Re: [Fed-Talk] Re: Fed-talk Digest, Vol 7, Issue 331
Re: [Fed-Talk] Re: Fed-talk Digest, Vol 7, Issue 331
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] Re: Fed-talk Digest, Vol 7, Issue 331
- From: Dave Schroeder <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:08:53 -0600
Keep in mind, folks, that while we could endlessly debate the merits of Apple only allowing their OS to run on Apple hardware, Apple's business model is predicated on strongly tying hardware with software.
But to be clear, I am not arguing for the ability to run Mac OS X on any hardware.
First, I am making this argument for Mac OS X Server, a distinctly different product than Mac OS X (and yes, I am intimately aware that Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server are essentially the same OS; however, Mac OS X Server is a different *product*, with a different market and focus).
Second, I am not making an argument to allow any Apple OS to directly run on non-Apple hardware, but rather, to be supported in virtualization environments running on non-Apple hardware. This abstracts Apple from the complexity and variety of non-Apple/"PC" server hardware.
I am not arguing for this as a "bridge" to running Mac OS X on any hardware: that is a road Apple does not want to go down, for good reason. And allowing Mac OS X *Server* to run in non-Apple virtualization environments doesn't need to "open the floodgates", as it were, for Mac OS X. It's still mostly a license restriction, and Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server can have two distinct licenses, and pricing.
And even if some people were to see running Mac OS X Server in a VMware environment on their Dell laptop as a "back door" to legally running Mac OS X, pricing commensurate with virtualization (e.g., $999/seat) could prevent this from being an attractive alternative. Thus, even if people chose to not pay for the license and/or still chose to run Mac OS X Server in a "non-Server" environment, it would still be relegated to the hacker/hobbyist community...which is where it is right now, anyway.
- Dave
On Nov 10, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Moore, Dallas T. wrote:
> See, this is really where the heart of the problem lies… And Nathan – I totally agree. Having an OS locked to one, and only one, hardware vendor is what really prohibits Apple’s entry in to any market other than the hipster consumer market.
>
> v/r
> Dallas Moore
> 703.495.6573 - Office
> 571.499.7371 - Mobile
> 703.495.6680 - Fax
>
>
> From: fed-talk-bounces+dallas.t.moore=email@hidden [mailto:fed-talk-bounces+dallas.t.moore=email@hidden] On Behalf Of Nathan Points
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 3:56 PM
> To: email@hidden
> Subject: [Fed-Talk] Re: Fed-talk Digest, Vol 7, Issue 331
>
>
> http://appleopenletter.com/
>
> I agree!!! I wish OSX can run on any PC legally.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden