomed and encouraged Apple to finally open the iPhone up to its true potential (once they found a way to make absurdly huge profits from it, that is).
Apple had always had plans to offer third party Apps for their iPhone. It's the timing that caught Apple by surprise. When the iPhone first came out the SDK wasn't ready and iTunes and iTune Store had not been set up to sell (offer) Apps. Apple barely got OSX working on the iPhone in time. They had to pull all of their software engineers off of their OSX.5 (Leopard) project and put them to work on the iPhone at the last minute. This caused (Leopard) to be delayed by several months. The iPhone release has not been the smoothest for Apple. But give Apple a break. They're new to the cell phone market. But things will get better when Apple sell people on the idea that a cell phone doesn't have to be just a cell phone. It can be a ultra small computer. Just like how laptops are replacing desk tops for many people. Smart phones can replace laptops (while traveling) for many people.
Apple makes very little from Apps in the AppStore. Just like how they make very little on music from their iTunes store. The money, 30% of the selling cost of the App, goes to covering updating the SDK, making sure the App runs ok on their iPhone, handling credit card transactions, maintaining the site, etc. And remember, most of the Apps are free or only a couple of dollars. Like the iTunes Store, it's the revenue from the store that is impressive. Not necessarily it's profit. Like the iTune Store (and OSX), the AppStore main asset is the value it ads to Apple's hardware.
Sure there was third party apps for Window Mobile (and others mobile OS) already available. Most for free too. But was there a convienent way to see all the Apps available? Was there any quaility control? An easy way to pay for them? There is now (or will be soon). Microsoft and Google has announce opening App stores. See competition is good for the consumers. More chopices. Now Windows mobile people will have it as good as iPhone users.
Quote:
The OSx86 scene has been doing the same, except Apple can only profit from selling OS X off-the-shelf if they artificially tie it to their hardware. It has nothing to do with performance (my xHack outperforms quad-core Mac Pros for under $800 and I haven't even started playing with over-clocking yet). It has nothing to do with stability (my xHack hasn't kernel-panicked since I got first got it running, meanwhile the same can't be said about my iMac). The number one reason Apple binds OS X to their hardware is for the money and that's a fact.
If there was a technical reason for not bringing OS X to generic PCs, like there was when it ran on PPC processors, that would be another story, but there is no legal excuse for Apple to restrict store-brought copies of OS to their hardware only.
-Clive
And how much money did Apple lose because you didn't buy an Apple Mac? Like you said. the only way Apple really makes money on OSX is to tie it to their hardware. And if you take away someones ability to legally make money by illeagal means, you're stealing from him.
And there's no legal means by which you can make Apple support all (or any anyone elses) PC hardware with OSX. Apple doesn't want to put the effort into OSX to make it work on all generic PCs. If Apple say that you can use OSX on any generic PC, then they are responsible for making OSX work on them. Sure it's great that you have the tech know how on how to get OSX to work on your "xHack". But the vast majority of PC users would be lost. Who's going to help them . Apple doesn't want to. And they don't have to as long as they state that OSX is not intended for generic PCs'. And do you think that any clone maker is going to support you after OSX no longer works because of an OSX update. Apple doesn't want the headache of making sure they write their updates so that it works on all PC hardware (Remmember the iBrick fiasco.). And many Mac program writers also don't want to deal with making sure their Mac programs works on all PCs. They just assume sell you a Windowss version.
If you think that there's nothing to getting OSX to run on any generic PC, besides some "artificial bond". then maybe Apple can put your phone number, web address and home address on their box of OSX. So peolple who wants to install OSX on to their generic PC knows who to call or get a hold of online for tech support and where to bring it in for repairs.
Microsoft did not so much want to buy Bungie - they bought Halo and all the rights to it. Halo 1 and 2 have made it to personal computers. I am sure Halo 3 will get there in a couple of years.
C.
And Apple did not so much as want to buy the NeXt computer division as they wanted their NeXtStep/OpenStep OS. NeXtStep/Openstep became Rhapsody and later released as OSX. Apple's own next generation OS, Copland, was dead in the water at the time. And the reason why it was easy for Apple to convert OSX to an x86 Intel chip was because NeXTStep/OPenStep was designed on the x86 architecture.
And if you're willing wait and let Microsoft decide on when to release Halo3 on to other platforms and most likely never on the PlayStation (excuse my initial error in thinking that Halo and Halo2 were already available on PS. ). Why are you so hell bent on trying to force Apple to release OSX on generic PCs now. How do you know that releasing OSX for PCs is not one of Apple's future plan? Maybe Apple has future plans of selling an exclusive license to Sony. M.Dell have already gone on record that he would be interested in selling Mac clones. What's the use of an exclusive license if every two bit PC company out there are allowed to use OSX.
Just as Microsoft has every right to limit the distribution of their own software (Halo3) and not license it to their competitors. in order to enhance the marketbility of their own hardware. Apple should be allowed to do the the same. Do you see anything wrong with MS not wanting to release Halo on to a PlayStation or Mac? (And even if MS loses money on their Xbox. They can charge more for licenses to game developers because every Xbox sold increases market share.)
BTW- It is trivial to convert games from one platform to another when you write games that you're going to eventually release on multiple platforms. The game is written is such a way that it can easily be ported. It's not as though the whole game has to be manually re-written. Software does most of the work. Halo was not specifically written for an Xbox. It was ported to the Xbox platform. It can just as easily be ported to any other platform. But Microsoft has full control of Halo3. And Microsoft is purposely not letting Bungie port any of the Halo series to PlayStations because PlayStations are in direct competition with the Xbox.
And the "artificail bond" is real for Apple. Because Apple does not want to put the effort into making OSX work on all generic PCs. So they bond it to their hardware for this reason. There is a difference between OSX working on all generic PC and OSX can be made to work on all generic PCs. You only have to worry about getting OSX to work on your "xHack". Apple would have to make it work on what? A million different generic PC congifurations? You getting OSX to work on one generic PC is a far cry from OSX being "native" for all PCs.
[...]
And there's no legal means by which you can make Apple support all (or any anyone elses) PC hardware with OSX. Apple doesn't want to put the effort into OSX to make it work on all generic PCs. If Apple say that you can use OSX on any generic PC, then they are responsible for making OSX work on them. Sure it's great that you have the tech know how on how to get OSX to work on your "xHack". But the vast majority of PC users would be lost. Who's going to help them . Apple doesn't want to. And they don't have to as long as they state that OSX is not intended for generic PCs'. And do you think that any clone maker is going to support you after OSX no longer works because of an OSX update. Apple doesn't want the headache of making sure they write their updates so that it works on all PC hardware (Remmember the iBrick fiasco.). And many Mac program writers also don't want to deal with making sure their Mac programs works on all PCs. They just assume sell you a Windowss version.
I'm not asking Apple to support all types of hardware, just not lock OS X out of it. I recommend a Macintosh version and a "system builder's version" with a big "use at your own risk" sticker on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
And how much money did Apple lose because you didn't buy an Apple Mac? Like you said. the only way Apple really makes money on OSX is to tie it to their hardware. And if you take away someones ability to legally make money by illeagal means, you're stealing from him.
I think you meant, "if you take away someone's ability to illegally make money by legal means."
Regardless, it's not my responsibility that Apple didn't price OS X high enough! My iMac came with 10.1. I bought Jaguar, Panther, Tiger and Leopard (then rolled back to Tiger ). Certainly my iMac's hardware didn't subsidize the price of all four of those OSes! If Apple finds they are losing money on OS sales, they should raise prices.
By the way, I think you seriously underestimate what Apple makes on iTunes sales & App Store sales. If a $2.99 app sells 1000 copies, Apple takes home $900. Doesn't sound like much but it more than covers the bandwidth... Now multiply that by 1000 Apps... Almost a million bucks right there and we haven't even begun to scratch the surface.
I recommend a Macintosh version and a "system builder's version" with a big "use at your own risk" sticker on it.
Herein lays the dilemma. If Apple offers this as a free DL then there are drivers built to support on various HW and Apple will lose HW sales to these homegrown systems, but if they sell it they do have a requirement to support it. If they don't support it or offer any drivers for it then there would be surely be a class action.
Quote:
Regardless, it's not my responsibility that Apple didn't price OS X high enough! My iMac came with 10.1. I bought Jaguar, Panther, Tiger and Leopard (then rolled back to Tiger.
Exactl!y! It's Apple's responsibility to price and market their products that best benefit their financial goals, not ours.
Quote:
Certainly my iMac's hardware didn't subsidize the price of all four of those OSes! If Apple finds they are losing money on OS sales, they should raise prices.
You are beyond the range of the normal Mac user's upgrade cycle, but I'm certainly at the opposite end of you. If the average Mac user replaced his Mac once every 8 years the upgrade would probably be spaced farther apart and cost more.
Just as Microsoft has every right to limit the distribution of their own software (Halo3) and not license it to their competitors. in order to enhance the marketbility of their own hardware. Apple should be allowed to do the the same. Do you see anything wrong with MS not wanting to release Halo on to a PlayStation or Mac? (And even if MS loses money on their Xbox. They can charge more for licenses to game developers because every Xbox sold increases market share.)
The console business market is "lose money on hardware, and make it back by overpricing software"
According to folks here..
Apple's business model is "lose money on software and make it back on overpricing hardware"
I dislike both models, because prices are being manipulated. Every 360 game has a $10 console tax.
However these two cases are not symmetrical.
A PS3 is a profoundly different hardware from a 360, the incompatibility is not artificial. Wheras a Mac really is a standard PC. Since the move to Intel, OS X incompatibility is a deliberate engineered-in choice.
....A PS3 is a profoundly different hardware from a 360, the incompatibility is not artificial. Wheras a Mac really is a standard PC. Since the move to Intel, OS X incompatibility is a deliberate engineered-in choice.
OK, we've finally reached a reductio ad absurdum in your argument, and you were nice enough to supply it: thank you!
So as long as Apple stuck with the PPC, it was perfectly all right for OS X to work on it only, because Macs were on a different platform from the rest of the PC market. And if Apple had stuck to the PPC, or switched to some other processor that wasn't x86 compatible, everything would have been hunky-dory. But the minute they switch to Intel processors, all of a sudden they're legally obligated to port OS X to run on any Intel machines?
Wait a minute, though! It's obviously possible to run Windows on PPC, because IBM (and now Lenovo?) did it for 15 or 16 years. If it's true that the sudden explosion in Mac sales with the switch to Intel can be attributed to Windows compatibility, then Apple should have sued Microsoft for not porting Windows to the Mac platform. They obviously cost Apple billions of dollars in sales by not doing so.
Does any of this show you how silly your argument is, or are you willing to admit that Apple can do nothing right as far as you're concerned, and just leave it at that?
So as long as Apple stuck with the PPC, it was perfectly all right for OS X to work on it only, because Macs were on a different platform from the rest of the PC market.
It would also mean that Mac OS X would be required to run on XBox as they use PPCs.
OK, we've finally reached a reductio ad absurdum in your argument, and you were nice enough to supply it: thank you!
So as long as Apple stuck with the PPC, it was perfectly all right for OS X to work on it only, because Macs were on a different platform from the rest of the PC market. And if Apple had stuck to the PPC, or switched to some other processor that wasn't x86 compatible, everything would have been hunky-dory.
Not quite. If someone could legally make a better/cheaper PPC clone, in a clean room - I don't think that should be illegal. Such competition would be good for Apple products, and consumers.
In "Soul of a New Machine" the book tells how Data General made a legal clone of the VAX processor. Instead of illegally copying the machine, they created a functionally equivalent clone without looking at the VAX's internals.
Making legal clones is tough, but in the case of the x86 Mac, Apple have saved us the trouble. Instead of having to clone Apple's exotic hardware, Apple has adopted vanilla PC hardware.
I have never said Apple should be forced to support every Intel processor based system on the planet. Merely that they should not artificially block the installation of purchased copies of OS X on compatible computers which don't have an Apple logo.
Apple would only have to offer support to Macintosh computers or computers bearing a "Made for OS X" sticker.
C.
If someone could clone a cheap XBox 360, Steve Balmer would go round to his house with a truck of free beer, because Balmer can't wait to shut down the money-losing 360 factory.
Not quite. If someone could legally make a better/cheaper PPC clone, in a clean room - I don't think that should be illegal. Such competition would be good for Apple products, and consumers.
In "Soul of a New Machine" the book tells how Data General made a legal clone of the VAX processor. Instead of illegally copying the machine, they created a functionally equivalent clone without looking at the VAX's internals.
That's too much work for a fly-by-night operation like Psystar. They are out to make a quick buck.
The console business market is "lose money on hardware, and make it back by overpricing software"
According to folks here..
Apple's business model is "lose money on software and make it back on overpricing hardware"
I dislike both models, because prices are being manipulated. Every 360 game has a $10 console tax.
It's a catch 22. If MS and Sony wanted to make money on their consoles and charged $800 for them. They would end up selling less consoles. If they sell less consoles, they can't sell as many games. Which means the games will end up costing more anyways. MS and Sony would also get less money for licenses from game developers that wants to write games for their platforms. And the less consoles out there the less likely it is to attract game developers. Which means less choices of games for the consumers. With this way, the consumer takes most of the risk by paying a lot for a console and then hoping they sell enough consoles to attract game developers to the platform. Otherwise they end up with less games to choose from that are expensive anyways because game developers can't sell too many of them.
The way it works now is that MS and Sony "subsidize" the consoles they sell with the license fee they charge game developers. The more consoles in the consumers hands the more the license fee. The game developers makes back their license fee with the games they sell. The more game consoles out there the more game developers it attracts. Which means more games choices for the consumers. With this way, the console makers takes most of the risk. They hope to get as many consoles in the hands of the consumers by selling them at a loss. In hopes of eventually making money at first with the license fee and later with componet cost coming down. The consumers win. They get a console at a reasonable price. More games to choose from. And the cost of the games are reasonable because the game developers can sell a lot of them and thus spread the license fee over many more games sold..
This is not really the same with Apple because Apple is both the seller of the hardware and software. Apple is subsidizing itself. It's not like MS and Sony making up their losses selling the hardware with the companies that are writing and selling the games for it.
Quote:
However these two cases are not symmetrical.
A PS3 is a profoundly different hardware from a 360, the incompatibility is not artificial. Wheras a Mac really is a standard PC. Since the move to Intel, OS X incompatibility is a deliberate engineered-in choice.
C.
There are already over a hundred games for the PS3. The marjority of them were not originally written for the PS3 but was ported to it. There is no reason why MS can't port Halo3 to the PS3. Other than they deliberately choose not to. As difficult as it may be to port games to the PS3. The task is trivial compare to the rewards for doing so. Halo3 for PS3 would most likely become the second best selling game of all time. Right behind Halo3 for Xbox. And if MS port it to PS2, it would be the best selling game of all time. MS Xbox division may even be in the black for a couple of quarters.
The only thing Apple does that is deliberate (with regards to OSX) is that they choose to only have it support the x86 hardware found on their Macs.
As much as you want to think that Apple can easily make their OSX support all X86 hardware. It would be 1000 times easier for MS to port Halo3 to PS3. They would only have to worry about one configuration as all PS3 are the same. This can't be said about Apple trying to get OSX to run on all the different configurations of generic PCs.
It's a catch 22. If MS and Sony wanted to make money on their consoles and charged $800 for them. They would end up selling less consoles.
That's exactly my point. The console business model is messed-up. Amusingly, both Sony and MS are hemorrhaging cash from their respective console fiascos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
There are already over a hundred games for the PS3. The marjority of them were not originally written for the PS3 but was ported to it. There is no reason why MS can't port Halo3 to the PS3. Other than they deliberately choose not to. A
You are arguing game development issues with a (former) game developer.
As I have pointed out, at length elsewhere on this forum, development costs for the PS3 are significantly higher than the 360. This is reduced if using a multi-platform engine such as Unreal. Much much more if you have a single-platform engine such as Halo. It would cost MS around $5-10M to port the Halo engine to PS3.
MS will, of course, not do this. Because they don't want to provide consumers with a reason to buy the PS3.
Do you think this undermines my argument? No not at all.
Is the current model of console game business good for consumers? Not really. Games are over-priced to pay back the console tax. Development costs are too high. And there is a lack of an even playing field for game developers, who try to make money while competing against massively-subsided first-party titles. The market is in failure mode. Apart from Nintendo who have adopted a more honest approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
As much as you want to think that Apple can easily make their OSX support all X86 hardware. It would be 1000 times easier for MS to port Halo3 to PS3. They would only have to worry about one configuration as all PS3 are the same. This can't be said about Apple trying to get OSX to run on all the different configurations of generic PCs.
Your argument is weird. You are really saying that because Microsoft uses somewhat monopolistic practices in the games arena, Apple should be allowed to use even more monopolistic practices in desktop OS?
Please read my posts. I have already said...
1) OS X already runs great on a bunch of standard PC hardware.
2) Apple should not make the same mistakes as Microsoft. They should avoid trying to support *all* PC hardware, and instead charge hardware manufacturers for OS X compatibility stickers.
That's exactly my point. The console business model is messed-up. Amusingly, both Sony and MS are hemorrhaging cash from their respective console fiascos.
Except that MS is only losing money on the 360 because of the RROD problem (and perhaps the recent price cut) and Sony should be breakeven on the PS3 if not now then soon.
Sony did not hemorrhage money on the PS2. Nor is the PS3 a "fiasco" yet. It's too early to tell given the desired lifetime for the console. Given that the PS3 has been doing okay the last couple quarters it you might be able to say it flopped if it doesn't have a good XMas this year. Sony should still come in second and win the hard core gamer market.
Quote:
You are arguing game development issues with a (former) game developer.
I recall you asserting this before without being able to say what titles you worked on.
Quote:
Is the current model of console game business good for consumers? Not really. Games are over-priced to pay back the console tax. Development costs are too high. And there is a lack of an even playing field for game developers, who try to make money while competing against massively-subsided first-party titles. The market is in failure mode. Apart from Nintendo who have adopted a more honest approach.
The reason that Nintendo could sell consoles at a profit is because the Wii is a revamped Cube with a nifty controller.
That's exactly my point. The console business model is messed-up. Amusingly, both Sony and MS are hemorrhaging cash from their respective console fiascos.
The only reason why Sony is (was) losing on the sales of PS3 is because they elected to put a Blu-Ray DVD player in it. At the time, a Blu-Ray player still sold for around $600. Sony made a business decision to use the PS3 as a way to push the Blu-Ray format. It paid off. HD is dead. And as Blu-Ray players take hold, their cost will drop and in due time, the PS3 will be profitable for Sony. MS with the Xbox is another story all together. The Xbox will never become profitable if MS decides to put a Blu-Ray DVD player in it.
Quote:
You are arguing game development issues with a (former) game developer.
As I have pointed out, at length elsewhere on this forum, development costs for the PS3 are significantly higher than the 360. This is reduced if using a multi-platform engine such as Unreal. Much much more if you have a single-platform engine such as Halo. It would cost MS around $5-10M to port the Halo engine to PS3.
Halo 3 sold made over $150 million on it's first day. That's only selling it to Xbox owners. Sony would gladly pay the $10 million to port Halo 3 to PS3 or PS2. But MS is not interested. Bungie would have ported it by now.
Quote:
MS will, of course, not do this. Because they don't want to provide consumers with a reason to buy the PS3.
And apple don't want to provide consumers with a reason not to buy a Mac to get OSX.
Quote:
Do you think this undermines my argument? No not at all.
Is the current model of console game business good for consumers? Not really. Games are over-priced to pay back the console tax. Development costs are too high. And there is a lack of an even playing field for game developers, who try to make money while competing against massively-subsided first-party titles. The market is in failure mode. Apart from Nintendo who have adopted a more honest approach.
How can you say that. This is the exact model that Sony used on the PSX and PS2. Consumers can now get the PSX for less than $50 and most used games for it cost less that $15.00. (Not sure if they're still developing new games on this platform. I wouldn't be surprise if they are. There's more PSX players out there than Xboxes.) The PS2 now cost around $150 and they're still putting out new games on that platform. And Sony is probablly making money on the PS2 console at that price. There are no shortage of games out there. You can rent most games or join a club and pay a subscribe fee to play them.
However, as with all technologically advance electronics, if you want the lastest and greatest you're going to have to pay for it when it first comes out. But as soon as the company makes back it's R&D the price drops dramatically.
Quote:
Your argument is weird. You are really saying that because Microsoft uses somewhat monopolistic practices in the games arena, Apple should be allowed to use even more monopolistic practices in desktop OS?
Please read my posts. I have already said...
1) OS X already runs great on a bunch of standard PC hardware.
2) Apple should not make the same mistakes as Microsoft. They should avoid trying to support *all* PC hardware, and instead charge hardware manufacturers for OS X compatibility stickers. C.
I'm not saying that this practice is monopolistic (or anti-competitive) at all. MS is competing with Sony and has every right to not make available, what is now, their intellectual property on a competitors machine. It is you that insist that what Apple is being anti-competitive (using monopolistic practice) by not allowing OSX to be used on their competitors generic PCs. I'm mearly pointing out that MS is doing the same with Halo3 and the PS3. And yet no one has brought any anti-competitive charges on them for this.
Comments
There. You said it yourself. The bond between Apple's hardware and its OS is the difference. My generic bucket of bolts PC ("xHack" as I like to call it) also runs OS X 100%. It, too, must be a Mac.
You know, you're right about one thing though... It wasn't a completely native install. In fact, just yesterday I realized that my digital audio (something I never use anyway) wasn't working... not because OS X couldn't support the hardware but because it denied being able to support the hardware when in reality, it could do so natively. Here's what I mean:
An audio driver that comes standard with OS X (AppleAzaliaAudio.kext) has a number of flags within its properties... one of them includes a list of vendors that it is allowed to talk to. The vendor for my motherboard's audio card was not listed. I added it and the card worked perfectly. It required NO FANCY FOOTWORK. I didn't have to write my own driver, I didn't have to hack anything, all I did was open up the kext's info.plist via terminal and added a vendor ID.
If that's not an artificial bond, I don't know what is.
It's no fancy footwork for you. But try to explain that over the phone to the grandma that wants to save a few bucks on a "Mac".
And the "artificail bond" is real for Apple. Because Apple does not want to put the effort into making OSX work on all generic PCs. So they bond it to their hardware for this reason. There is a difference between OSX working on all generic PC and OSX can be made to work on all generic PCs. You only have to worry about getting OSX to work on your "xHack". Apple would have to make it work on what? A million different generic PC congifurations? You getting OSX to work on one generic PC is a far cry from OSX being "native" for all PCs.
You are so insistent that you have to "hack" OS X in order to get it to work and your implication that "hack" is such a naughty word is just a hyperbole.
It just saves me the time of typing out "to alter or altereded it in such a way in which it was not initially intended".
All hackers are doing is unlocking OS X to give it greater potential. Apple is stifling OS X by hand-cuffing it to their hardware. The same was true for iPhone hackers who wanted to give it more potential. They started an avalanche of creativity which blossomed and encouraged Apple to finally open the iPhone up to its true potential (once they found a way to make absurdly huge profits from it, that is).
Apple had always had plans to offer third party Apps for their iPhone. It's the timing that caught Apple by surprise. When the iPhone first came out the SDK wasn't ready and iTunes and iTune Store had not been set up to sell (offer) Apps. Apple barely got OSX working on the iPhone in time. They had to pull all of their software engineers off of their OSX.5 (Leopard) project and put them to work on the iPhone at the last minute. This caused (Leopard) to be delayed by several months. The iPhone release has not been the smoothest for Apple. But give Apple a break. They're new to the cell phone market. But things will get better when Apple sell people on the idea that a cell phone doesn't have to be just a cell phone. It can be a ultra small computer. Just like how laptops are replacing desk tops for many people. Smart phones can replace laptops (while traveling) for many people.
Apple makes very little from Apps in the AppStore. Just like how they make very little on music from their iTunes store. The money, 30% of the selling cost of the App, goes to covering updating the SDK, making sure the App runs ok on their iPhone, handling credit card transactions, maintaining the site, etc. And remember, most of the Apps are free or only a couple of dollars. Like the iTunes Store, it's the revenue from the store that is impressive. Not necessarily it's profit. Like the iTune Store (and OSX), the AppStore main asset is the value it ads to Apple's hardware.
Sure there was third party apps for Window Mobile (and others mobile OS) already available. Most for free too. But was there a convienent way to see all the Apps available? Was there any quaility control? An easy way to pay for them? There is now (or will be soon). Microsoft and Google has announce opening App stores. See competition is good for the consumers. More chopices. Now Windows mobile people will have it as good as iPhone users.
The OSx86 scene has been doing the same, except Apple can only profit from selling OS X off-the-shelf if they artificially tie it to their hardware. It has nothing to do with performance (my xHack outperforms quad-core Mac Pros for under $800 and I haven't even started playing with over-clocking yet). It has nothing to do with stability (my xHack hasn't kernel-panicked since I got first got it running, meanwhile the same can't be said about my iMac). The number one reason Apple binds OS X to their hardware is for the money and that's a fact.
If there was a technical reason for not bringing OS X to generic PCs, like there was when it ran on PPC processors, that would be another story, but there is no legal excuse for Apple to restrict store-brought copies of OS to their hardware only.
-Clive
And how much money did Apple lose because you didn't buy an Apple Mac? Like you said. the only way Apple really makes money on OSX is to tie it to their hardware. And if you take away someones ability to legally make money by illeagal means, you're stealing from him.
And there's no legal means by which you can make Apple support all (or any anyone elses) PC hardware with OSX. Apple doesn't want to put the effort into OSX to make it work on all generic PCs. If Apple say that you can use OSX on any generic PC, then they are responsible for making OSX work on them. Sure it's great that you have the tech know how on how to get OSX to work on your "xHack". But the vast majority of PC users would be lost. Who's going to help them . Apple doesn't want to. And they don't have to as long as they state that OSX is not intended for generic PCs'. And do you think that any clone maker is going to support you after OSX no longer works because of an OSX update. Apple doesn't want the headache of making sure they write their updates so that it works on all PC hardware (Remmember the iBrick fiasco.). And many Mac program writers also don't want to deal with making sure their Mac programs works on all PCs. They just assume sell you a Windowss version.
If you think that there's nothing to getting OSX to run on any generic PC, besides some "artificial bond". then maybe Apple can put your phone number, web address and home address on their box of OSX. So peolple who wants to install OSX on to their generic PC knows who to call or get a hold of online for tech support and where to bring it in for repairs.
Quite.
Microsoft did not so much want to buy Bungie - they bought Halo and all the rights to it. Halo 1 and 2 have made it to personal computers. I am sure Halo 3 will get there in a couple of years.
C.
And Apple did not so much as want to buy the NeXt computer division as they wanted their NeXtStep/OpenStep OS. NeXtStep/Openstep became Rhapsody and later released as OSX. Apple's own next generation OS, Copland, was dead in the water at the time. And the reason why it was easy for Apple to convert OSX to an x86 Intel chip was because NeXTStep/OPenStep was designed on the x86 architecture.
And if you're willing wait and let Microsoft decide on when to release Halo3 on to other platforms and most likely never on the PlayStation (excuse my initial error in thinking that Halo and Halo2 were already available on PS.
Just as Microsoft has every right to limit the distribution of their own software (Halo3) and not license it to their competitors. in order to enhance the marketbility of their own hardware. Apple should be allowed to do the the same. Do you see anything wrong with MS not wanting to release Halo on to a PlayStation or Mac? (And even if MS loses money on their Xbox. They can charge more for licenses to game developers because every Xbox sold increases market share.)
BTW- It is trivial to convert games from one platform to another when you write games that you're going to eventually release on multiple platforms. The game is written is such a way that it can easily be ported. It's not as though the whole game has to be manually re-written. Software does most of the work. Halo was not specifically written for an Xbox. It was ported to the Xbox platform. It can just as easily be ported to any other platform. But Microsoft has full control of Halo3. And Microsoft is purposely not letting Bungie port any of the Halo series to PlayStations because PlayStations are in direct competition with the Xbox.
And the "artificail bond" is real for Apple. Because Apple does not want to put the effort into making OSX work on all generic PCs. So they bond it to their hardware for this reason. There is a difference between OSX working on all generic PC and OSX can be made to work on all generic PCs. You only have to worry about getting OSX to work on your "xHack". Apple would have to make it work on what? A million different generic PC congifurations? You getting OSX to work on one generic PC is a far cry from OSX being "native" for all PCs.
[...]
And there's no legal means by which you can make Apple support all (or any anyone elses) PC hardware with OSX. Apple doesn't want to put the effort into OSX to make it work on all generic PCs. If Apple say that you can use OSX on any generic PC, then they are responsible for making OSX work on them. Sure it's great that you have the tech know how on how to get OSX to work on your "xHack". But the vast majority of PC users would be lost. Who's going to help them . Apple doesn't want to. And they don't have to as long as they state that OSX is not intended for generic PCs'. And do you think that any clone maker is going to support you after OSX no longer works because of an OSX update. Apple doesn't want the headache of making sure they write their updates so that it works on all PC hardware (Remmember the iBrick fiasco.). And many Mac program writers also don't want to deal with making sure their Mac programs works on all PCs. They just assume sell you a Windowss version.
I'm not asking Apple to support all types of hardware, just not lock OS X out of it. I recommend a Macintosh version and a "system builder's version" with a big "use at your own risk" sticker on it.
And how much money did Apple lose because you didn't buy an Apple Mac? Like you said. the only way Apple really makes money on OSX is to tie it to their hardware. And if you take away someones ability to legally make money by illeagal means, you're stealing from him.
I think you meant, "if you take away someone's ability to illegally make money by legal means."
Regardless, it's not my responsibility that Apple didn't price OS X high enough! My iMac came with 10.1. I bought Jaguar, Panther, Tiger and Leopard (then rolled back to Tiger
By the way, I think you seriously underestimate what Apple makes on iTunes sales & App Store sales. If a $2.99 app sells 1000 copies, Apple takes home $900. Doesn't sound like much but it more than covers the bandwidth... Now multiply that by 1000 Apps... Almost a million bucks right there and we haven't even begun to scratch the surface.
-Clive
I recommend a Macintosh version and a "system builder's version" with a big "use at your own risk" sticker on it.
Herein lays the dilemma. If Apple offers this as a free DL then there are drivers built to support on various HW and Apple will lose HW sales to these homegrown systems, but if they sell it they do have a requirement to support it. If they don't support it or offer any drivers for it then there would be surely be a class action.
Regardless, it's not my responsibility that Apple didn't price OS X high enough! My iMac came with 10.1. I bought Jaguar, Panther, Tiger and Leopard (then rolled back to Tiger.
Exactl!y! It's Apple's responsibility to price and market their products that best benefit their financial goals, not ours.
Certainly my iMac's hardware didn't subsidize the price of all four of those OSes! If Apple finds they are losing money on OS sales, they should raise prices.
You are beyond the range of the normal Mac user's upgrade cycle, but I'm certainly at the opposite end of you. If the average Mac user replaced his Mac once every 8 years the upgrade would probably be spaced farther apart and cost more.
BTW- It is trivial to convert games from one platform to another when you write games that you're going to eventually release on multiple platforms.
There are some PS3 programmers who will be delighted to hear this news. :-)
C.
Just as Microsoft has every right to limit the distribution of their own software (Halo3) and not license it to their competitors. in order to enhance the marketbility of their own hardware. Apple should be allowed to do the the same. Do you see anything wrong with MS not wanting to release Halo on to a PlayStation or Mac? (And even if MS loses money on their Xbox. They can charge more for licenses to game developers because every Xbox sold increases market share.)
The console business market is "lose money on hardware, and make it back by overpricing software"
According to folks here..
Apple's business model is "lose money on software and make it back on overpricing hardware"
I dislike both models, because prices are being manipulated. Every 360 game has a $10 console tax.
However these two cases are not symmetrical.
A PS3 is a profoundly different hardware from a 360, the incompatibility is not artificial. Wheras a Mac really is a standard PC. Since the move to Intel, OS X incompatibility is a deliberate engineered-in choice.
C.
....A PS3 is a profoundly different hardware from a 360, the incompatibility is not artificial. Wheras a Mac really is a standard PC. Since the move to Intel, OS X incompatibility is a deliberate engineered-in choice.
OK, we've finally reached a reductio ad absurdum in your argument, and you were nice enough to supply it: thank you!
So as long as Apple stuck with the PPC, it was perfectly all right for OS X to work on it only, because Macs were on a different platform from the rest of the PC market. And if Apple had stuck to the PPC, or switched to some other processor that wasn't x86 compatible, everything would have been hunky-dory. But the minute they switch to Intel processors, all of a sudden they're legally obligated to port OS X to run on any Intel machines?
Wait a minute, though! It's obviously possible to run Windows on PPC, because IBM (and now Lenovo?) did it for 15 or 16 years. If it's true that the sudden explosion in Mac sales with the switch to Intel can be attributed to Windows compatibility, then Apple should have sued Microsoft for not porting Windows to the Mac platform. They obviously cost Apple billions of dollars in sales by not doing so.
Does any of this show you how silly your argument is, or are you willing to admit that Apple can do nothing right as far as you're concerned, and just leave it at that?
So as long as Apple stuck with the PPC, it was perfectly all right for OS X to work on it only, because Macs were on a different platform from the rest of the PC market.
It would also mean that Mac OS X would be required to run on XBox as they use PPCs.
OK, we've finally reached a reductio ad absurdum in your argument, and you were nice enough to supply it: thank you!
So as long as Apple stuck with the PPC, it was perfectly all right for OS X to work on it only, because Macs were on a different platform from the rest of the PC market. And if Apple had stuck to the PPC, or switched to some other processor that wasn't x86 compatible, everything would have been hunky-dory.
Not quite. If someone could legally make a better/cheaper PPC clone, in a clean room - I don't think that should be illegal. Such competition would be good for Apple products, and consumers.
In "Soul of a New Machine" the book tells how Data General made a legal clone of the VAX processor. Instead of illegally copying the machine, they created a functionally equivalent clone without looking at the VAX's internals.
Making legal clones is tough, but in the case of the x86 Mac, Apple have saved us the trouble. Instead of having to clone Apple's exotic hardware, Apple has adopted vanilla PC hardware.
I have never said Apple should be forced to support every Intel processor based system on the planet. Merely that they should not artificially block the installation of purchased copies of OS X on compatible computers which don't have an Apple logo.
Apple would only have to offer support to Macintosh computers or computers bearing a "Made for OS X" sticker.
C.
If someone could clone a cheap XBox 360, Steve Balmer would go round to his house with a truck of free beer, because Balmer can't wait to shut down the money-losing 360 factory.
Not quite. If someone could legally make a better/cheaper PPC clone, in a clean room - I don't think that should be illegal. Such competition would be good for Apple products, and consumers.
In "Soul of a New Machine" the book tells how Data General made a legal clone of the VAX processor. Instead of illegally copying the machine, they created a functionally equivalent clone without looking at the VAX's internals.
That's too much work for a fly-by-night operation like Psystar. They are out to make a quick buck.
The console business market is "lose money on hardware, and make it back by overpricing software"
According to folks here..
Apple's business model is "lose money on software and make it back on overpricing hardware"
I dislike both models, because prices are being manipulated. Every 360 game has a $10 console tax.
It's a catch 22. If MS and Sony wanted to make money on their consoles and charged $800 for them. They would end up selling less consoles. If they sell less consoles, they can't sell as many games. Which means the games will end up costing more anyways. MS and Sony would also get less money for licenses from game developers that wants to write games for their platforms. And the less consoles out there the less likely it is to attract game developers. Which means less choices of games for the consumers. With this way, the consumer takes most of the risk by paying a lot for a console and then hoping they sell enough consoles to attract game developers to the platform. Otherwise they end up with less games to choose from that are expensive anyways because game developers can't sell too many of them.
The way it works now is that MS and Sony "subsidize" the consoles they sell with the license fee they charge game developers. The more consoles in the consumers hands the more the license fee. The game developers makes back their license fee with the games they sell. The more game consoles out there the more game developers it attracts. Which means more games choices for the consumers. With this way, the console makers takes most of the risk. They hope to get as many consoles in the hands of the consumers by selling them at a loss. In hopes of eventually making money at first with the license fee and later with componet cost coming down. The consumers win. They get a console at a reasonable price. More games to choose from. And the cost of the games are reasonable because the game developers can sell a lot of them and thus spread the license fee over many more games sold..
This is not really the same with Apple because Apple is both the seller of the hardware and software. Apple is subsidizing itself. It's not like MS and Sony making up their losses selling the hardware with the companies that are writing and selling the games for it.
However these two cases are not symmetrical.
A PS3 is a profoundly different hardware from a 360, the incompatibility is not artificial. Wheras a Mac really is a standard PC. Since the move to Intel, OS X incompatibility is a deliberate engineered-in choice.
C.
There are already over a hundred games for the PS3. The marjority of them were not originally written for the PS3 but was ported to it. There is no reason why MS can't port Halo3 to the PS3. Other than they deliberately choose not to. As difficult as it may be to port games to the PS3. The task is trivial compare to the rewards for doing so. Halo3 for PS3 would most likely become the second best selling game of all time. Right behind Halo3 for Xbox. And if MS port it to PS2, it would be the best selling game of all time. MS Xbox division may even be in the black for a couple of quarters.
The only thing Apple does that is deliberate (with regards to OSX) is that they choose to only have it support the x86 hardware found on their Macs.
As much as you want to think that Apple can easily make their OSX support all X86 hardware. It would be 1000 times easier for MS to port Halo3 to PS3. They would only have to worry about one configuration as all PS3 are the same. This can't be said about Apple trying to get OSX to run on all the different configurations of generic PCs.
It's a catch 22. If MS and Sony wanted to make money on their consoles and charged $800 for them. They would end up selling less consoles.
That's exactly my point. The console business model is messed-up. Amusingly, both Sony and MS are hemorrhaging cash from their respective console fiascos.
There are already over a hundred games for the PS3. The marjority of them were not originally written for the PS3 but was ported to it. There is no reason why MS can't port Halo3 to the PS3. Other than they deliberately choose not to. A
You are arguing game development issues with a (former) game developer.
As I have pointed out, at length elsewhere on this forum, development costs for the PS3 are significantly higher than the 360. This is reduced if using a multi-platform engine such as Unreal. Much much more if you have a single-platform engine such as Halo. It would cost MS around $5-10M to port the Halo engine to PS3.
MS will, of course, not do this. Because they don't want to provide consumers with a reason to buy the PS3.
Do you think this undermines my argument? No not at all.
Is the current model of console game business good for consumers? Not really. Games are over-priced to pay back the console tax. Development costs are too high. And there is a lack of an even playing field for game developers, who try to make money while competing against massively-subsided first-party titles. The market is in failure mode. Apart from Nintendo who have adopted a more honest approach.
As much as you want to think that Apple can easily make their OSX support all X86 hardware. It would be 1000 times easier for MS to port Halo3 to PS3. They would only have to worry about one configuration as all PS3 are the same. This can't be said about Apple trying to get OSX to run on all the different configurations of generic PCs.
Your argument is weird. You are really saying that because Microsoft uses somewhat monopolistic practices in the games arena, Apple should be allowed to use even more monopolistic practices in desktop OS?
Please read my posts. I have already said...
1) OS X already runs great on a bunch of standard PC hardware.
2) Apple should not make the same mistakes as Microsoft. They should avoid trying to support *all* PC hardware, and instead charge hardware manufacturers for OS X compatibility stickers.
C.
That's exactly my point. The console business model is messed-up. Amusingly, both Sony and MS are hemorrhaging cash from their respective console fiascos.
Except that MS is only losing money on the 360 because of the RROD problem (and perhaps the recent price cut) and Sony should be breakeven on the PS3 if not now then soon.
Sony did not hemorrhage money on the PS2. Nor is the PS3 a "fiasco" yet. It's too early to tell given the desired lifetime for the console. Given that the PS3 has been doing okay the last couple quarters it you might be able to say it flopped if it doesn't have a good XMas this year. Sony should still come in second and win the hard core gamer market.
You are arguing game development issues with a (former) game developer.
I recall you asserting this before without being able to say what titles you worked on.
Is the current model of console game business good for consumers? Not really. Games are over-priced to pay back the console tax. Development costs are too high. And there is a lack of an even playing field for game developers, who try to make money while competing against massively-subsided first-party titles. The market is in failure mode. Apart from Nintendo who have adopted a more honest approach.
The reason that Nintendo could sell consoles at a profit is because the Wii is a revamped Cube with a nifty controller.
Failure mode? Hardly.
That's exactly my point. The console business model is messed-up. Amusingly, both Sony and MS are hemorrhaging cash from their respective console fiascos.
The only reason why Sony is (was) losing on the sales of PS3 is because they elected to put a Blu-Ray DVD player in it. At the time, a Blu-Ray player still sold for around $600. Sony made a business decision to use the PS3 as a way to push the Blu-Ray format. It paid off. HD is dead. And as Blu-Ray players take hold, their cost will drop and in due time, the PS3 will be profitable for Sony. MS with the Xbox is another story all together. The Xbox will never become profitable if MS decides to put a Blu-Ray DVD player in it.
You are arguing game development issues with a (former) game developer.
As I have pointed out, at length elsewhere on this forum, development costs for the PS3 are significantly higher than the 360. This is reduced if using a multi-platform engine such as Unreal. Much much more if you have a single-platform engine such as Halo. It would cost MS around $5-10M to port the Halo engine to PS3.
Halo 3 sold made over $150 million on it's first day. That's only selling it to Xbox owners. Sony would gladly pay the $10 million to port Halo 3 to PS3 or PS2. But MS is not interested. Bungie would have ported it by now.
MS will, of course, not do this. Because they don't want to provide consumers with a reason to buy the PS3.
And apple don't want to provide consumers with a reason not to buy a Mac to get OSX.
Do you think this undermines my argument? No not at all.
Is the current model of console game business good for consumers? Not really. Games are over-priced to pay back the console tax. Development costs are too high. And there is a lack of an even playing field for game developers, who try to make money while competing against massively-subsided first-party titles. The market is in failure mode. Apart from Nintendo who have adopted a more honest approach.
How can you say that. This is the exact model that Sony used on the PSX and PS2. Consumers can now get the PSX for less than $50 and most used games for it cost less that $15.00. (Not sure if they're still developing new games on this platform. I wouldn't be surprise if they are. There's more PSX players out there than Xboxes.) The PS2 now cost around $150 and they're still putting out new games on that platform. And Sony is probablly making money on the PS2 console at that price. There are no shortage of games out there. You can rent most games or join a club and pay a subscribe fee to play them.
However, as with all technologically advance electronics, if you want the lastest and greatest you're going to have to pay for it when it first comes out. But as soon as the company makes back it's R&D the price drops dramatically.
Your argument is weird. You are really saying that because Microsoft uses somewhat monopolistic practices in the games arena, Apple should be allowed to use even more monopolistic practices in desktop OS?
Please read my posts. I have already said...
1) OS X already runs great on a bunch of standard PC hardware.
2) Apple should not make the same mistakes as Microsoft. They should avoid trying to support *all* PC hardware, and instead charge hardware manufacturers for OS X compatibility stickers. C.
I'm not saying that this practice is monopolistic (or anti-competitive) at all. MS is competing with Sony and has every right to not make available, what is now, their intellectual property on a competitors machine. It is you that insist that what Apple is being anti-competitive (using monopolistic practice) by not allowing OSX to be used on their competitors generic PCs. I'm mearly pointing out that MS is doing the same with Halo3 and the PS3. And yet no one has brought any anti-competitive charges on them for this.