Gates on Apple's "huge disadvantage" in the living room

[clevin]

I think you lost track of your own point when it was pointed out that Macs themselves work better with third party devices than windows systems.

ok, let me seriously ask you a question, does windows work with more hardwares, or OSX works with more hardwares?

does windows work with more type of graphic cards, or OSX does?
does windows work with more type of CPUs, or OSX does?
does windows work with more type of monitors, or OSX does?

where did you exactly get the idea that OSX works with more third party hardware?

 

[dpaanlka]

ok, let me seriously ask you a question, does windows work with more hardwares, or OSX works with more hardwares?

does windows work with more type of graphic cards, or OSX does?
does windows work with more type of CPUs, or OSX does?
does windows work with more type of monitors, or OSX does?

where did you exactly get the idea that OSX works with more third party hardware?

Well the question I posed (that you still haven't addressed) was not whether Windows is actually compatible with more hardware, but whether Windows has any more ability to be compatible with 3rd party hardware. The answer to which is probably no. So this isn't the fault of either Apple or Microsoft. It's up to developers to make Mac versions of their drivers, not Apple. So when people like you say something wildly ridiculous like "Apple needs to work on the game and compatible hardware situation" then you're implying that Apple hasn't already given tons of resources to lure 3rd party developers over. You're basically offensively smacking Apple and it's employees in the face.

Hell... Xcode is free! (And so is a huge resource of developer information!) Is that somehow not enough for you? Does that not meet your developer needs? Try getting that level of incentives from Microsoft...

Also, I believe the plural of "hardware" is "hardware."

 

[clevin]

Well the question I posed (that you still haven't addressed) was not whether Windows is actually compatible with more hardware, but whether Windows has any more ability to be compatible with 3rd party hardware. The answer to which is probably no. So this isn't the fault of either Apple or Microsoft. It's up to developers to make Mac versions of their drivers, not Apple.

ah, so u are pretty much blaming hardware producers for not providing the drivers for OSX, lol

one question, for end user, you think they care why OSX doesn't support their hardware? all ppl care is either OSX does, or OSX doesn't. This is pure market, u can't blame around.

how many hardware producers are providing drivers for linux? almost none! and did u see linux kept improving the hardware compatibility? its up to OS developer to support more hardwares, maybe you think the opposite way, but market doesn't care, and it is apple who want to expand market, not market want to woo apple.

 

[dpaanlka]

ah, so u are pretty much blaming hardware producers for not providing the drivers for OSX, lol

one question, for end user, you think they care why OSX doesn't support their hardware? all ppl care is either OSX does, or OSX doesn't. This is pure market, u can't blame around.

how many hardware producers are providing drivers for linux? almost none! and did u see linux kept improving the hardware compatibility? its up to OS developer to support more hardwares, maybe you think the opposite way, but market doesn't care, and it is apple who want to expand market, not market want to woo apple.

I guess I'm just a fanboy if I can't understand how somebody could actually think this way. Oh well...

 

[Chundles]

ah, so u are pretty much blaming hardware producers for not providing the drivers for OSX, lol

one question, for end user, you think they care why OSX doesn't support their hardware? all ppl care is either OSX does, or OSX doesn't. This is pure market, u can't blame around.

how many hardware producers are providing drivers for linux? almost none! and did u see linux kept improving the hardware compatibility? its up to OS developer to support more hardwares, maybe you think the opposite way, but market doesn't care, and it is apple who want to expand market, not market want to woo apple.

"Linux" isn't a company, Linux is an open-source operating system. If drivers don't exist for a version of Linux the developer community makes one. Linus Torvalds doesn't sit there all night going through endless hardware products writing drivers for his Linux kernal.

Hardware developers are responsible for writing drivers, not the OS manufacturer.

 

[dpaanlka]

"Linux" isn't a company, Linux is an open-source operating system. If drivers don't exist for a version of Linux the developer community makes one. Linus Torvalds doesn't sit there all night going through endless hardware products writing drivers for his Linux kernal.

Hardware developers are responsible for writing drivers, not the OS manufacturer.

His response is going to be that Apple is a closed company (like Microsoft isn't), acting like a monopoly within it's own little 6% of the market share world, and should open-source everything.

 

[After G]

ah, so u are pretty much blaming hardware producers for not providing the drivers for OSX, lol

one question, for end user, you think they care why OSX doesn't support their hardware? all ppl care is either OSX does, or OSX doesn't. This is pure market, u can't blame around.

how many hardware producers are providing drivers for linux? almost none! and did u see linux kept improving the hardware compatibility? its up to OS developer to support more hardwares, maybe you think the opposite way, but market doesn't care, and it is apple who want to expand market, not market want to woo apple.

This has been already covered by Chundles and dpaanlka, but it is up to hardware developers to make standards-based hardware. If the hardware company writes a driver (in one operating system) to make up for their non-standard hardware, that is no fault of the OS manufacturer be it Windows, Linux or Mac OS X. That is laziness on the hardware developer's part. And Linux doesn't suffer as much from developer laziness because non-standard hardware support is basically individuals getting their own hardware to work and then sharing their labor with others. Apple couldn't pay enough people to write quality drivers for every single P.O.S. that has come out or will in future.

And it's not all roses getting hardware working fully on Linux. Try an ATI card newer than R200 (and basic VESA driver windowing functionality does not count as "fully supported"). Or all those Winmodems. Usually it's the ****** hardware that works on Windows, and good hardware that works on Mac/Linux.

It's not a disadvantage for Apple if they don't support the $2 PCI card and the $10 motherboard you pulled out of the bargain bin.

 

[balamw]

Usually it's the ****** hardware that works on Windows, and good hardware that works on Mac/Linux.

It's not a disadvantage for Apple if they don't support the $2 PCI card and the $10 motherboard you pulled out of the bargain bin.

That's largely because developers (individual and companies) don't want to spend their efforts to write a driver for crap hardware if it'll only be used by a tiny number of users. People will tend to write the drivers for the hardware they need or want to use. That said, both OS X and Linux support far more hardware than you might expect simply from their market shares.

Subtle interaction between random third party drivers and apps is Windows' Achilles heel. My last BSOD episode seems to have arisen from a new NIC interacting with my burning suite of choice (Nero).

B

 

[clevin]

i see you guys are a team of defense, fine, as long as you guys satisfied with what apple's situation right now, and u wanna brag about how apple products are always superior than others? enjoy your yard. Its MR, so let it be. seeya

 

[MattG]

At least Apple stuff works!

EDIT: He contradicts himself by basically saying 'Apple suffers because they work on the software and the hardware. But Microsoft benefit from having a tight knit group of companies working on the software and hardware.'

Isnt what Apple have better because they dont have the added complications caused by the other companies?

I think that's a rather silly argument on Gates' part. For as long as I've been using and promoting Macs, a big part of my reasoning for doing so is the fact that you have one company making it all...that's why it works so well. They're able to keep much better control over how the software manipulates the hardware, and they don't have to worry about whether or not their software is going work 100% with all of these different hardware vendors.

 

[crap freakboy]

Forget the hands. Check out that chic sweater and blue shirt. Bill, yer got style fella. I see his point but I'm thankful that Apple don't. Regarding the fact that Apple 'don't get that', perhaps he needs to remember that that very same closed hardware/software development worked for that lil ole white music thing. Now if I could only remember its name.

 

[vendettabass]

gates runs like a girl

end of.

 

[gnasher729]

You have to license AAC from parties other than Microsoft. Many other players apart from the iPod plays AAC - a great deal of mobile phones for a start, since it was developed for mobile telephony devices. Sony MP3 players plays AAC. Whether a device plays AAC is entirely up to the maker. They might have seen it as a futile effort as many people who bought the geekier multi-codec players did so because they wanted nothing to do with the iPod, including (foolishly for them) the codec it supports. I believe Sony was the first major-label, known MP3 maker to break that prejudice of sorts in mass-market devices.

I suspect that Microsoft ran out of patience looking at the also-rans that the other manufacturers & Playsforsure licensees churned out. In many cases the Playsforsure code wouldn't work reliably in these players due to issues with the player itself as well as issues with the Playsforsure delivery services. Whethe this was a Microsoft problem or a vendor problem, I couldn't say. I certainly came across these problems often. The biggest pointer to a potential exasperation with the existing manufacturers is probably the gradual drift away from the Playsforsure music vendors before news of the Zune broke, and the iRiver partnership with M$ which started off promisingly enough... but eventually M$ turned to Toshiba to make the Zune (and that has to be for firmware reasons as much as hardware).

If that was actually the case, it's quite possible that Microsoft actually decided to say '&%$# you, we're going to make something that actually works almost all the time like the iPod and the rest of you're not going to screw it for us anymore'. Rather like Steve casting off the clone-makers perhaps. As I said it's speculation but the pointers are there.

There are a few things wrong with your arguments. First, nobody cares what codecs a phone uses. You download a ringtone, and it rings, nobody cares how it does it. And you can't encode your own ringtones, at least the manufacturers will do whatever is in their power to keep you from encoding. In the music player market, Apple has always pushed AAC, and Apple is Microsoft's only competition, so whether it is just in the manufacturers mind, or in a hidden contract, or somewhere mentioned in negotiations, but never written down, none of them dared supporting iTunes by including an AAC codec instead of WMP.

And if there are problems with PlayForSure, shouldn't Microsofts music player be the first player that implements PlayForSure without any glitches? If PlayForSure doesn't work because all these manufacturers are too stupid to use it, shouldn't Microsoft demonstrate how good PlayForSure is by using it in their own player? They all paid lots of money for a license from Microsoft for a product which is now a second class citizen within Microsoft itself.

And of course if you view this within the original premise of this whole thread: Bill Gates claims that Apple is at a disadvantage because Apple does things on its own, while Microsoft relies on this huge array of third party manufacturers. Who all can't get PlayForSure to work, so Microsoft had to come out with the Zune. So according to you, Apple isn't really at a disadvantage, but Microsoft is, because all these third party manufacturers have three years time and don't get it right, and then Microsoft is three years late to the party.

 

[decksnap]

ok, let me seriously ask you a question, does windows work with more hardwares, or OSX works with more hardwares?

does windows work with more type of graphic cards, or OSX does?
does windows work with more type of CPUs, or OSX does?
does windows work with more type of monitors, or OSX does?

where did you exactly get the idea that OSX works with more third party hardware?

I have no idea why my post was deleted... but anyway...

I said BETTER. not more. And that pretty much sums up the whole lot.