DaveyLC
Member
Registered: 8th Oct 08
Location: Berkshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by evilrob
OSX has never (not that i remember since using OS9) really been a product that Apple try and sell - rather its always been the hardware (with massive margins).
Who said anything about reducing commission for developers? 
That's chalk and cheese because an Apple computer is worthless without the OS and its also even harder to run OSX on a non apple device.. Yeah its possible to run other flavours of Linux and Windows if you really know what you're doing.. With PC's its a doddle to run pretty much what you like and its also easier to infringe the windows license by moving it between hardware.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by DaveyLC
quote:
Originally posted by evilrob
OSX has never (not that i remember since using OS9) really been a product that Apple try and sell - rather its always been the hardware (with massive margins).
Who said anything about reducing commission for developers?
That's chalk and cheese because an Apple computer is worthless without the OS and its also even harder to run OSX on a non apple device.. Yeah its possible to run other flavours of Linux and Windows if you really know what you're doing.. With PC's its a doddle to run pretty much what you like and its also easier to infringe the windows license by moving it between hardware.
I thought OSX has supported maintstream hardware, eg intel etc for a while now?
|
DaveyLC
Member
Registered: 8th Oct 08
Location: Berkshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
quote:
Originally posted by DaveyLC
quote:
Originally posted by evilrob
OSX has never (not that i remember since using OS9) really been a product that Apple try and sell - rather its always been the hardware (with massive margins).
Who said anything about reducing commission for developers?
That's chalk and cheese because an Apple computer is worthless without the OS and its also even harder to run OSX on a non apple device.. Yeah its possible to run other flavours of Linux and Windows if you really know what you're doing.. With PC's its a doddle to run pretty much what you like and its also easier to infringe the windows license by moving it between hardware.
I thought OSX has supported maintstream hardware, eg intel etc for a while now?
The processors are supported but you still need the Apple EFI/SMC which is their version of a BIOS plus the peripheral support is restricted, its not like windows were 99.9% of manufacturers will write a driver for windows and can either have it authorised by MS or just distribute it them selves un-signed..
People have worked out how to fool the OS into thinking its on an Apple machine but its fiddly (you have to use a boot-loader that pretends to be the Apple EFI) and very picky about what hardware you can and can't use.
Some people see it as a challenge..
I'm sat in front of an iMac running windows 8 which was very simple to install, I also have a Macmini running windows 7 which again was a doddle.. I also have a an old G5 case here with a new generation LGA2011 i7 which I did experiment with booting to OSX on (al-la-HACKINTOSH), I got it booting but getting the WIFI and GPU to work was such a head-ache I gave up.
[Edited on 09-10-2014 by DaveyLC]
|
evilrob
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Mar 12
Location: Your mum's house
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by DaveyLC
quote:
Originally posted by evilrob
OSX has never (not that i remember since using OS9) really been a product that Apple try and sell - rather its always been the hardware (with massive margins).
You wot mate? You've misattributed this quote to me, fella!
[Edited on 09-10-2014 by evilrob]
|
Rob_Quads
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: southampton
User status: Offline
|
I agree with Rob. I think they should try and change the way they use the OS.
They would need to change their licensing structure though which would not be a small effort. At the moment there is no such thing as a business license, its all down to features. Virtually all the work laptops are just running the normal Windows 7, they aren't the "pro" as they don't need to be.
The other main thing about the charing is how often the updates occur. In the old days of 95, XP etc it was a good 4/5 year cycle when virtually no-one will upgrade because they will just get new hardware.
MS are now getting to that 2 year release (and it would not surprise me if they also became a yearly release) so they need to reduce the code to improve the uptake as more people are IMO now just sticking on the old version than using dodgy keys
The OSX86 thing can be done quite easily if you pick the right hardware. I have a really old quad core Pentium and it uses all the built in drivers bar the sound ones. If you are careful you can do it with very minimal customization.
[Edited on 09-10-2014 by Rob_Quads]
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by evilrob
**snip**
Firstly i didn't realise Microsoft took a 30% cut, rather i had always thought it was lower than that, hence the confusion - my bad.
Secondly, your whole point is essentially the risk equivalent of sticking the companies worth on 'red' and boils down to the assumption that because the OS suddenly becomes free (to consumers; i imagine MS would keep business licensing the same), users habits suddenly change to purchasing Microsoft services, products (via the app store) - i just don't see this happening. The more probable outcome of Microsoft offering their OS for free would be that users habits would stay exactly the same and they'll continue to use other (better) services and products, and/or continue to pirate, that they're already accustomed to.
On top of that, the pick-up of other services/products/revenue streams for Microsoft to be able to cover the shortfall of losing the OS revenue would have to be truly humongous. And what happens in the event that Microsoft doesn't get the punters? Would they revert back to charging for the OS?
Thirdly, the 'develop once, deploy across multiple device and architectures' is a nice idea but realistically it only suits a niche market of applications, like indie and game developers - it doesn't help the big packages/suites what so ever as they'll still be re-designing and optimising for the various devices/platforms (WP, RT, x86).
To be honest, i think we'll see Microsoft moving Windows to a subscription based service similar to what Adobe does with their packages.
quote:
Originally posted by DaveyLC
...an Apple computer is worthless without the OS..
Considering it's just x86 hardware, you can run Windows and various *nix distros without much issue - so i wouldn't say Apple computer hardware is worthless.
quote:
Originally posted by DaveyLC
....its also even harder to run OSX on a non apple device..
Granted, OSX doesn't play nicely with every bit of x86 hardware but if you select the right components then it's generally straight forward to install; certainly when i did it a few years back i just bunged in the bootloader and installed OSX - no Kernel panics or other issues (other than various bits of audio hardware and controllers which i knew would be problematic from the get-go).
|
evilrob
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Mar 12
Location: Your mum's house
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dom
your whole point is essentially the risk equivalent of sticking the companies worth on 'red' and boils down to the assumption that because the OS suddenly becomes free (to consumers; i imagine MS would keep business licensing the same), users habits suddenly change to purchasing Microsoft services, products (via the app store) - i just don't see this happening.
I see it more as pandering to user habits; people now think nothing of spending a few quid over a period of weeks or months in some fad game to get ahead (Draw Something, Candy Crush etc.)
The freemium model demonstrably works; what Microsoft want, I imagine, is for that sort of thing to be carrying on in the Windows ecosystem, which it currently isn't to any great extent.
Desktop is becoming less and less relevant; the future is mobile and cloud. Windows 10 will be an exercise in showing people a great Desktop experience and encouraging consumers to enjoy that experience on other form factors.
quote:
Originally posted by Dom
On top of that, the pick-up of other services/products/revenue streams for Microsoft to be able to cover the shortfall of losing the OS revenue would have to be truly humongous. And what happens in the event that Microsoft doesn't get the punters? Would they revert back to charging for the OS?
With competition from Chrome OS, Linux, Android, iOS etc. they need to do something to woo consumers back onto Windows after the relatively poor Windows 8 uptake, and the disastrous Windows RT.
I can't see a problem with giving away the first iteration of Windows 10 for free or a nominal amount like £20 and then charging more in the future if the experiment doesn't work out. They've got deep enough pockets to be loss leaders and get market share for a good while.
quote:
Originally posted by Dom
Thirdly, the 'develop once, deploy across multiple device and architectures' is a nice idea but realistically it only suits a niche market of applications, like indie and game developers - it doesn't help the big packages/suites what so ever as they'll still be re-designing and optimising for the various devices/platforms (WP, RT, x86).
That's the thing, though - the market likes little niche 'one trick pony' apps. Flappy Bird, for instance.
I like what Microsoft are trying to do in terms of blurring the lines between desktop and portable devices, both from a development and a consumer standpoint.
quote:
Originally posted by Dom
To be honest, i think we'll see Microsoft moving Windows to a subscription based service similar to what Adobe does with their packages.
Not a bad idea. I guess we'll wait and see.
[Edited on 10-10-2014 by evilrob]
|
DaveyLC
Member
Registered: 8th Oct 08
Location: Berkshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dom
quote:
Originally posted by DaveyLC
...an Apple computer is worthless without the OS..
Considering it's just x86 hardware, you can run Windows and various *nix distros without much issue - so i wouldn't say Apple computer hardware is worthless.
Yes you can  but to Jo-public its not as simple as throwing a Windows DVD in it and hitting install
|
evilrob
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Mar 12
Location: Your mum's house
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by DaveyLC
its not as simple as throwing a Windows DVD in it and hitting install
This is generally the case when installing Windows, on a Mac or otherwise 
[Edited on 10-10-2014 by evilrob]
|
DaveyLC
Member
Registered: 8th Oct 08
Location: Berkshire
User status: Offline
|
I suppose that depends on how obscure the PC is you're installing it on 
|
