[Off topic] Re: Mac OS X

[Konstantin Ryabitsev]

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig96305D34850B02E05FFB9207
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Clinton MacDonald wrote:
> I do not have the license in front of me, but I will concede that it 
> says you can only use the OS on Apple hardware. Ignoring, for the 
> moment, that no other vendor makes Mac OS X-compatible CPUs

The CPUs (G5) are made by IBM. Apple doesn't make their own CPUs -- they 
have been using Motorolla chips, and are now switching to IBMs for their 
G5 line.

Since everything else in a Mac is standard PC-compatible equipment, 
there is nothing that would prevent anyone from making a generic Mac 
clone, and the only reason this isn't done on a mass scale is because 
the only OSes that can be run on it *legally* are Linux and Unix 
derivatives, which won't sell (heck, ask Terrasoft). This is because 
Apple forbids running its OS on any equipment that isn't Apple-branded.

> One should choose one's operating system based on which programs one 
> wants to run, not on which hardware one might someday want to run the 
> programs on. Seriously, I use this argument all the time. For instance, 
> if the only programs a computer buyer will ever run are the Microsoft 
> Office applications (in, say, a secretarial setting), then I advise the 
> buyer to purchase the Microsoft operating system on compatible PC 
> hardware.

There is one important pitfall, namely -- you are creating a vendor 
lock-in. Further on you complain that Windows activation scheme is a 
pain, and vendor lock-in is *precisely* the reason why Microsoft is able 
to enforce this draconian measure on its customers. They are used to 
using MS products, and they have entire infrastructures based on MS 
products, making migration or even bargaining completely impossible. In 
effect, this allows a corporation to fully dictate such things as 
features, prices, and where all further development of its platform is 
going.

Documents written in MS Office will more likely than not require MS 
Office in order to open and read. Especially after DRM features are 
implemented, making the lock-in complete. If now you are able to import 
MS Word documents in OpenOffice, this is not going to be possible (or 
legal) if these (your own!) documents are DRM-protected.

However, with Windows you are only tied to software vendor, and not to 
hardware. With Apple, you are in a complete vendor lock-in. If tables 
turn and Apple gains 90% of the market like Windows of today, you will 
not only not be able to swith to another OS because your infrastructure 
will depend on Mac, but you will also be *required* to buy your 
computers from Apple, allowing them to dictate any prices they want (a 
classic monopoly). Such full dependence on a vendor is a terrible, 
terrible state of affairs. Given a chance, Apple will become a far worse 
monopolist than Microsoft.

It's all about choice and not burning bridges behind you when making 
business decisions. With Linux and other free software (libre), you are 
never tied to a single vendor. We use Red Hat Linux today, but if they 
make a decision that goes contrary to what our business requires, we 
will be able to very easily switch to an alternative vendor, be it 
Novell or Mandrake, or whatnot. Running a Mac shop, you are *always* 
dependent on what Apple board of directors decides to do. If they make a 
decision you don't like, well, sucks to be you. You have no choice but 
to acquiesce, or spend very large sums of money on migration from Apple 
to an alternative vendor, which may just be impossible (see earlier 
musings about DRM).

> I am not sure what you mean by that statement -- Apple's licensing 
> certainly hasn't harmed my "business" (or research and educational 
> endeavors). The hardware is more expensive initially, but I find that 
> its longevity more than makes up for that.

Not yet, sure. They are an underdog in the OS market and they have every 
reason not to piss off their customers. Microsoft, on the other hand, 
has much less of a reason to do so, since their vendor lock-in efforts 
have guaranteed them lots and lots of users *whatever* they decide to 
do. Today it's license activation pain. Tomorrow it will be something else.

This is why I say that Apple licensing is bad for business.

> On the other hand, I don't believe that Microsoft has (intentionally, at 
> least :-) ) contributed any of their operating system code to the Open 
> Source community. Apple is doing the right thing with the Darwin version 
> of BSD, as far as I know, and is also contributing heavily to other 
> important technologies (like the KHTML base of Konqueror and Rendezvous 
> for network discovery).

This doesn't mean what you think it means. Most of the time licenses on 
these free pieces of software *require* Apple developers to open their 
source. And they are only willing to open their protocols because 
otherwise they would be very lonely on the networks. Right now 
cooperating with other platforms is important for Apple. Will it be so 
in the future? Microsoft certainly doesn't bother -- all its protocols 
have to be reverse-engineered.

> Do I wish that Apple's PowerMacs were cheaper? Sure I do: I wish they 
> were FREE, but that seems unreasonable. Do I think that Apple could use 
> some competition in its market? Actually, Apple has incredible amounts 
> of competition form all the Wintel and Linux PCs on the market today. Do 
> I wish that other companies made Mac OS X-compatible hardware? I'm not 
> so sure.... If driving the profit out of the hardware side of their 
> market drove Apple out of business, I would be unable to get *any* Mac 
> OS X products. So, I will have to say, "No."

Apple is playing nice *only* because it has competition. However, its 
licensing shows that they have, in fact, done everything possible to 
make sure that if they make significant inroads, they will become much 
worse than Microsoft of today. Their legal department only proves this. 
Mac-addicts tend to ignore all the lawsuits and hostile takeovers done 
by Apple, but it's quite telling of their general idea about how to run 
their business.

> Apple's job in the market is to create new and innovative hardware and 
> software, and to keep creating it so that it is always a few steps ahead 
> of the rest of the PC market.

Apple's job in the market is to make money, the more the better. Always 
keep that in mind. It innovates only because it has to at the moment. 
When it stops being cost-effective, they will stop. How much innovation 
are you seeing from Microsoft? When was the last time a new feature was 
added to Internet Explorer ever since it won the "browser wars?"

> Just as innovations made by BMW and other 
> high-end automobile manufacturers (innovations like air-bags, anti-lock 
> brakes, etc.) eventually make their way to less expensive vehicles, so 
> do innovations first brought to market by Apple (windowing operating 
> systems, mice, WYSIWYG word processing, wireless networking, printer 
> discovery, USB, Firewire, the iPod; heck, even Microsoft Word and Excel 
> started on the Mac!) become mainstream in the PC world. Not everyone 
> wants to purchase a Mac, just as not everyone wants to purchase a BMW. 
> There is enough variety to keep everyone happy in the computing world.

See, this is where your analogy breaks down. I can switch to driving a 
Honda, or a Ford, or a Toyota after I've driven a BMW, if I'm no longer 
satisfied with the quality of cars that BMW makes, or the value I get 
out of it. If OS vendors made cars, they would make sure that it was 
*extremely* difficult for you to switch from their brand to another, 
whatever the quality of their merchandise becomes.

With Apple licensing, you'd have to drive a BMW even if it started 
eating your babies.

Regards,
-- 
Konstantin ("Icon") Ryabitsev
Duke Physics Systems Admin, RHCE
I am looking for a job in Canada!
http://linux.duke.edu/~icon/cajob.ptml

--------------enig96305D34850B02E05FFB9207
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAXmuHL1U5j3XojiARAvdSAJ9HbnhPjkuet2WX/FhInZqjLzgHlACguink
aOueF6GKR8pJkm7EwOkvVJw=
=XAC3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig96305D34850B02E05FFB9207--