The amount of apps in the Windows Phone Marketplace
Microsoft's Windows Phone Marketplace has now reported to have passed 25,000 apps by one site tracking comings and goings within it. (source: WindowsPhoneAppslist, July 2011)
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Here's a timely article on this very subject. Those of you who think Apple should license their OS, you need to pay attention and read this article.
http://www.macworld.com/article/133598/2008/05/macclones.html
In case anybody cares, I actually owned a Radius clone myself. It was a Radius 81/110, basically a clone of the Power Mac 8100/80, but with a higher clock speed. I have nothing against clones myself, BUT:
1. Psystar's machines are not clones. They are breaking Apple's EULA and using hacked drivers to run Leopard on generic PCs.
2. Even licensed clones cut directly into Apple's bottom line.
Read the article.
So people should be locked in Apple hardware because our highest priority is to protect Apple's profits. Why should I as a consumer, not as an Apple fanatic, care about that?
If Apple's OS is so desirable, then it will bring in new users, who now have a variety of PCs to choose from in order to run it. Apple will make more money from the sale of the licenses, or a they will have to mark up in order to make up for the loss in Apple hardware sales. Either way, my choice as a consumer is higher than Apple's ability to ring as much money out of me as possible
@fred
Thank you! Perfectly justified, no BS answer!
Apple can let their OS out into the real world,
or
they can let /other/ people do it
or
they can let FOSS mow them over.
Two will happen. I don't care what happens to Apple, I don't give pity to companies like them.
@fred,
Our highest priority as consumers is to get what suits us best, not simply to maximize someone else's profits, though the profits gained is connected to its suitability. Your choice as a consumer is not restricted by their integration scheme, and you can buy your own hardware and buy their OS and do what you wish.
How do you figure that Apple would make more money? What are the chances of Apple completely restructuring, vying to get sweet OEM deals with manufacturers and being able to make back the profits lost from the closure of their Mac hardware division with even a 200% markup on OS X? My guess is that they'd go bankrupt, as Mac sales fund their OS X development venture.
In either case, Apple's Mac endeavor is actually very profitable, and they've actually been pulling in better profits than Dell. What incentive, other than to please you, do they have to change at all?
> "If Apple's OS is so desirable, then it will bring in new users, who now have a variety of PCs to choose from in order to run it."
It's not just the Apple OS... it's the fact that Apple designed their hardware and OS to work together. It's the whole package, not just an OS. That's what makes a Mac a Mac.
The whole point of a Mac is that you bring it home and it does everything you want it to. The Psystar machine doesn't. It's a hacked up, duct-taped piece of junk. It's an illusion.
Psystar believed that the Mac OS should be put onto any type of hardware. While they achieved that... they also missed the point.
Fred: "Apple will make more money from the sale of the licenses"
Ah yes, you didn't read the article apparently. Apple doesn't make money on software. They make money on hardware. HARDWARE. You think Apple has over 10 billion in cash from OS sales? Do you think OS sales can compensate for the loss of hardware sales? Do you believe $129 is the same thing as $2000?
Furthermore, Apple has established a very successful business model. Why should they give that up again? Oh right, because you have some bizarre sense of entitlement regarding OS X. Yeah, that's not quite good enough.
Ethana2 - Yes yes, Apple will go out of business any day now just like they have been for the last 24 years, blah blah blah. Your opinion changes nothing regarding the reality of the situation.
@zak
That's the same argument the RIAA makes.
You guys who keep saying Apple is doing something wrong by "tying" an operating system to hardware, don't understand the history of computers. In the early days, it was common practice for companies like IBM to develop their own software, often in collaboration with universities like MIT. Early software like CP/CMS was essentially open source, but in those days, computers were too big and expensive to be practical for home use, so companies like IBM focused solely on selling mainframes to universities and large businesses. The software wasn't even an important element until the introduction of miniprocessors and personal computers.
When the Apple ][ came along, like IBM, Apple focused on hardware and there was never anything illegal about this, because despite what you might think, software wasn't even considered to be intellectual property at the time.
In fact, the precedent for code as intellectual property was established by Apple's lawsuit against Franklin Computers, a company that copied parts of the Apple ][ operating system and firmware (see Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp). Apple's defense of their software was held up by an appeals court.
Microsoft was essentially the company that created the software model that has become the de facto standard for all PCs (with DOS, not BASIC), so how it is that you guys can say that Apple is doing something illegal, based solely on a model of business that didn't even exist at Apple's inception?
It's naive for you guys to think this and it bears repeating that you CANNOT have a monopoly on your own product. If that's the case, every company has a fucking monopoly. Get a grip.
For me, love is very deep, but sex only has to go a few inches—Rita, Bullets Over Broadway
Sure Fred, just ignore the points I bought up and don't bother proving me wrong. Everything I said still stands.