Java v. iPhone v. Windows Mobile v. Amiga Anywhere

[AmigaHeretic]

vs. AmigaAnywhere??

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!   :crazy:  :crazy:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[AmigaHeretic]

Nlandas wrote:
Please don't get iBoned! Apple products are overpriced, overhyped junk.

What's that got to do with AmigaAnywhere?

I mean look at AA2...  It is just a crap compiler that has a switch to only go between Win32 and WinMobile??

I mean what happened to

1) Running "ANYWHERE"

and

2) Having ONE "executable"  (Again, that could run anywhere)

I mean I thought part of AA (AA2) would be to distribute content over the internet or on ONE card that I could run on ANY device?  Ummm... how I am going to do that if I have to COMPILE it for every platform??  I mean that is what I DO now.. Duh!

AA2 is a joke.

[AmigaHeretic]

On the contrary, I think that Apple's products are ideal for certain groups of people, and Mac OS X is by far the best overall operating system out there for a wide range of people.

True, but I'm starting to think it's not fair that they tie it to "their" hardware.

I mean at some point Apple will get large enough that they will not be allowed to tie their software to only their specific hardware... like MS can't (can you imagine if Vista was only sold on MS hardware!! ;-) ).  Apple may not be that size yet, but what size do they have to get??

It seems like a double edge sword.  MS gets blamed for being huge and being a monopoly and Apple gets the ohs and ahs for being the little guy, but it's sort of Apple's choice at this point.  If OSX was made available like Vista, OSX would have a lot more market share.  Maybe not more money though ;-) So is that fair?

Can MS be a monopoly if we a 2nd huge OS company that could be almost as huge, but chooses not to be so they can make more money on hardware even though it limits them to smaller percent of the market?  

[AmigaHeretic]

Exactly, if MS had their own hardware like Apple (or like Amiga was trying to do with A1 and license specific hardware) then their wouldn't be all the driver issues, things would probably work a lot better.

And if you say is right, 9%, than that is kinda what I mean with my other point.  OSX is really probably more likey to have 40%-50% if Apple wanted it to and didn't tie to hardware.

I'm just saying if things were equal and either Windows was on only it's own hardware like OSX

or

Both were open to run an any hardware like Windows does, then they would have a lot more equal market share...

so who is really keeping MS the monoply??  Is it Apple?  I Apple choosing to stay small so they can KEEP the hardware market too to make more money?  They get software AND hardware now.  If they get too big (sure they are maybe a long way off now but how long?), then eventually they will be anti-trust issues for them to and they will be forced to open up.  

Is Apple keeping OSX down?