[Off topic] Re: Mac OS X

[Tim Seufert]

On Mar 21, 2004, at 8:28 PM, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:

> 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,

Actually, no, it's not.  The G4 and G5 bus interfaces are very 
different from Intel and AMD front side busses.  Even if that 
fundamental barrier could be overcome, there is none of the legacy PC 
I/O stuff in a Mac (required for PC compatibility), the firmware is 
completely different (Open Firmware vs. PC BIOS), and Apple has some 
key differences from PC architectures even when nominally using the 
same technology.  (Such as a more flexible AGP GART which is supposed 
to benefit Quartz Extreme.)

> 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.

I doubt Apple could ever attain that magical 90% number Windows has 
while Apple was still the sole supplier of Macs.  Or even while having 
a clone licensing program with as much control as they had when it was 
tried in the mid-90s.  (The level of control was a big factor in why 
that program failed and was canceled, IMO.)

> 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.

I disagree.  Using Linux does not automatically guarantee that you are 
never locked in any more than using MacOS X guarantees that you are 
locked in.

If you buy Macs to run only open source applications, you can migrate 
to another platform at any time.

If you buy Macs to run Adobe Photoshop, you're not locked into Apple, 
you're locked into Adobe.  You can switch to any platform Adobe has a 
Photoshop port for.

If you buy PCs to run a proprietary app on Linux, you are locked into 
that app's vendor just the same as that last Mac example.  This is 
actually a significant chunk of Linux penetration: many proprietary 
apps (EDA, CAD, 3D modeling, databases, etc.) which used to run mainly 
on Sun and/or Windows now have Linux versions too.  A big reason for 
this trend is that customers who prefer UNIX and/or need 64-bit 
addressing would like to use cheaper and faster hardware than Sun can 
supply.  But switching to Linux doesn't mean those customers aren't 
still locked in.

(Many such users are actually locked into a specific distribution, 
almost always Red Hat, because those vendors don't want to support more 
than one Linux distro.)

I believe that lock-in depends a great deal more on application 
software and file format choices than OS or hardware.