Comment Same reason as a game console company (Score 1) 640
Just because they moved to an Intel CPU doesn't mean they should support any generic PC hardware.
Wouldn't this be the same argument for any game console that used an Intel chip (like the original Xbox?). The reason a game console is created is so that every person that plays a game on it has the same experience. A person playing a game on an Xbox has the same experience and MS can pretty much guarantee that experience. Same goes for the PS2, Gamecube or any other console ever made. Any one of them could have chosen to just sell some OS that runs on any Intel-based CPU but they didn't.
Or, take a company like Cisco. The Cisco PIX 520 is pretty much an Intel-based PC. They didn't compile the PIX software to run on just any Intel-based hardware did they? Why? Because if you bought at PIX 520, you had the same experience as anyone else running a PIX 520 (bugs and all). If they opened it up to run on any Intel platform, imagine the support headaches they would run into when trying to figure out why some feature doesn't work on a Dell Poweredge or some other non-Cisco hardware.
I guess my point is: What's the difference between Apple keeping their OS running on their own hardware versus any other vendor that does the same thing? Isn't it for many of the same reasons?
Wouldn't this be the same argument for any game console that used an Intel chip (like the original Xbox?). The reason a game console is created is so that every person that plays a game on it has the same experience. A person playing a game on an Xbox has the same experience and MS can pretty much guarantee that experience. Same goes for the PS2, Gamecube or any other console ever made. Any one of them could have chosen to just sell some OS that runs on any Intel-based CPU but they didn't.
Or, take a company like Cisco. The Cisco PIX 520 is pretty much an Intel-based PC. They didn't compile the PIX software to run on just any Intel-based hardware did they? Why? Because if you bought at PIX 520, you had the same experience as anyone else running a PIX 520 (bugs and all). If they opened it up to run on any Intel platform, imagine the support headaches they would run into when trying to figure out why some feature doesn't work on a Dell Poweredge or some other non-Cisco hardware.
I guess my point is: What's the difference between Apple keeping their OS running on their own hardware versus any other vendor that does the same thing? Isn't it for many of the same reasons?
