You could really try to make a point that any software should be available to be put on anything. I should be allowed to put Windows Mobile 6 or the Blackberry Storm OS on my iPhone (lets please not go there!!!!
) What if I want the GPS software from a Tom Tom one my Garmin Nuvi? Its not exactly the same, because these softwares aren't available for purchase on their own.
In my opinion, companies should sell their software for individuals to purchase and put on whatever hardware they like. However, they only provide support for hardware they approve of. I'd love to buy a copy of Windows Mobile and try to put it on my phone. Companies should be able to buy a billion copies of OSX and sell it on a machine they've built, but that company must provide support for it. But as you say....
I've also heard the reasoning that by keeping Mac OS on Apple machines only, it preserves the image that Mac OS has.
You're completely right on that point and I agree with you to an extent. But given the reputation/culture both OSX and Apple have built up, I don't think if another company started shipping computers with OSX which sucked and failed completely then it would look bad on Apple or OSX. People would realise that they are getting what they pay for and if they want the 100% OSX experience then they'll buy an offical Apple product.
I guess it's some what similar to VW and Audi, just because the VWs are fundamentally the same car, and do the same thing, with the same hardware, except for a few design changes to suit the buyer. I don't think VW ruins the image of Audi because their cars are cheaper.
They know every possible hardware configuration that the operating system may be used on, and can be sure it will work right. If it was available to be installed on PCs, you'd see people complaining about compatibility issues with X component because Apple didn't test one of thousands of possible hardware configurations.
Agree again. I just think Apple should say, "Go ahead, install OSX on your PCs, but we're not helping you"
In my opinion, Apple's notebooks are priced relatively well for what you get. There is a premium, but not so much as people like to make it out as. I never argue in favor of the iMac or Mac mini's prices, because they do cost way more than an equivalent PC. You could blame the fact that they use notebook hardware, however, which raises the costs for miniaturization and having most of the components soldered to the board.
Yeah the laptops aren't so bad because for the extra outlay, even though you get equal specs to the lower priced PC laptop, you generally are paying for a better build quality and sturdiness, which is important for a laptop. They're still too expensive though.
The main qualm with the desktops I have is the cost of parts and the difficult upgradability, at my work, when we have to replace a Power Supply on a iMac, it costs
8 timesas much as a PC Power Supply, when it's effectively the same thing.
Personally, I think Apple is really missing out with not having a lower priced Netbook with OSX on it. People want OSX on a low-cost machine, which is why you see sooooo many people hacking OSX onto every netbook on the market. It could even be a premium netbook like the Vaio P, but it has to be usable, unlike the Air.
)
