🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <1989Dec21.210721.9191@uncecs.edu>, by egapmh@uncecs.edu (Paul M. Hudy):
> 
>    Has anyone had an *official* word from Apple that System 7.0
> will be distributed free-of-charge?  This seems to be an unstated
> assumption among the "wait for system 7" group on the net. 

It seems to be a safe assumption. I don't know if Apple has made
any official announcement, but they presumably wouldn't if the
policy is going to be the same as in the past. Several Apple
employees have told me the System will still be free to Mac owners.
That is, it will available through CompuServe or User Groups
or dealers for direct copying or a package of disks and manuals
can be purchased for a nominal charge.

It is important to note that the System is legally available
(according to Apple's license) only for use on Apple equipment.
The use of the word "free" seems to have led some Atari and
Amiga owners to think that they can use it freely on their   
machines. Some probably feel that if they buy the System package
(for about $50?) they have bought the System software, but this
is not the case. The price of the box goes mostly to packaging,
distribution and dealer costs and comes no where near
reimbursing Apple for the great expense of developing the
System software. Or, for the matter, for the equally considerable
costs of evanglizing and supporting developers in order to give
the Mac a good software base. Which is, of course, the reason
why the Ataris and Amiga owners want Mac emulators in the first
place.

The argument on System software applies equally to the ROMs,
of course, since Apple, I'm pretty sure, explicitly approves
their use only on Apple equipment.

I hesitate to call users of Mac emulators pirates, since I'm
sure most of them are fundamentally honest, but I would still
say they are stealing, even if unwittingly, Apple's
intellectual property.

What it comes down to is that Apple sells a complete computer
system as one unit, hardware and software together. When you
buy a Mac it includes a lifetime supply of System software.
Some may argue that it's illegal or immoral or unwise for
Apple to refuse to sell the software separately, but I don't
know if that's any different from Apple, or any company, not
selling unpopulated motherboards or special integrated circuits
as separate items. There seems to be a feeling in some
quarters that software is somehow different from hardware and
really should be free. But the kinds of investment in human
resources and finances that a company must make is pretty
much the same for both.

>    On a tangential note, I would like to see some discussions con-
> cerning the relative merits/drawbacks (for consumers & developers)
> of Apple's approach where you give away the OS and charge high
> prices (if you listen to some netlanders) for the hardware versus
> the MSDOS approach where the OS always cost, but the hardware is
> relatively cheap.  For example, is the reason you are paying high
> hardware costs in the Apple world, the free OS?
> 
Apple hardware doesn't really cost any more than that from IBM or
Compaq, where you still have to buy OS upgrades (correct me if
I'm wrong). But there's no question that a lot of the cost of the
Mac can be ascribed to System software development. (And to the cost
of supporting developers, which some netlanders have claimed Apple
does to a greater extent than any other company, IBM included.)

Why Apple takes this approach to selling computers may have
several justifications.

1) It gives Apple complete control to maintain the consistency
and standardization that is such an important feature of the Mac.

2) It's a lot easier to make money selling hardware than software.
Hardware's hard to pirate, and OS software must be some of the
most pirated software around.

It's true that IBM and some companies, like Microsoft and Compaq,
that ride on IBM's coattails have been successful selling OS and
hardware separately, but Apple's not in the enviable position
of having the essentially captive customerate of IBM. Even IBM
has been having trouble pushing its hardware.

If Apple were to sell or license the OS for clones and emulators, I
think there's a good chance Apple would quickly lose the ability to
support the kind of development and research that led to the Mac
in tthe first place and to HyperCard and other innovations that have
had such important influence on computers.

There's a pretty good chance as it is that the US is going to lose
the computer business to Asian competitors. I don't think I'm a
chauvinist at all, but self interest makes me (and lots of
people) worry about that possibility.

There's a lot more to be said on these questions, but I'm off to
do some Christmas shopping. (Do I hear a sigh of relief?)

Gary Davis