Quote:
Originally Posted by kscherer
From my experience, the "thicker & more ports" people tend to give the "thinnest and lightest" people very bad advice, because those people do not need the feature set of thicker laptops.
|
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscherer
We all know this is not going to happen, nor do we want it to. That strategy nearly destroyed Apple in the '90's.
|
It was another nail in the coffin, buuuut there was certainly so much else broken at the time.
Like… toying around with technology for the sake of technology, e.g. with OpenDoc. Like Microsoft's WinFS a decade later, it was technologically interesting, but hard to explain, hard to conceptualize, and hard to ultimately find use cases for.
And I'm not sure it's that binary.
Clones as executed in the 90s? A dumb idea. So you have one company that does all the work of developing an operating system, and sells hardware. And then you have other companies who just sell hardware and only need to license the operating system. Short of making the operating system so expensive to license that they'll just consider going with licensing Windows instead, how is that supposed to work?
But, that's for hardware in categories you produce yourself. There's a few Apple isn't currently making. A 2-in-1 convertible laptop/tablet. A mid-range tower. A gaming desktop (or heck, laptop). A rackmount server. Or, as discussed here, a thicker & more ports computer. If you make the distinction hard enough that nobody would be tempted to buy from that third party over Apple, that could work. (But, for example, if Apple lets Razor do macOS gaming computers, but then people just buy those as a substitute for a cheaper Mac Pro, that screws Apple.)