Quote:
Originally Posted by TweakHead
Yeah, we used to have that on macs as well. The more drastic change was when they switched from IBM based computers to Intel, of course. So a lot of older plug-ins were lost during this change, some were made universal binary so as to serve all the people and now everything for mac is for one platform only. Developers adopted this transition spirit and really put an effort to make hybrids for both architectures...
Ok, a change in architecture is a good reason to change things. But 32 to 64 bit just because isn't. And certainly some minor updates to the OS isn't either.
|
I agree.... another example is iOS 7, and how badly it performs on pretty much any iOS device that's more than 2.5 years old.
It pretty much forces the user to upgrade their hardware, but we have to understand this is Apple's entire business model. They make money off hardware, not software. If they don't constantly find ways of making your hardware from two years ago obsolete, they are out of business.
This is very different from Microsoft, who has always made money off the software and for a long time stayed completely out of the hardware business. Now, they "dabble" in hardware, for example buying Nokia's phone division, making their own Surface tablets, etc, but they mostly do that to prevent the kind of fragmentation problems Google ran into with Android and having a gazillion different variants of an OS running on different vendors phones and tablets.
One way or another, we have to pay to play in technology. It just depends on which business model you consider the lesser of evils: Microsoft stays in business via software upgrades, Apple stays in business via hardware upgrades, and Google stays in business by finding ways of selling out your privacy to marketing people.
I personally find the MS approach the least offensive.