Why Steve Jobs doesn't Get It

I hate Windows. I just dont' get it. They're no point of running your computer on Windows, the green and blue being a horrible operating system. Not only is it annoying, it is basic, boring and tiring. Ford cars have more ethusiasm than a Windows user.

So why doesn't Apple do anything?

I mean, why does Steve Jobs just sit there? Steve Jobs sure is cocky, isn't he? Listen, I know it's really hard to critisise someone who's done so much good for an industry more messed up than Paris Hilton after a phonecall from her ex boyfried, but twist your head for a second.

Steve Jobs keeps praising how good OS X is. Here, here, I say. Of course it is. It's so sexy and beautifull, the way it intermingles with the Mac, both loving each others company.

And yet Steve Jobs doesn't allow OS X to compete faily with Windows. Steve Jobs is a chicken, and everybody knows it.

Okay, maybe that was too blunt. "Steve Jobs is a chicken? Oh, how could it be? I love Steve Jobs ... Steve, Steve, Steve!" Yea.

Listen, he praises Mac OS X for being "the most sophistcated operation system in the world." (his words). He says that it is the best Operating System in the world. Uh ... okay. So why don't you let people use it?

Don't give me that cock and bull about the only way one can use Mac OS X is to buy the God **** Macintosh. Why doesn't Steve allow Mac OS X to be licened by Dell? So then the USER will decide which one is better.

Steve Jobs is strangling users to death. I think he should let the user decide who is better, instead of making the user buy a freking Mac just to experece the OS X. That's pathetic.

Let's face it. Windows is boring and dull. We need another alternative. Steve Jobs said, "We have to get the notion out of our minds that in order for Apple to do good, Microsoft has to fail. In order for Apple to do good, Apple has to make great applications."

So why not let OS X free, so the computer makers will offer both choices. How cool would that be? Users will see Windows, then slam it in its face for Mac OS X.

Apple would lose money if you could install OSX on other computers. think about it... people would buy OSX and put it on a computer that costs half as much as an Apple computer. Apple is a hardware company, they're in the business of selling the computer not the OS. Its kinda like if Dell came up with an OS and then allowed you to install it on an HP computer, it makes no sense

apple is not only a software company, but it is a hardware company also! It must make money some other ways than the ipod...

michaelstumpf said:

Apple would lose money if you could install OSX on other computers. think about it... people would buy OSX and put it on a computer that costs half as much as an Apple computer. Apple is a hardware company, they're in the business of selling the computer not the OS. Its kinda like if Dell came up with an OS and then allowed you to install it on an HP computer, it makes no sense

Click to expand...

This is 100% the truth and not only is it the truth, its the way it should be. I am telling you if an operating system went out on all systems the amount of work that would have to be made to support all that hardware is rediculous and not only time consuming could weaken the os. That is probably one of the cauases for the fact that windows is not up to par with mac osx as you put it, because it has to be coded for all hardware old new, expensive or a dirt cheap system. Where as the coders for mac can say this is how its going to go, its going to go on this this and this kind of hardware, nothing more, and that we can code for it and not wory about loop holes or the fact that something down the line won't be supported and we are going to get phone calls and then realease a new driver that might have a hole in it.. not only is that not productive it is also not good for the computer. Personally I rather have a mac computer with the mac os on it, this way if something is wrong with my hardware or software, apple will release a patch for it, apple, nobody else. That is the reason that not only the company is so strong, but the reason for the stability of the operating system, and the longevity of the systems.

It is my firm opinion that apple software remain on apple hardware, and if it is going to be hacked to put on other peoples hardware that is what is going to happen in the illegal community, but Apple should not support this, or help out by getting a few more sales of their os out there, and loosing the millions of dollars in sales on their hardware. They would loose everything and be a company that sells pretty much just an iPod and a OS. With that they will never be able to compete against Microsoft and they will be destroyed in a second. That would be the end of our Operating System that we all love and cherish so much, that would be the end of our iPods, iLife, Pro apps, and a few useful little products along the way. Although I see why you would want osx to be released for the sale on other computers. We all know its only because you want to buy a cheaper computer and have the same, or close, experience. We also all know that at-least all of us here at the forums bit the bullet, and yes that means you too, to buy these computers, and we will continue to do so for as long as we no longer can afford it or we die.

I am sorry for my rant.
Continue with the thread

I don't know why your wrote this thread, you seem very angry... but.. Apple is a hardware company that creates software to sell its hardware. He isn't trying to make money from the OS, he is making money from the Hardware.

Everyone here I am sure prefers OSX to Windows anything, but there is no need to make personal attacks on them for choosing the OS they did. Its just an OS, and usually based off of $, the OS is a little more difficult to use, but it can do nearly everything OSX can do. Its like buying a compact car. We just bought a Porsche.

Honestly, I think its good to have the competition.

I feel OS X and the Apple hardware combined, bring *nix to the masses in a package that works perfectly. Through the years, on and off, I've loaded just about every Linux distro there is, on most machines I've had. Or, I should say, I've tried to load it. In some cases it worked, and reasonably well at that, but plug and play it's not. The reason, I believe, is exactly what the other posters have mentioned: the enormous variation of hardware. In fairness to MS and Windows, you've got to give them credit for having an OS that works as well as it does, across that spectrum of hardware. But, back to the Mac, the software is written to perform on a very carefully controlled/configured hardware set, and surely that's the reason it works so darn well. As an aside, I recently gave Linspire Linux a spin, and came away thinking that if they (Linspire) limited the installation of Linspire to their own hardware, they might have a shot at the big boys.

Mark

Its this simple, OSX works because it does so with a limited hardware set.

Expand that hardware set and the OS falls and is exactly the case with windows. Think about this as an example you buy a computer (mac or pc) you get it home and everything works great, life is sweet.

You then go out and buy a new graphics card for example, rip apart your machine and it dont work properly (not a hardware fault) who do you imediately blame your OS or the GFX card makers?
You blame the OS everytime which takes away the original experence of it working when you first got your machine. Its reasons like this that add to fact that apple wont release OSX to run on any machine

well im not angry, at least not at Apple. Im just frustrated that the market is dominated single handidly by Windows. And the thing is, people don't even like Windows. They want to switch, but come on, do you honestly expect a person to buy an enitire new Macintosh just to get a new experirence?

think about it. my friend for example, he has a GREAT pc. it's fast, ATI and all, i sweat it can make cokies! but he hates Windows. There is no way he's going to spend the money, nor does he have it, to buy an Apple iMac Dual Core

As for the money, well, do you think Apple would loose money. Would it not gain back the money from the word of mouth, espcially when there OS's start running on more and more of the worlds' computer. And to think about it, is Apple such a money hungry company anyway? Okay, that' stupid, they're a coroporation. Ofcousre they are!

too many patches to release for too many hardware companies.
E.X.: Dell patch, H.P. patch, Compaq patch, Alienware patch, Gateway patch... just too many. It's better off for them to stick to just Apple computers. Plus, it's easier to program for JUST one hardware type and you know that they know EVERYTHING there is to know on the whole system, both hardware and OS. If someone with a Dell calls Apple tech support and it ends up being a hardware problem, Apple can't solve anything b/c they don't REALLY know the inside of a dell and this wastes money between phone bills and other stuff they could be doing. You see where I'm getting here?

You don't make money by having your software installed on lots of PCs. You make money by selling things. In Apple's case, those things are computers.

With 27% margins, Apple keeps about $350 from each iMac it sells. In order to make the same amount of money, Apple would have to
- Charge $370 or so for each copy of OS X, or
- Sell three times as many copies of OS X as it currently sells computers, at $129 (the current price)

You only have one friend, not three.

I spent 16yrs at Intel designing PCs --- heres the big difference:

In the "open" architecture of the PC, Microsoft and Intel have to cajole the manufacturerers into using / following (properly) specifications for everything from drivers - UI - to hardware. And these specs are developed by large committes made up of the manufacturers (who are actully competitors) so they all have an axe to grind or an agenda. Think of the PC as the ultimate - designed by committee device.

In the Apple's "closed" architecture, everything is controlled by one company with one cohesive plan. Whether that plan is good or bad (Apple Cube) at least they control all aspects of the final design from software thru hardware.


However this does not result in market dominance, superior technology has never been sure-fire success. People and companies often go for the lowest price option out there ---- this is what happened during the '90s as the PC built its huge base of users. Also during this time Intel and Microsoft were driving hardware specs into everything from power supplies to hard drives to lower the costs and ensure OEMs could make cheap cookie-cutter boxes --- thats why all PCs look the same -- its the cheapest way to build hundreds of millions of PCs. PCs are not designed for users they're designed to be built cheaply.

I do forsee a possibility of an HP or a Dell selling an OS X machine .... but this would only happen on a few select models that conformed exactly to Apples design specifications / approval. This might increase Apples margin a bit