Whocould've imagined that hell would freeze over and C.K. would lose it all in the same day? Check out his It's on! post. Did you noticehis "Of course, the real key to this would be if A le would just go ahead and release a version of OS X forPCs" line towards the end?
Granted we're still at ground zero in terms of this Boot Camp news, but I can't think of resulting aconclusion/ eculation that I couldn't disagree more with. It's great that A le's allowing all those Mac users to runWindows for an a or two that doe 't work in Mac OS X yet, but I really don't think Boot Camp signifies A le's firststep towards 'fighting the PC revolution' using anyone's hardware but their own. Aside from the 'A le is a hardwarecompany' busine model argument, it would undermine both their busine and engineering practices on a number oflevels.
A le lice ing out Mac OS X to run on anyone's hardware would unleash the very stability andmanagement nightmares that they've been trying to avoid by controlling both hardware and software. This scenario isvery much like what would ha en if they opened up the iTunes and iPod platform: look at Microsoft's 'Plays for Sure'attempt at helping iTunes' competitors. Na ter's own CEO has publicly stated that, more or le : itsucks.
In the context of an industry where anyone and their mother can slap together parts for PCs withcrazy glue and duct tape, A le's model of controlling the hardware that their stellar software ru on has far more ofa purpose than simply gouging people's bank account and even the age-old whine of %26quot ut Mac/iPod hardware is moreexpe ive" has been thoroughly discounted.
Please, readers of TUAW, I beg you: don't listen to C.K. He's clearly lost it. Let's all have a moment ofsilence for our fellow blogger in hopes that he can find the strength to regain his sanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment