[OT] EULA and legality

[Roger Eller]

In the printing industry, printing plate suppliers often provide trade
shops expensive equipment at no cost.  It is the 'consumables' they make
their money from.

So it seems to me that in our software world, apps and media are the
consumables, phones and computers are the machines to process those
consumables.  Those machines could also be operating systems;  Especially
those operating systems that make an effort to capture the market with
integrated app stores, and easy access to the software/media consumables.
 Apple could expand its reach to non-Apple hardware with little effort, and
they would make loads of money.

'Apple branded'... that is their hang up.  They want to keep their users
believing they are special because they own an Apple product.  Well, once
everybody has an iPhone, or an iPad, who's special then?  It's like saying
"I own a TV".  Uh, ok.

I believe that OS X is an outstanding OS.  If Steve Jobs really did want to
make a better world (for all), then Apple should share its wonderful
creation by allowing it to run on other hardware.  Otherwise, they continue
to propagate an elitist stereotype.

~Roger


On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Shawn Blc <shawnlivecode at gmail.com> wrote:

> BS.  Nowadays there's no need to subsidize a product (software/hardware).
>  Companies only do it to draw attention and potential gain.
>
>
> On Saturday, September 8, 2012, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> > I would venture to guess that Apple's justification for not allowing
> > purchasers of OS X to run it on hardware of their own choice is that the
> > price of the Apple-branded computer effectively subsidizes part of the
> cost
> > of the OS.
>