51–60 of 71 posts
Interesting anecdote; I wonder if there is any software which people "lust after" or if that's something reserved for physical products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, I thought the same thing. Steve doesn't drive a BMW. But I'm almost 100% sure his example in the talk was BMW. I can only guess that it was because BMW market share (which was sub-2%) fit the example, since that was Apple's market share at the time.
Steve owned at least 1 BMW in the last 10 years that I know of specifically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wow! This is great news. I've been waiting for this to happen so that I can go ahead an run OS X on any computer I choose. Kindly point me to the link? I would have guessed it was at http://opensource.apple.com ... You have the URL wrong. I will kindly point you to a link: http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page It's not "any computer you choose", but any desktop or laptop with hardware components tha…
> It's not "any computer you choose", but any desktop or laptop with hardware components that are supported. Did you know Windows Server 2008 doesn't have drivers for early Intel Gigabit Server NICs, so you can't run that OS on an unsupported computer? Just as you can't run Windows on "any computer you choose", only on ones with supported hardware, it's the same thing with OS X. Nobody said that Windows was open sour…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wow! This is great news. I've been waiting for this to happen so that I can go ahead an run OS X on any computer I choose. Kindly point me to the link? I would have guessed it was at http://opensource.apple.com ... You have the URL wrong. I will kindly point you to a link: http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page It's not "any computer you choose", but any desktop or laptop with hardware components tha…
> It's not "any computer you choose", but any desktop or laptop with hardware components that are supported. Did you know Windows Server 2008 doesn't have drivers for early Intel Gigabit Server NICs, so you can't run that OS on an unsupported computer? Just as you can't run Windows on "any computer you choose", only on ones with supported hardware, it's the same thing with OS X. Nobody said that Windows was open sour…
On the contrary, running in a VM, and running in a VM on a computer assembled from commodity hardware, are both certainly options with OS X.
Running both server and desktop OS X in a VM is now even allowed in the EULA, which previously only authorized virtualizing OS X Server.
If you want to run it in a VM under Windows 7 (granted, not in the EULA), here's a link:
Install OS X Snow Leopard in VMware Windows 7
http://www.redmondpie.com/how-to-install-os-x-snow-leopard-i...
Having a market share as large as Toyota's doesn't mean that you can't make great products. Who says they have to be related? It seems to happen in practice, but I can't figure out any good reasons.
I think this supports what Jobs said rather than diminishes it. People love the BMW for the image, and for the performance in certain rare cases. (The BMW is superior to any Toyota I've driven once you get above 100Mph) People love the Toyota because it's an economical, reliable car that performs quite well at the speeds you normally drive.
The mac has a certain image that people love. I mean, that image, personally, does not appeal to me, but that was Job's point. If you can make a product that resonates with a small portion of the market; and if that product resonates to the point where they are willing to pay a large premium, you can make quite a lot of money. Maybe even more money than selling a lower-margin, higher-quality product to the masses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Apple is not proprietary. Hell, Mac OS X is the most popular open sourced operating system on the planet. Let's not let our enthusiasm blind us to reality.
He is almost true in the pragmatic sense that a lot of the OS is open sourced and it certainly lends itself well to running and developing open source. Of course it isn't open in the Stallman sense of "if you don't melt the ore yourself, it's not open" but then again Linuxes and others aren't, too.
I would almost certainly be running OS X even if none of it were open source, and I tend to believe that that is true of most OS X users (even those users like me who can program). In contrast, the fact that parts of OS X are open source does not seem to help OS X gain traction in markets where completely open-source software stacks are vastly more popular than OS X, like embedded systems, supercomputing and internet servers.
I am not an expert on all of the reasons developers and admins of embedded systems, supercomputers and internet servers prefer completely open-source ecosystems to OS X, but I tend to believe a lot of it has to do with not wanting Apple to be able to jerk them around and has to do with the fact that if they started to use OS X, Apple would be able to jerk them around almost as much as they would be able to if Darwin, Webkit, LLVM and TextEdit were not open source.
Strange that he picked BMW for his example. He seems to be more of a Mercedes guy.
This is quite different from the "Fuck Michael Dell" story posted by Gruber. Did Jobs in fact never say that?
" ... I actually did attend the meeting that John describes in his blog post. However, as a full time engineer on WebObjects, I also had the opportunity to attend a different all hands that Steve Jobs called ... "
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not "any computer you choose", but any desktop or laptop with hardware components that are supported. Did you know Windows Server 2008 doesn't have drivers for early Intel Gigabit Server NICs, so you can't run that OS on an unsupported computer? Just as you can't run Windows on "any computer you choose", only on ones with supported hardware, it's the same thing with OS X. Nobody said that Windows was open sour…
> However, as I type in a Windows vm running on a computer assembled from commodity hardware, I can honestly say that are certainly a much larger number of choices, since neither of those are options with OS X. On the contrary, running in a VM, and running in a VM on a computer assembled from commodity hardware, are both certainly options with OS X. Running both server and desktop OS X in a VM is now even allowed in…
"to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software"
So no, unless I missed something, you cannot run it in VMWare Workstation, and I still cannot run it on the $1800 (including Win 7 Pro) box I put together that has better specs than a $4500+ Mac Pro.
Here it is 14 years later. The thing about that meeting, that strikes me, is that this is what Apple always was. Steve wasn't bringing a purpose to Apple, he was reminding Apple employees of Apple's purpose. Apple still has that purpose. Every product cycle you see the blogs and the pundits speculating on what Apple will do, and exclaiming what Apple should do. Just today I saw an article along the lines of "now that…
> I can assure you, controlling everything is the last thing Apple wants. Apple is not proprietary. Hell, Mac OS X is the most popular open sourced operating system on the planet. The Safari web browser is just a thin shell around webkit. Apple could have kept both closed and innovated on them, instead they innovate on them and give them away (and yet so called "open source" fans actually complain about this.) Wow! T…