Quote:
|
Originally Posted by chucker
rasmits has it dead-on.
Now, of course, if Apple were to commercially offer such virtualization software, it would be different, but then
1) they couldn't bundle Windows with it (at least not at the same low price Microsoft can)
2) they would have a hard time competing with MS and VMWare. They can't offer any significant advantages*, so they'd have to be cheaper, and they're not the company to do that either.
|
Ok I hear you but I keep trying to find counterarguments if it were just for the sake of thourough falsification
You may notice that some of the ideas from the beginning of the thread are being rejected...
First: in order not to keep developers from porting their software to Apple, Apple should indeed ask a fee for it, and/or not offer it in the first year of Leopard.
But I suppose that from a certain moment, making new versions of software cross-platform from the beginning will be a lot cheaper than it is to port them now. It should be worthwile to make your app run inside OS X for the little effort it is then, if that makes makes the difference of Mac users buying it in Mac form rather than virtualized or not installed at all, Windows form.
Then: they might *have* to make their own version if makers of open source OSes start to offer their virtualization software for free.
Or else, how long would it take before there is a free (ad-ware/) virtualization engine on the Mac, if it were only for opening up the Mac for cracked pc games?
Therefore, it's at least in Apple's interest to *control* this then possibly vital part of the Mac OS X platform/ecosystem, and use that to further enhance the Apple brand and the appeal of Mac OS X.
It would be typically Apple to want to:
- Make sure that any other OS would feel like it runs *within* Mac OS X, not next to it.
- Control the user interface (integrate it in Fast User Switching, system preferences, the dock, etc etc)
- Control inter-pc-instance communication protocols
- Then have Jobs peacocking: "From today, if you have a copy of Windows,
Mac OS X runs it just as well as a Dell machine does".
Yes this could sure be a explained as supporting Windows, in contradiction with what Apple has said before. But hey, doesn't Apple like to change their mind every now and then?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by chucker
*) the "Apple can integrate into the OS better and thus optimize more" argument is a non-one, since the base OS is open source. Everything you need to know about OS X optimization is either obvious from the open-source parts, or rather well-documented.
|
Wouldn't it be enough that they can make it more user friendly than anyone else can? And maybe more important: bless it with the Apple brand?