On Oct 6, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Michael Hawksworth wrote: > "Anyway, the thing about Apple isn't that they're selling one device, but > rather a system where all the devices work a certain predicable, reliable > way. That is very attractive to a lot of people." > > Definitely a way to own a market and Apple also sells the systems using a > retail model where people don't expect the kit to last longer than their > latest TV. This is what Sony try to do but fail as they also want to be > connected to everything else. > > I would, however, be interested to see how Windows would look and behave if > MS restricted it to a limited hardware platform the way apple does. It is > obviously far easier to develop something for a few dozen hardware > combinations than it is to deliver to thousands. Won't happen however. > > Now that their visionary is no longer shining his torch to light the way it > will be interesting to see if they maintain the strategies of the last couple > of decades or gradually change focus.
Had MS used a similar model, you wouldn't have had the need for eleven thousand different drivers for peripherals, and all the wonderful conflicts that arose. Had they not been wedded to Active X, you would have avoided a lot of viruses and malware. The old joke was, "Microsoft! We love stanrds so much we have hundreds of them!" Best, R.E.F. ---- www.crydee.com Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity.
