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. ////jerry > > 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 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"