Another Mac clone maker tries its luck with Apple

[AppleInsider]

Just as the most prominent attempt at cloning Macs is falling apart, another is preparing to take its place and promises a better experience, even as it knows it will likely face a battle with Apple's legal team.

Quo Computer of Los Angeles plans to open a store on Monday, June 1st that will sell Life Q, Pro Q and Max Q models preinstalled with Mac OS X and which echo Apple's configurations when possible. They should start at prices less than most of Apple's systems, beginning roughly below $900.

Besides having a physical space to sample and buy its computers, though, Quo tells CNET that it plans to offer better-than-average hardware. It also wants to offer customer service "up there with Apple's," according to the young clone firm's founder, Rashantha De Silva. In fact, rather than try to differentiate itself from Apple, the California startup is priding itself on how closely it will copy Apple's practices as a whole -- with the exception of allowing more configurations.

"We are trying to mimic things as much as we can," De Silva says. "I'm hoping that Apple sees the value in what we are doing."

As optimistic as the company head may be about duplicating Apple's strategy, he and Quo aren't under illusions that they're completely immune from attack. De Silva expects that Apple "probably will" file a lawsuit but is counting on the quality of its systems doing better justice to Apple and, somehow, avoiding a legal penalty. He sees the clones increasing Apple's influence and ultimately its market share.

It's less than likely that Apple will share the same attitude. Psystar was sued just three months after it began offering its OpenMac (later OpenComputer) and was challenged not on the quality of its systems but on allegedly violating the Mac OS X End User License Agreement (EULA), which explicitly forbids installing and using the operating system on any computer without an Apple badge. The Mac maker rejected Psystar's beliefs that it, too, offered extra value and had the cloner's antitrust claims dismissed; Apple argued that, as it was competing against a larger PC market, it alone could dictate how and where its software would run.

But while Florida-based Psystar is facing bankruptcy as a combination of business and legal concerns drag it down, its West coast counterpart is already preparing to expand beyond its first three clones, with both an Apple TV-style hub and a small form factor parallel to the Mac mini possible in the future.

[Quevar]

First company wasn't doing so well, so it seems that all these Psystar backers have moved on to another company to go after Apple.

[punkrockguilt]

Sounds like "Quo Computers" is another shady operation, maybe backed by the same people behind Psystar, testing Apple in court to sell Mac clones. It's likely no coincidence this new company shows up a week after Psystar bows out.

Something fishy is going on here...Are you listening, Steve?

[lightstriker]

Originally Posted by Quevar

First company wasn't doing so well, so it seems that all these Psystar backers have moved on to another company to go after Apple.

that's my first thought. I dont do conspiracy theories but this company opens up right after Psystar's bankruptcy. coincidence?

[MacTripper]

Well Apple is obviously playing a game of 'whack a mole' here.

Now Steve Jobs knows better, he got rid of the cloners before, so why didn't he keep OS X tied to hardware like he had it under PPC? A extra hardware chip for Intel Macs?

So what I'm thinking is this, he allows the cloners a free run for some time, bashes a few to make it look good and then with the next OS X release (Snow Leopard?) he clamps down the OS to EFI.

EFI has to "check in" occasionally with Apple servers to verify OS X before it loads. So begins another DRM/cracker war, making it difficult to use OS X for commercial hackintoshes. (or slow them up by having to provide so many cracked updates)

Far as I know the commodity PC boxes don't have EFI, right?

What if Apple blended the OS X DRM with commercial apps? So nothing would run unless everything was kosher?

Apple has to do something to stop the cloners, or is by allowing these guys to operate is this some sort of low end market share trojan horse?

[bdkennedy1]

If they're going to follow Apple so close with prices that aren't much different, then why risk going bankrupt?

I'd rather spend the $100 extra and buy an Apple knowing I'm getting the real deal and full support.

[jpellino]

... is Apple Legal department sharpening their horns on a grinding wheel like the bull in the old Bugs Bunny matador cartoon...

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

Well Apple is obviously playing a game of 'whack a mole' here.

Now Steve Jobs knows better, he got rid of the cloners before, so why didn't he keep OS X tied to hardware like he had it under PPC? A extra hardware chip for Intel Macs?

So what I'm thinking is this, he allows the cloners a free run for some time, bashes a few to make it look good and then with the next OS X release (Snow Leopard?) he clamps down the OS to EFI.

EFI has to "check in" occasionally with Apple servers to verify OS X before it loads. So begins another DRM/cracker war, making it difficult to use OS X for commercial hackintoshes.

Far as I know the commodity PC boxes don't have EFI, right?

Apple has to do something, or is by allowing these cloners is this some sort of low end market share trojan horse?

Better strategy is to take the battle where it will hurt cloners the most. For example, Apple can say "Ok, you want Mac clones then you have to pay $1000 for each Mac OS license for each computer" while offering the Mac specific version at the current price. This way it will be impossible for cloners to make money "legally". Apple can make it financially impossible to sell Mac clones but 90% of the solutions will cause inconvenience for most Mac owners.

In my opinion, Apple though that the easiest and most effective way to fight Mac clones is in court by bankrupting the other party (even if the lawsuit does not make it to the end).

[Slang4Art]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

Better strategy is to take the battle where it will hurt cloners the most. For example, Apple can say "Ok, you want Mac clones then you have to pay $1000 for each Mac OS license for each computer" while offering the Mac specific version at the current price. This way it will be impossible for cloners to make money "legally". Apple can make it financially impossible to sell Mac clones but 90% of the solutions will cause inconvenience for most Mac owners.

In my opinion, Apple though that the easiest and most effective way to fight Mac clones is in court by bankrupting the other party (even if the lawsuit does not make it to the end).

That's fine and dandy but you seem to be missing Apple's stance. Apple doesn't want their IP in the hands of someone else; a company markedly less experienced and capable. This can lead to bad customer experiences. Sure, they can talk about how great they will be all they want, but in the end, Apple will just be wasting money on tech support for products they did not sell, as well as risking their entire brand image when ignorant customers blame Apple for their new "Pro Q" crapping out. I highly doubt Quo will be able to offer all of the little flourishes that make Apple customer service so great.

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by Slang4Art

That's fine and dandy but you seem to be missing Apple's stance. Apple doesn't want their IP in the hands of someone else; a company markedly less experienced and capable. This can lead to bad customer experiences. Sure, they can talk about how great they will be all they want, but in the end, Apple will just be wasting money on tech support for products they did not sell, as well as risking their entire brand image when ignorant customers blame Apple for their new "Pro Q" crapping out. I highly doubt Quo will be able to offer all of the little flourishes that make Apple customer service so great.

That was my point. There are many ways for Apple to block clones but as I said 90% of them will have negative effect on Apple and its customers. This is why Apple is using the due them approach. However, if the sue them approach will not work, I am sure Apple will take another action related to the OS installation, sale method, or both.

[Slang4Art]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

That was my point. There are many ways for Apple to block clones but as I said 90% of them will have negative effect on Apple and its customers. This is why Apple is using the due them approach. However, if the sue them approach will not work, I am sure Apple will take another action related to the OS installation, sale method, or both.

Ah, wasn't clear what your position was from the first post. I'd just hate to have to see Apple employ something in their products that lessens the customer experience/value, even if to some small degree.

[elliots11]

I say add a chip that also adds a benefit. That way it's not this dreaded, evil DRM chip, and people would probably still be able to pull off hackintoshes, but the performance hit would be noticeable without the chip so as to make doing it in the first place pointless.

Oh, and eventually charge less and/or offer a mid range, easily user upgradable tower so that people get more value for their money (or at least feel that they do). That might just kill the whole cloning market without the need for a chip.

[rain]

Wanted: 20,000 white Apple stickers (badges).

[fraklinc]

These idiots never learn. Why not just sale hardware and then let customers install OS X, Vista, XP or what ever the heck they wanna do?

[Dr Millmoss]

Another glorified screwdriver shop. I'm sure they'll be able to offer customer service just like Apple.

[auxio]

(Status) Quo Computing -- another company helping us innovate our way out of the recession

[auxio]

double post

[ascii]

Rashantha De Silva? Sounds like a made up name.

[success]

Originally Posted by lightstriker

that's my first thought. I dont do conspiracy theories but this company opens up right after Psystar's bankruptcy. coincidence?

I don't do coincidences.

Originally Posted by ascii

Rashantha De Silva? Sounds like a made up name.

I believe he's in the UFC.

[timgriff84]

Originally Posted by Slang4Art

That's fine and dandy but you seem to be missing Apple's stance. Apple doesn't want their IP in the hands of someone else; a company markedly less experienced and capable. This can lead to bad customer experiences. Sure, they can talk about how great they will be all they want, but in the end, Apple will just be wasting money on tech support for products they did not sell, as well as risking their entire brand image when ignorant customers blame Apple for their new "Pro Q" crapping out. I highly doubt Quo will be able to offer all of the little flourishes that make Apple customer service so great.

Isn't this a bit over the top. After all were talking about computers there not exactly complex. There all made from standard parts and it's not like apple even put there machines together.

And how is it going to lead them to have to support products they didn't sell? If anyone took one of these to apple to fix they just wouldn't do anything, same as when you take an apple product that's out of warrenty. If it's an os problem then they were paid and it's still there fault.

I can't really see a problem here it gives consumers more choice and freedom. After all if you sell some software in a box people should be allowed to use it how they want. A pencil company couldn't specify people only use there pencils with there paper because they see other paper as inferio.

[NotRs]

Ok.. first, let me make this very clear. I am in no way supporting or defending these "cloners".
As a mac owner for more than a decade... It's Apple all the way for me..

However, as a thought, and for friendly debate..

Apple has compiled every version of Mac OS X for both PPC and Intel since day one.
What if... Apple released the PPC and Intel versions of Jaguar as a free but unsupported download?

Jaguar is old enough to not really be able to compete with Tiger or Leopard or SL feature-wise. (Panther is debatable I suppose).

I think that this would quench the hobbyist thirst for being able to make OS X compatible PC's and not really cause any damage to Apple or their intellectual property. It would also *kill* any business that tries to clone a Mac. (Why buy a mac clone when I can make one, and download Jaguar for free legally?)

It would create an entire new community of legal and happy "hackintoshers" to come up with their own support. (Which in my mind would be a much more rewarding experience. Hell, I might even consider doing that for a fun project if it was legal)


Anyway, my post is long enough. Thanks for reading.. please share your opinion

- NotRs

[Blah64]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

Well Apple is obviously playing a game of 'whack a mole' here.

Exactly what I was thinking/picturing. It's a humorous image.

Originally Posted by MacTripper

EFI has to "check in" occasionally with Apple servers to verify OS X before it loads. So begins another DRM/cracker war, making it difficult to use OS X for commercial hackintoshes. (or slow them up by having to provide so many cracked updates)

Absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances!

First, does that mean people with no internet cannot run a Mac computer? Yes, the numbers are fewer every year, but there are many people without internet access, especially in rural areas. Are you going to make them drive 10 miles to find someone with an unlocked WiFi? ;-) Or just as bad, force them to call some phone number and read off some 50 digit number and enter pass codes like Microsoft does? That was the last straw for me, I refuse to deal with that bullshit, and I don't use any standard windows installations anymore, and never will as long as they treat legitimate users like liars and cheaters.

Along a similar, but somewhat different line, what about computers that are never allowed to communicate with the internet at all - think secure labs, certain government offices, etc. Would you harass those (often very high-end) customers and treat them like criminals too? Force them call in to some central phone number and play pointless number games?

I think/hope Steve and Co. stand against this kind of ill-treatment of their customers. Those people determined to pirate the Mac OS and/or run it on off-brand hardware will figure out a way to do it, period. There are just too many very clever people out there. Look at Windows, there are a multitude of hacks to avoid activation. And as soon as you start down this path you inconvenience (and piss off) millions of legal, loyal users. Very bad idea for the tiny gain it might possibly make in regained sales.

[Aizmov]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

Well Apple is obviously playing a game of 'whack a mole' here.

Now Steve Jobs knows better, he got rid of the cloners before, so why didn't he keep OS X tied to hardware like he had it under PPC? A extra hardware chip for Intel Macs?

So what I'm thinking is this, he allows the cloners a free run for some time, bashes a few to make it look good and then with the next OS X release (Snow Leopard?) he clamps down the OS to EFI.

EFI has to "check in" occasionally with Apple servers to verify OS X before it loads. So begins another DRM/cracker war, making it difficult to use OS X for commercial hackintoshes. (or slow them up by having to provide so many cracked updates)

Far as I know the commodity PC boxes don't have EFI, right?

What if Apple blended the OS X DRM with commercial apps? So nothing would run unless everything was kosher?

Apple has to do something to stop the cloners, or is by allowing these guys to operate is this some sort of low end market share trojan horse?

a custom chip and/or custom mobo

support an even restricted set of hardware

and that does it

Originally Posted by NotRs

Ok.. first, let me make this very clear. I am in no way supporting or defending these "cloners".
As a mac owner for more than a decade... It's Apple all the way for me..

However, as a thought, and for friendly debate..

Apple has compiled every version of Mac OS X for both PPC and Intel since day one.
What if... Apple released the PPC and Intel versions of Jaguar as a free but unsupported download?

Jaguar is old enough to not really be able to compete with Tiger or Leopard or SL feature-wise. (Panther is debatable I suppose).

I think that this would quench the hobbyist thirst for being able to make OS X compatible PC's and not really cause any damage to Apple or their intellectual property. It would also *kill* any business that tries to clone a Mac. (Why buy a mac clone when I can make one, and download Jaguar for free legally?)

It would create an entire new community of legal and happy "hackintoshers" to come up with their own support. (Which in my mind would be a much more rewarding experience. Hell, I might even consider doing that for a fun project if it was legal)


Anyway, my post is long enough. Thanks for reading.. please share your opinion

- NotRs

No!

[Blah64]

Originally Posted by NotRs

Apple has compiled every version of Mac OS X for both PPC and Intel since day one. What if... Apple released the PPC and Intel versions of Jaguar as a free but unsupported download?

Jaguar is old enough to not really be able to compete with Tiger or Leopard or SL feature-wise. (Panther is debatable I suppose).

I think that this would quench the hobbyist thirst for being able to make OS X compatible PC's and not really cause any damage to Apple or their intellectual property. It would also *kill* any business that tries to clone a Mac. (Why buy a mac clone when I can make one, and download Jaguar for free legally?)

It would create an entire new community of legal and happy "hackintoshers" to come up with their own support. (Which in my mind would be a much more rewarding experience. Hell, I might even consider doing that for a fun project if it was legal)

That's an interesting idea. Personally, I would kind of like to see it happen.

But here's why I don't think it would mesh with Apple's DNA: To the highest degree possible, Apple wants every user's experience with their products to be a seamless one. Building hackintosh boxes is a far from ideal experience, even for a fairly seasoned techie. If there was such a "real product", even if it's advertised as free and "unsupported", that will drag new, less experienced users into that fold who may not, for example, understand that the software may -never- run on a particular piece of hardware due to various incompatibilities, etc. There will most certainly be failures and frustration, and that's not the experience Apple wants -anyone- to have with their products.

Just tossing out thoughts. Curious what others think.

[NotRs]

No!

Not much of a debate =\

Don't get me wrong... I'm not upset you disagree with me... but would you like to share some reasons why that wouldn't work? (Maybe it's something I'm not seeing)


edit: @ Blah64 - thanks! That's the kind of feedback I was looking for

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

Now Steve Jobs knows better, he got rid of the cloners before, so why didn't he keep OS X tied to hardware like he had it under PPC? A extra hardware chip for Intel Macs?

So what I'm thinking is this, he allows the cloners a free run for some time, bashes a few to make it look good and then with the next OS X release (Snow Leopard?) he clamps down the OS to EFI.

They already do something like this. Macs have a TPM chip that the OS checks for and if it's not found, it goes into a loop and won't boot. This is what Psystar claimed went beyond copyright protection.

Software can be modified at the binary level though so if there is a check in the OS to see if the chip exists, they can modify it so that it passes the check. It can be made difficult to do but not impossible.

Apple know this and so they leave a polite message in the OS telling you not to steal it. If you go to /System/Library/Extensions, you will find an extension called 'Don't steal MacOS.kext'.

A special chip in new machines wouldn't work because they have to support older machines that don't have them for 3 years at least.

Originally Posted by NotRs

Jaguar is old enough to not really be able to compete with Tiger or Leopard or SL feature-wise.

Which is why it wouldn't be successful. People don't willingly adopt limited solutions to help companies like Apple who they have little respect for. There's a reason they own PC boxes in the first place.

Originally Posted by fraklinc

These idiots never learn. Why not just sale hardware and then let customers install OS X, Vista, XP or what ever the heck they wanna do?

Yeah, they could just sell machines with EFI-X chips:

http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/.../t-596088.html

and valid copies of OS X separately or tell people to buy them form Apple. Then users could install the OS themselves.

[jcsegenmd]

As Apple's market share grows (and there are no signs of it stopping), it will eventually hit the point at which the DOJ will regard Apple as a monopoly and come down hard--when was the last time the government DIDN'T try to take money away from a successful enterprise?

It hit Microsoft 10 years ago and is likely to hit Apple within 10 years.

What should Apple do?

Perhaps they should license their software to third parties, but NOT at the standard price. THose who buy Apple hardware would get a significant discount (rebate, however they want to play that money card) once it's registered on a Mac and offer a "discounted" upgrade pathway to the loyal cadre of Mac users. Those who buy 10.X for their non-Apple machines pay the full ticket price, which would be perhaps 3-times more than the final cost to Apple hardware users, who got a "legitimate" discount.

Such would be a win-win for apple, because (1) they get a whole lot more money for their software and would sell more of it, (2) It would shave down the clone-makers' profit margins, keeping them all on the brink of bankruptcy, (3) it would satisfy the DOJ (don't worry they'd still bitch and moan about unfair competition and the like), at least marginally, (4) Apple wouldn't have to support the clone-makers if it turned out it was a hardware problem (and that would be pretty obvious to the Apple support people); and (5) they could say, see, we told you not to buy the other guy's crap machines

HOWEVER I think it is premature for Apple to license OS 10.X. Let the DOJ cry monopoly first, THEN allow clones

What baffles me is the cheek of the current generation of Mac cloners; they could save themselves a whole lot of hassle by letting the consumer install the software, as it puts the legal onus on the person buying the computer and not the vendor

but who listens to me?

[Shookster]

Originally Posted by jcsegenmd

As Apple's market share grows (and there are no signs of it stopping), it will eventually hit the point at which the DOJ will regard Apple as a monopoly and come down hard--when was the last time the government DIDN'T try to take money away from a successful enterprise?

A monopoly occurs where a market is dominated by a single company. Apple has less than 10% of the PC market - it is not in a dominant position. This is far more likely to happen in the portable music player or online music markets, where Apple has a significant share of the market.

[bsenka]

Originally Posted by Marvin

Yeah, they could just sell machines with EFI-X chips:

http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/.../t-596088.html
.

They already do:

http://www.expresshd.com/index.html

These cloners or semi cloners are popping up all over the world. Apple has no chance of stopping this apart from moving away from standard Intel architecture. As long as it's possible to build a compliant machine from off the shelf parts, people will do it.

[baredd]

There is many issues with this. Being a recent converter from windows to PC, it was a massive jump especially financially. The one thing that swung me to buy one, trying out hackintosh on my PC. It didnt run quite right and was slow, but I got the feel for it and wanted more.

You wont get the finished feel that apple has worked SO hard for especially with the fantastic support that they give there apple customers. The reason apple are doing well is because they have made great software with the support behind it. It it was opened up to cloners the support would drop, the standards would lower and the biggest selling point of apple, the quality of the brand will fall - losing them market share.

However there is a massive thirst for hackintosh. I know I have been there, Macs are VERY expensive for "switchers" as you have a pc, which set you back £500+ and it still works "ok" but you want a mac asap. You either have to shell out the extra £1000 which you now dont have after buying your new dell etc and being dissapointed or hack OSX onto it. Its cheap, and in the long run you will likely buy a mac apart from the people who want to just be cheap or will never be able to afford the initial outlay for a mac. DONT mention price wars, as I truly believe the prices are the same, but apple is more open about the true costs, windows hides it away in Office, Anti-virus, and other software etc. But the users do not see those costs they see the price tag on the pc and think end of.

[ThePixelDoc]

Very Simple Solution:
1) Line item Mac OS X incl. iLife on the Apple Store at ~$699.00; included with any Mac purchase.
2) PROMINENTLY display UPGRADE ONLY on all retail boxes of Mac OS X, which is just that: an upgrade.

Kill 2 birds with one stone:
1) Clone or Hack all ya want, and try to make a profit, or have the same experience as the real deal.
2) Kill the Apple-Tax debate. Just because MS decides to "give away" licenses, doesn't mean Apple is forced to.

Will OS X be pirated and torrented from day 1? Absolutely... the Hackintosh community is happy. However, a Clone-Co. has to show receipts and proof of purchase from Apple. End of Clone Co.s and silly Lawer fees for Apple.

[ThePixelDoc]

Is it not ironic, that all of these clone makers and hackers are fully admitting that OS X is far superior to anything else on the market, to the point of going to jail, bankrupt or both, to get there hands on it... but refuse to support the development of the company that makes it?

Although I must agree that there is only one thing that makes clones even thinkable, and that is because Apple refuses to bring out the famous and oft asked for mid-sized xMac desktop. I've read all of the threads pertaining to this over the last 5 years, pros and cons. IMHO, a ~1700.00 mid-iBox would not hurt Apple's iMac or MacPro lines at all. Considering my post above, it's ~1000.00 for hardware, and ~700.00 Mac OSX and iLife initial install.

Thoughts anyone?

[maddoguk]

Originally Posted by jcsegenmd

As Apple's market share grows (and there are no signs of it stopping),

Sorry, where are you getting this from? Apple's Stock Market shares may be on the up but only because of the iPhone.

Keep an eye on OS net share http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-m...e.aspx?qprid=9 - OS X has never passed 10% and is on a slow decline, because it is locked into hardware that only seems to be rising in price.

To rise above 10% Apple would really need to unbundle, until then we can continue to look forward to overpriced software and repair/replacement costs while Apple keep rehashing old designs and making us pay more for their decline in quality.

[Quadra 610]

There is no money to be made in the cheap, unauthorized, unlicensed Mac clone market.

I read through the "mission statement" of Quo Computer in the artcle, and it was a total laugh. It's all PR, but it's beyond lame.

This market in which Psystar played in, and now Quo, is a pit you just throw money into. People aren't going to buy. Most of these little PC mom-and-pop operations are here today, gone tomorrow. Now throw a Mac clone outfit into the mix, and watch the bankruptcies just roll in. Apple's mindhsare is far too strong to allow these outfits to carve out anything more than a weak niche-position in the market. OS X running on non-Apple hardware is a complete anomaly and will hardly resonate with the consumer (as it hardly resonates now), except with tech enthusiasts that like to build computers, among which there might be a small number that want to run OS X instead of or alongside Windows. No money in it. The market is way too small, and the strength of Apple's branding will prevent this sort of thing from ever catching on.

Apple has been selling a record number of Macs in 2007 and 2008. And they're experiencing the smallest contraction in computer sales in the entire industry during this recession. The success of the Mac is simply not letting up. It accounts for nearly half of Apple's revenue. It's Apple's biggest moneymaker. No reason at all for Apple to untether OS X from Macs. The consumer will almost always choose to run OS X on Apple hardware. We've seen this proven with Psystar's failure. If it isn't poor sales that will force Quo out of the sandbox (which will be the case in time), it'll be mounting legal fees. Apple simply has no incentive to untether OS X, and every incentive to keep it locked to their hardware. Apple's Mac business is simply too lucrative. And has been doubly so since the move to Intel.

And if Apple decides to pursue these oufits legally, it's game over that much faster. Apple can afford to go after every one on these companies. It costs them next to nothing.

These are just parasites looking to cash in on Apple's success. They don't really bother me, and they shouldn't bother anyone because they won't last long enough to do anything significant.

[parky]

Originally Posted by maddoguk

Sorry, where are you getting this from? Apple's Stock Market shares may be on the up but only because of the iPhone.

Keep an eye on OS net share http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-m...e.aspx?qprid=9 - OS X has never passed 10% and is on a slow decline, because it is locked into hardware that only seems to be rising in price.

To rise above 10% Apple would really need to unbundle, until then we can continue to look forward to overpriced software and repair/replacement costs while Apple keep rehashing old designs and making us pay more for their decline in quality.

Troll

[Quadra 610]

Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc

Is it not ironic, that all of these clone makers and hackers are fully admitting that OS X is far superior to anything else on the market, to the point of going to jail, bankrupt or both, to get there hands on it... but refuse to support the development of the company that makes it?

Although I must agree that there is only one thing that makes clones even thinkable, and that is because Apple refuses to bring out the famous and oft asked for mid-sized xMac desktop. I've read all of the threads pertaining to this over the last 5 years, pros and cons. IMHO, a ~1700.00 mid-iBox would not hurt Apple's iMac or MacPro lines at all. Considering my post above, it's ~1000.00 for hardware, and ~700.00 Mac OSX and iLife initial install.

Thoughts anyone?

Apple's average consumer isn't asking for one. There isn't enough demand for a mid-sized headless desktop. And when a clone maker like Psystar offered one, no one was buying. Certainly not enough to keep them in business, never mind enough to cover their legal fees.

The tech enthusiats that frequent internet forums like this are only fraction of Apple's market. Otherwise we'd be seing one already. And Apple needs to be careful with how many models they put out, anyway. It's unfortunate, maybe, but that's how it is.

Macs as they are have been selling well. Apple has no incentive to put out a mid-range headless desktop that might eat in to Mac Pro sales. What, people were expecting to customize this fabled headless mid-range Mac desktop for next to nothing in order to achieve Mac Pro-like power?? LOL.

[Quadra 610]

Originally Posted by maddoguk

Sorry, where are you getting this from? Apple's Stock Market shares may be on the up but only because of the iPhone.

Keep an eye on OS net share http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-m...e.aspx?qprid=9 - OS X has never passed 10% and is on a slow decline, because it is locked into hardware that only seems to be rising in price.

To rise above 10% Apple would really need to unbundle, until then we can continue to look forward to overpriced software and repair/replacement costs while Apple keep rehashing old designs and making us pay more for their decline in quality.

It's not about market share. It's about selling on margin vs. selling on volume.

Macs have been Apple's biggest moneymaker for years now, accounting for nearly half of their revenue. And Mac computer sales are experiencing the smallest contraction in the entire industry in this recession. Apple caters to the Premium end of the market. Consumers with average or above-average disposable income. Apple owns this area. It's where the money is. The top of the market pyramid will always be narrower (but far more lucrative) than the bottom end.

If you want to examine "market share", then do so by dividing the market accordingly (it's not just one big market with the same demographics and characteristics across the board), and understand the principle of selling on margin. That's how things work at the Premium end. Apple makes a killing with their market share, and is prospering while junk-box makers like Dell are dying at the bottom end. Look at Dell's recent numbers. Sad. And they've been sad for quite a while now.

Apple has ignored the low end market for a very good reason. Nobody in that market is making any money. Look at Dell's margins, then look at Apple's. Dell is barely keeping afloat. Apple gross margins average 33%, while Dell struggles to achieve 18%.

Simply put, Apple's share of the high end market is 70%+. This is where computer profits are being made. It is not in volume. That's a loser's game.

[brucep]

Originally Posted by timgriff84

Isn't this a bit over the top. After all were talking about computers there not exactly complex. There all made from standard parts and it's not like apple even put there machines together.

And how is it going to lead them to have to support products they didn't sell? If anyone took one of these to apple to fix they just wouldn't do anything, same as when you take an apple product that's out of warrenty. If it's an os problem then they were paid and it's still there fault.

I can't really see a problem here it gives consumers more choice and freedom. After all if you sell some software in a box people should be allowed to use it how they want. A pencil company couldn't specify people only use there pencils with there paper because they see other paper as inferio.

a world gone mad
where all of mankinds knowledge is held in your pocket
in living color
for free
you pull out your star trek decoder
and talk to spock one last time
every thing for free
who would build anything for free anymore

[ncee]

Weill it might be as simple as Apple / Steve thinking

"When these folks don't come through"

"When these folks go out of business"

" When folks get burned, and blame Apple/us/me"

"When this makes Apple look bad" "how can this be a good thing"?

Now if one of these companies / people were to setup a meeting with the folks at Apple / Steve Jobs and show them a 500 million dollar bank roll, a nice sprawling office complex (say 175,000 sq. feet to start with), 750 employees and a willingness to work with Apple, sign any legal documents Apple puts in front of them … and call themselves an "Alternative Computer Company" - with NO ties to Apple or it's namesake - then and only then, might someone succeed.

Steve and company are looking out for the great name Apple has …

The Money pit Apple has …

The users of Apple products …

Once they loose control, Apple could be doomed

Ford had a great idea, and someone took that and made ANOTHER car company.

If everyone (or at least a lot of folks) think Apple is now the company / OS / Software / Hardware / Innovative company to beat, then just come up with one of YOUR OWN!

Maybe call it:

- Peachy Computers
- Golden Delicious Computers
- Granny Smith Computers
- ACC Computers (Apple Clone Computers)
- WWAPOA Computers (we want a piece of apple)
- WDI Computers (We Did It)



IMO

Skip

[luvosx]

Guess this is just a ploy by the backers of Pissystar to tire out the apple legal department so that they do not have enough steam left in them to pursue other things like the Palm Pre or many other things to come - since apple has armed itself with some patents like embedded drive, morphing keyboards etc. some real companies are dying to get some mileage ...
Quo computers ? Quo in latin means "something". Something sure is.