On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 08:29:27PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >>so why it have a much smaller market share?
> >Because MS wrote restrictive contracts with companies trying to
> >sell PCs saying that if they wanted to put MS on any of their
> Apple produces it's own computers. Actually a branded PCs now.
> what a problem?
Not at all the same thing. Apple produces its own and puts an OS on
it. If they tell an OEM vendor they cannot put anything else on it, then
it begins to go in the bad direction. If they tell the OEM vendor that
not only can they not put anything else on the hardware that the OEM
build, but that they have to put their OS on EVERY piece of hardware
that they make, then it is like MS. It isn't as if MS made computers
and put their own stuff on every machine, which would be similar to the
Kodak issue of years gone by. MS tried to force other hardware makers
to only put MS on their (the other maker) machines and put it on every
machine they sold. No manufacturer or OEM could sell a machine with
MS unless they sold EVERY machine they made with MS. That is crooked
business. But they got away with barely a slapped wrist.
> the problem is that Apple works the same way as Commodore 20-15 years ago.
> Trying to get prices as high as possible, instead of looking in future.
> Exactly what apple do now - selling ordinary PC (just more stylish cases)
> 2-3 times more expensive.
> if Apple computers would be similarly prices or slightly higher, then
> they could really compete.
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"