What is Digg?93 Comments
- antwan911, on 10/12/2007, -11/+70"There's no technical reason not to do it. He's so proprietary about everything, yet it could be a very strategic move for him to make."
Apple is a Hardware Company NOT a Software Company like Microsoft
they would never license OS X to Dell because Dells a Hardware Company and licensing OS X would be the equivalent of giving the company to a direct competitor - relativesanity, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33The issue, of course, is why would Apple *want* to do this?
If you're a foaming-at-the-mouth anti MS zealot, then sure, Apple could try to take MS out. The key is that Apple doesn't care about that market. Apple's the, what, third largest PC manufacturer on the planet, behind only HP and Dell. THAT's the competition, not MS. Hell, Windows running on the Mac is *boosting* sales, not hurting them.
Mac OS X is one of the key unique selling points of Apple hardware, and one of the biggest differentiators when comparing with their real competitors - Dell and HP. One of the strongest counters I hear when Mac fans are shown a Dell configured to near a MacBook's spec at half the price is "Fine, but does it run OS X?". It's a killer argument, and one that would fall apart if Apple released Dell OS X.
In short, look at the market rationally. Apple vs. Microsoft is a sideshow. If you believe that's where the battle's at, then of course it makes sense to put OS X on as many boxes as possible. But that's not the game Apple's playing, and frankly, why should they? - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -8/+34Agreed. Basically, licensing the MacOS would hurt Microsoft more than it benefits Apple; rampant piracy would likely follow, which would cut into Apple's licensing income, whereas now, because the OS is tied to the hardware, piracy is pretty well capped, and limited to unscrupulous upgraders who hand around upgrade discs. It would certainly increase the Mac's market share, and threaten MS so badly that the MacOS may well overtake the market if MS continues to blunder along the way it has, but the Mac would no longer have the benefit of seamless integration; part of the reason the MacOS just works and is so simple to upgrade is that Apple controls everything; licensing would vastly increase the number of configurations Apple would have to test, and a lot of the problems that Windows upgraders face would start popping up on the Mac platform.
Apple doesn't need to overtake MS to succeed; it just needs to remain a very comfortable niche and grow at a decent pace while making MS look bad. That's where Apple's at, and it seems happy there. It certainly isn't at risk of going out of business the way it was in the 90's. - conna, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21OS X runs good because it is matched to the hardware exactly as it should be. If MS built motherboards to the exact specs they wanted and you did not have to worry about 3rd party support then Windows would be as good as OS X on apple hardware. OS X would have stability problems if it was let loose on the millions of differential pieces of hardware. For XP to work on almost any motherboard out is amazing by itself.
- jmpcrew, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Every time I hear someone at Microsoft try to explain Windows' problems (other than security), one of the common explanations is drivers. The 3rd party drivers can cause a good deal of instability, especially if the 3rd party doesn't know what it is doing. One of the advantages of Steve Job's position to lock the OS to the hardware has been that Apple can thoroughly test any hardware that interacts with the OS.
Does Jobs really want to let other people tarnish the image of OS X? - Drealoth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11There's this saying about Apple. To Apple, brand isn't everything - it's the only thing.
- S1ngular1ty1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@ neosublime
You do know that parallels works on PCs too, right? So someone could run linux and windows, or windows and BSD, or windows and unix, etc....... - Aggaman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Apple tried licensing its OS back in the 90s. It didn't work and was destroying the company. They still make about half their money from mac sales, so it's not going to change soon.
While I sympathise with those who would like to build their own macs, it is likely that such a licensing scheme would be the end of Apple. That's not to say that one day it might be feasible, but I have yet to see a decent argument (other than "I want it to be so") that would show why it made economic sense for Apple to do this. - rocketryguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Actually, in most circumstances, TCO of macs is actually a *lot* lower than PC's. Tech support costs are vastly lower, as is lost productivity from windows problems. Given the average salary per hour, the hidden loss to the organization is an order of magnitude greater than what they could possibly spend on any platform.
I use multiple OS'es (Mac, Win, Unix, Solaris etc etc), and while it's possible to run a stable windows box, they fall over a hell of a lot more. As others have noted, the hw/sw integration is part of this, but another part of it is the age of the system, and the paradigms involved in the development archetecture.
OS X has far less bloat and cruft, in both it's code and in standards it's trying to support. It's also based to a much greater degree on UNIX, which was originally designed to run the phone system, where reliability was paramount. So the foundation was better laid, and the feature bloat which is rampant in windows (partially for reasons of how microsoft was structured as a business) isn't as prevalent, and code is better controlled.
This is both good and bad:
I'd really appreciate it if Apple would focus some effort on code validation tools so that they can both keep things running smoothly, AND open the frigging platform up to open source developers. There is no reason why this cannot be done, and it would make Apple better, and curtail any evil empire tendencies that might take root as market share is increasing. Control freaks aren't cool, and that can kill apple quicker than anything else. - MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Everyone, please listen!!!
Can we please stop pretending that Apple makes great hardware???? I agree, they computers are nice looking, but the truth is that their logicboards are likely made in the same Chinese factory as Dell (Foxconn, right?). They use all the exact same Intel chipsets (the only thing different about Apple is the DRM.. er, I mean TPM chip). They use the exact same Seagate/Samsung hard drives that Dell uses. There's nothing Super about their Pioneer "Super Drives", except that they're slot-loading (which makes it harder to get discs out of them when they break).
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but for you to claim that Apple hardware is some how higher-quality than anyone else's is just asinine. The packaging is definitely nicer, but inside, it's all the same.
The funnier thing is those Sony notebooks that are almost identical to the MacBook (VGN-C140G) and the MacBook Pro (VGN-N130G). They reason that they look the same is because they're made in the same factory, by the exact same Chinese workers.
Apple is not a hardware company. They're a design firm (that profitably sells hardware), that's really a software company. They're R&D budget for software is probably 100 times greater than their R&D budget for hardware (iPhone included). Someone check their financial docs and prove me wrong. - milarepa, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9You're right, but when they say "apple is a hardware company" they just mean that's where the lionshare of their profits come from.
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@zybch: Macs are 43% of revenue - from the most recent earnings call:
"Macs: 43% of revenue. 1.61M macs shipped, representing 24% growth over year ago quarter. ending inventory unchnaged, 4-5 weeks. Refreshed MacBook and MacBook Pro. Portable shipments up 65% year of year, 60% of total macs sold."
That's actually growing a bit even, as last quarters music revenue percentage was 59% and now it's 57%.
http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/17/1725210&mode=thread
Hardly a comapny that would "fold" even without the iPod and ITMS (which are not going anywhere anyway). - Linshiwen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7OS X runs so beautifully because Apple has complete control over the hardware on which it runs. If OS X were to be allowed to run on non-Macs, it would be a support nightmare. I used to consider this lack of support and thus inability to customize hardware was a major weakness. Since switching 8 months ago, I get it. It is probably one of its greatest strengths.
(sorry my comment resembles a few others above but... meh) - diddydustin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5No, no, no. Apple is a "product company". Didn't you see the Keynote?
- PhillyMJS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4As an Exchange client, Entourage is a piece of *****. Seriously. The killer is that it doesn't use MAPI, but it also still lacks many important features that were present in Outlook 2001. I don't expect things to change with Office 2008, either-- every report I see concentrates on new GUI eye candy and never mentions word one about improvements to Entourage.
I seriously think Microsoft is deliberately hobbling the Exchange connectivity to thwart the Mac's growth in the enterprise. I know I sound like a member of the tinfoil hat brigade, but what other explanation is there? Entourage X 10.1.4 was released in August of 2003. In the 3.5 years since Microsoft has made so little progress toward feature parity with Outlook 2001 that it's utterly shameful.
I have clients who keep Classic around just to run Outlook 2001. And I gave up on Entourage as an Exchange client and just use Outlook for Windows via Parallels. - MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Steve Wozniak is a pretty big proponent of gluing stuff together in garages. I know he's not part of the company anymore, but it's kinda sad to see how far Apple has fallen from the tree.
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8No. Current Macs at least are competitive in price in their class. The Mac Pro costs the same or less than a similarly configured Dell desktop. A MacBook Pro costs less or the same as a similarly configured Dell laptop. The iMac has no other competitors in it's class. Same for the Mac mini.
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There are a lot of drivers that are not really stable in 64-bit versions (if you can find drivers at all). That seems like it would be the culprit.
- zephc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3OS X could run on vanilla PCs with almost no changes, but this is not good for Apple because, being a hardware company, OS X is a "value-add" for buying the hardware, which sets it apart from its competition, which all run Windows (or sometimes Linux). Having a small hardware set to work with, Apple can improve driver stability and have more control in unifying its UI (I mean the actual feel, not just what color things are)
As far as the second idea, what you're suggesting is like a hypervisor[1], which is what Parallels does (with a kernel extension). It should be noted that the kernel OS X now runs, XNU, is based off of the older Mach microkernel, but since then more functionality has been moved into kernel space to improve performance (e.g. video drivers are much faster in kernel space than in user-land space).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervisor - superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Given that Apple actually makes Bootcamp and will ship it for free with Leopard, that's not a very good reversal...
- danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Microsoft does not support 3rd party hardware people it is the hardware manufacturers that are writing the crappy drivers. When you download a new chipset driver for an ASUS MB do you do it from MS or ASUS? You get your chipset driver, your video card driver etc. etc. are all developed by hardware companies and not by Microsoft. The drivers that come with XP are just provided by the manufaturers.
That is one of the biggest reasons why Apple is more stable you get all your system software from one source. Crappy drivers are my biggest complaint with Windows. I would much rather not have a driver at all at least then you know the device won't work before you purchase it. - S1ngular1ty1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I totally agree. If OS X was on as many PCs as Windows it would have just as many stability problems. It is easy to write software when you know exactly what hardware it will be running on. It is way harder to write software when it can run on millions of different PCs.
- voidptr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Funny how he picks Outlook as the killer windows app blocking enterprise adoption of OS X. Microsoft ships Entourage with Office for Mac that works just as well, if not better, than Outlook on Windows. And for the purists out there, Mail.app/iCal/Address Book work pretty well against Exchange as well.
- neosublime, on 10/12/2007, -15/+18Apple is a hardware company... SO sick of that line. They are a technology company. Their software is key. If they were a hardware company, then they would all run windows. Then people that wanted a beautiful computer would buy one, without fear of switching software. Any time I've recomended for a client to make the move to Apple, their fear is leaning new software, and compatability.
Now as far as OS X running on reagular PC's, I have to say that using the OSx86 builds were pretty impressive, fast as hell, BUT, why would anyone buy a mac, if you could run OS X on a Dell. If you had to pay a premium price for a nice system, or a cheaper price for a dell...
By keeping OS X on a mac, YOU HAVE TO BUY A MAC IF YOU WANT TO RUN OS X. By far a mor superior OS. (I type this on My MacBook Pro running Vista). Can your Dell run Windows, Linux, AND Mac OS X?... No? My Mac can. Looks like I got what I paid for, a practicly OS agnostic system. :)
P.S.
Yes I said Vista on my Mac. Before you start bashing, I have to learn to use Vista, since I an IT Tech. I use and prefer Macs, and fix Windows. - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"nice list.. but you can get that for about $500 less by not going with a price gouging company like Dell. "
Oh, I see. So you will only be satisfied when Apple competes with units that are sold at Wal-Mart. - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6S1ngular1ty1,
How many times does this have to be debunked?
Dell Inspiron 9400 17"
vs.
Apple MacBook Pro 17"
On the Dell,
add 2.16GHz processor
add 2GB memory
add 9 cell battery
add ATI X1400
add intel wireless
add 160 GB hard drive
add internal bluetooth
subtotal: $2443
add $100 since the X1400 is only half as fast as the X1600
add $200 for the unavailable upgrade to 2.33GHz
Total: $2753
Similarly configured MBP: $2800
Ports are pretty much a wash. The Dell has more USB ports and the Apple has a Firewire port. The Dell has a 5in1 card reader.
So, the Dell squeezed in at $47 less than the MBP. How much is a pound lighter machine + backlit keyboard + .6" thinner + aluminum shell worth? I'd say for most people much more than $47. - neosublime, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6agreed
- ArcheKlaine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why didn't you factor in the fact that dell always has deals going on to reduce the prices of their laptops? You can usually shave off around 10-20% up to 40% or 700 bucks during the best deals. To cut out these coupons is to take out the reasons why it's good to buy at Dell. :P
- grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3correct, and very easy to prove.
Consider the xbox. The hardware is constant, you never have mystery third party drivers running at kernel level. - kingygk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would buy OSX for the pc in a heartbeat. I am so sick of patch tuesday for Windows Xp.
- ArcheKlaine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Heck, now that I look at it, there's a coupon out now for 300 dollars off any Inspiron notebook. That 300 dollars is enough to upgrade that X1400 to a 7900GS, which easily outclasses the Macbook's X1600. Or you could just leave it cheaper, depending on your needs.
- justnick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2um...XP pro is XP home but with a few more things in it for corperate use like RDP and security options. There is no software that can run on XP home and not XP pro and visa versa. 64 bit windows is a different story but I have not heard of software made for 64 bit windows only that does not have a 32 bit counterpart from the same company. What was the name of the software?
Also, all the drivers for XP home and XP pro are the same but drivers for 64 bit windows are different and some are non existant. - Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Its not about licensing the OS. Does Windows license Windows to Apple? No. Apple created Bootcamp to allow Windows to boot natively on Mac hardware, there is no licensing agreement between Apple and Microsoft to allow that. Using a virtualization product like Parallels allows Windows to run within OS X, and I doubt there is any licensing by Microsoft for that. Microsoft sells you a copy of Windows, what hardware you run it on, or how you run it is no no-consequence to them.
So why should it not be the other way around? Certainly a Mac these days is 99% PC, same CPU, motherboard components, same video card. All the key elements of a Mac are found on the PC, although the PC has a large variety of different vendors for these components. If someone buys a legit copy of OS X, there should be no reason for Apple to prevent the OS from running either virtualized or natively on 3rd party hardware. Its hypocritical actually for Apple to allow Windows to run on a Mac, but not OS X to run on a PC.
I think one of the reasons why Apple will not allow OS X to run on other hardware is it will expose the weakness of OS X. That is, Apple tunes OSX to run on a small sub-set of hand-picked hardware. Hey, if OS X wasn't as stable as it was running on such a small set of hardware, it would be a crying shame, you can do wonders if you know your software will only run on a certain amount of hardware. You can basically fine tune the kernel to run customized to a known set of hardware you have picked out. Even if you could get non-tuned hardware to run with OS X, through hacked drivers or such, I doubt it would perform as efficiently and perhaps even as be stable as Windows. I will give Microsoft credit for creating an OS that pretty much runs on anything you throw at it. With 95% of the global desktop computers running Windows, its been a necessity for Microsoft to lose some performance or even stability in order to support the plethora of variable systems out there. But for Apple this would be a disaster as they could no longer claim OS X is better then Windows when it will crash or underperform as often as Windows on the same variety of junk hardware.
Honestly, I don't think any of you Apple fanboys want OSX to run on anything other then Apple sanctioned hardware. The problem is, now that that hardware is pretty much a PC, most people are buying Mac's to run Windows on, which is a loss for Apple as they are still not convincing people to truely switch to a Mac, just a nicer version of a Dell PC. Apple should never have created bootcamp, or did more to prevent Windows running natively on the Mac. I know 4 people now that own MacBooks or iMac's, and they are all running Windows on them. They dabble in OSX, but all say that there is nothing compelling enough for them to switch to OSX permanently. Its not about Apple licensing the OS to Dell, its about Apple becoming Dell, an OEM Windows PC manufacturer.
And the bottom line is, Apple dropped Computer from its name, the writing is on the wall, they don't consider themselves a computer maker anymore so why should you? - mos6507, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In the end, Apple whines and complains, but reacts to market forces.
People asked for an inexpensive headless Mac. There were debates left and right about how this would doom Apple, but they came out with the Mac Mini and it was a hit.
People asked for Apple to drop the ailing PPC and move to Intel. There were debates left and right about how this would doom Apple, but they did it and it has increased Mac's userbase a lot.
People asked for Apple to add video support to the iPod. Jobs said video would never work on portable devices. The apple faithful fell in lock step with Jobs. Apple eventually put video on the iPod and it was a hit.
People asked for Apple to revive the PDA in the form of the iPod, and add phone features. Jobs used to rail left and right against PDAs. He hated the Newton. But the iPhone is in every way a modernized PDA and is likely to be a hit.
People asked for a TiVo like device from Apple. First we got Front Row, now Apple TV. This one I'm not sure will be a hit because it doesn't record/timeshift live TV, but still...
Now, Apple has taken the COMPUTER out of its corporate name. It makes more money from consumer electronics than traditional computers. If they stopped making Macs entirely they would still be able to survive. So you guys tell me how selling OSX at $179 a pop to tens of millions of PC users and getting them on an upgrade treadmill is a bad business move.
I'm telling you, with Jobs it is ALL about timing. When he shoots down an idea, it just means he doesn't want to do it now. Check back later and he is likely to change his mind. The problem is he is such a good rationalizer that he makes it seem as though the idea is irrevocably bad when it usually just means he's waiting until the timing is right.
But all we get in these debates is tired out arguments from a decade ago when Apple was a fragile company hanging on for dear life. People, Apple isn't the underdog anymore in a lot of areas! It can afford to make bold changes. Heck, it is EXPECTED to make bold changes. Apple users are not all cultists anymore. Jobs' keynotes are global events now, overshadowing anything Bill Gates has to say. Lots of PC users would like to switch but they already have PCs fast enough for OSX and don't want to have to basically buy a dongle for the privilege of running OSX. For people like that, Apple is just missing a financial opportunity that I'm sure shareholders want to tap into. If Jobs goes up there and unbundles the OS, you can bet the second the keynote is over the Apple store will overflow with orders. - bradleyland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The real question is, when is Microsoft going to start making computers?
- mos6507, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is outdated FUD.
When Windows 2000 came out, they published a list of hardware that was verified to work. This is what you do with OSX. People will gladly buy the right combination of components to build an OSX box. I mean jeez, there are only two graphics card developers anymore. It doesn't have to support everything back to the earliest 8-bit ISA cards. - tucsonwc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What windows apps do I want to run? i have office on the mac. And I have a browser.
With that I can do ANYTHING. I can run any major package from an enterprise vendor as they all have web clients to their software. For graphic design I have the adobe suite with the macromedia stuff native to the mac.
Games? I'll take the stability of the Xbox360/PS3 over a PC. It just WORKS on the console. It can hang (like HL2 did for me on my pc boxes). - gsnedders, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As late as Rhapsody DR2 the OS ran on generic x86 hardware. It was perfectly stable.
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6How do you explain Apple also supporting many standard PCIe and PCI cards then, still without crashing?
For instance I've added a SATA card, still no problems...
Apple has to support almost as many third party things as Microsoft does. - CompIsMyRx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Apple won't license their OS to anyone... Vista sucks teh balls... Linux does everything the others do for free. Hmm...
- Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How about this for a deal? Apple agrees to sell a version of OSX (or whatever Apple's current flavor is) that runs on any machine out there, and in exchange, they get DirectX 10 for free.
Then we watch the fireworks. Last megalomaniacally-run corporation wins. - foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"A MacBook Pro costs less or the same as a similarly configured Dell laptop. "
You can get a Dell Inspiron for above $2000, give or take $100 with 2GB RAM at 667, better C2D than the MBP, a 7900GS instead of a Radeon x1600, free MS Office, better monitor (17inch 1920x1024 vs 15inch 1440x900) and a sound card. Plus 2 year warranty free vs. AppleCare that costs $350.
Macs definetely do not cost the same as a similarly configured Dell. You also get free Windows Vista and XP Media Center.
Albeit, only reason I would want Windows is for gaming, and gaming isnt possible on a laptop, atleast not gaming well, so I would choose a MacBook Pro anyway.
But, Macs are priced above what a Windows box is.
"I use multiple OS'es (Mac, Win, Unix, Solaris etc etc), and while it's possible to run a stable windows box, they fall over a hell of a lot more."
Windows has never randomely shut down on my or given me any technical problems except the occasional interruption during my gaming for updates. But I would never be gaming on a Mac, now would I? - Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Quoting: "Can your Dell run Windows, Linux, AND Mac OS X?... No? My Mac can."
Actually, yes, a Dell can run OS X. Just download a hacked installation DVD, which includes patches to get around Apple's hardware locking (and to get it working on AMD chips, or Intel CPUs without SSE3).
I got my Dell for $20, and so far it has run all three of those operating systems. How much did your Mac cost?
Quoting: "BUT, why would anyone buy a mac, if you could run OS X on a Dell. If you had to pay a premium price for a nice system, or a cheaper price for a dell..."
Well, exactly. OS X is the real selling point here. Perhaps Apple should just sell OS X at the same profit level they currently squeeze out of their hardware. - Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Quoting: "First we got Front Row, now Apple TV. This one I'm not sure will be a hit because it doesn't record/timeshift live TV, but still..."
Apple TV is a joke, unfortunately. First off, it only supports HDTV, and won't work with a 480i set even if it has component inputs; if you're among the 89% of American households that haven't spent a couple grand on an HD set, you're stuck using an iPod to watch your iTunes TV shows.
So the Apple TV's audience is limited to the early adopters and gadgetheads who've actually bought an HDTV. But there's the second problem: it costs too much and delivers too little for anyone with the technical knowledge to look elsewhere. For $99, you can buy an Xbox and load XBMC on it for free. It'll play nearly any video file format you throw at it, from AVIs to DVD ISOs (locally, from a disc, or over a few types of network share); you can also use it to stream internet radio and watch streaming videos from YouTube and Google Video.
Apple TV costs three times as much, only works with iTunes, and only plays the same media supported by the iPod: no DivX, no DVDs, no internet radio. All you get for that extra $200 is less setup time and the ability to play encrypted files from the iTunes store. Even if you don't feel like modding an Xbox, you can buy competing set-top boxes from companies like D-Link that play more formats over the network for about half the price of Apple's. - decipherd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If they released Mac OS for the PC i would hit that so quick and so hard...
- bjornski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You still haven't told me why I want to run Apple applications.
- Qposter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Steve should decide if he is in the hardware market or the software market. He is trying to take both halves over. HE IS THE REAL EVIL. At least Bill is not trying to sell you both the hardware and the software but if you buy a Zune it is your fault. No Bill is more evil then Steve.
:) - topmounter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Allowing OS X to run on all PC hardware is an awful idea. The test and qualification process alone will eat Apple alive, as it has Microsoft.
I guess Apple could certify OS X on a specific Dell box, creating what would be a DellMac. However I just don't see going mainstream via a third-party as being a good strategy for OS X. - Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Most applications are similar (granted, I see more Apple apps that have to do with changing the colors of things on your desktop, but hey) and made for both platforms on the productivity side. The DirectX thing would let Apple, in theory, run games, which is what many users buy Windows machines for.
By making the OSes roughly equivalent and open to all to use, we'd finally see which one would win in the marketplace. - kawa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I remember Steve Jobs once said Apple is best at making great hardware running great software. That shows in their iMac + OSX, iPod + iTunes, and the coming iPhone + OSX. Apple is not a hardware or a software company; it is not even a computer only company any more.
IMHO, it is a consumer electronics company that creates good hardware, good software, and great integrations of the two. -
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is