>They should open wide the doors, and free Apple from restrictions, then it would make its way far better than others can force it to conform to an artificial way.<
What you have on the WinTel side from open licensing is a *total mess* of conflicting hardware and software. WinTels are lousy products that costs more in added support than it has ever saved in upfront purchase cost..
There's only two reasons it prevails:
1) Endless start-me-up-funky-white-boy pablum marketing. (Or, equally, the lack of marketing from AAPL flouting the ease of use and cost advantages.)
2) Windows is so bad that it wont run without a "priest" to bless every little change. So when people ask the cadre of "experts" what computer is best, they may as well ask the Pope whichs religion to choose.
So what if AAPL is the only hardware supplier? Do people not buy Newtons because AAPL is the only supplier? (Recall rate on WindowsCE devices, with multiple suppliers is over 30%.) Do people not buy Hondas because they refuse to license their motor technology to Toyota? Does BIC license its ball-points to PaperMate? Does anybody even care?
>Markets know best.<
Markets know (crap) best until they know better. In the 50's, the tire, oil and auto industries conspired to get municipalities across the country to scrap their trolley systems with buses. Now, choking from smog, these same cities trying to fund subway, light rail and monorail systems.
What is this mantra you have about open licensing? For some businesses the model works and for some it doesn't. Most likely *some* degree of licensing will prevail. (Rhapsody will turn new as well as the entire Pentium installed base into potential clones.)
However, it's absurd for you definitively state (and repeat ad nauseam) what business model is in the best interests for AAPL's customers and shareholders.
Particularly when you are neither.
soup |
