or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Psystar, Apple both look to avoid 2010 trial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Psystar, Apple both look to avoid 2010 trial - Page 2

post #41 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

I think you guys are all missing the point. There are hundreds of thousands of people installing Mac OS X on non Apple hardware.

I think it's probably more like just "hundreds" :P

It's not that big. For every person trying to install OS X, there are easily thousands that don't actually give a crap either way.

Most people buy a new computer with Windows pre-installed because they really don't want to piss about installing an OS onto their PC. They feel so strongly about it that they will wait until a new OS comes out to actual upgrade their machine.

I think it's you that is missing the point. Geeks will remain in the < 30% of computer owning population forever (don't confuse computer literate with a geek). And even less of that 30% actually care about OS X at all, and even less still care about OS X on non-Apple hardware.
post #42 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

Have you or do you recorded TV? Ever copy a VHS tape or DVD? Ever record music from the radio...ever done these things? Then at one time those things were and still are very illegal read the license when you buy music or watch TV. Have you ever made a backup copy or a music CD?

No so. All of these activities are covered by fair use, and always have been. Recording music from the radio is a grey area, but doesn't really become an issue unless someone is doing it for resale. For some reason a great many people don't seem to understand the basic concept behind intellectual property protection, which is to allow the owners of IP the exclusive right to profit from their works.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #43 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

Psystar will lose in court....probably. But you have to applaud that they are willing to take a stand against one of the big corporations.

Sadly you highlight a argument that is all too common with Psystar 'fans'. "Let's stick it to the man!"

But you haven't thought it through have you? What if Psystar was the company building their own OS and their own computers? Would you be supporting Dell, or HP, if they came along and used Psystar's OS to ruin their hardware business?


Quote:
Done with this thread. It does no good to argue with the uninformed.

You offer a weak argument combined with a particularly narrow view of the computer industry.
post #44 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

God I am getting so tired of all you geeks...

How are geekdad's calm, thoughtful remarks hurting you ? He makes some excellent points about holes in Apple's product line. All the vitriol from your direction is really undeserved.

e.g. the Mini is made of under-powered, laptop parts and is almost obscenely expensive for what you get. And while the iMac is a nice machine, not everyone wants an all-in-one machine (esp. not at a $1200-$1500 entry price when comparable Core 2 Duo hardware is avail in the Windows world for hundreds less).

Argue all you want about how much better the OS X experience is. Heck, I'll probably agree with you. But Apple has a consumer perception problem when comparing the Mini to the typical $399 Dell machine, and the iMac to what you can get for $800-ish. With that in mind, what's wrong with the idea of an upgradable, Apple mid-tower for around $800 ? (i.e. sort of a head-less iMac).

I really don't give a damn about Psystar one way or the other - I just want Apple to take better care of their (current & potential) consumers.
post #45 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhuff View Post

How are geekdad's calm, thoughtful remarks hurting you ? He makes some excellent points about holes in Apple's product line. All the vitriol from your direction is really undeserved.

I don't think the point was that his opinions are "hurting" anyone, but that they are incorrect. Apple can't be expected to serve every market, large and small, real or potential. Several of us here have made that point in the past, a point which the geek types seem to have a particularly difficult time accepting. The computer geeks tend to believe that if Apple isn't making products that serve their specific needs, that they are making a horrible mistake. To say the least, not everyone agrees with that view.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #46 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhuff View Post

How are geekdad's calm, thoughtful remarks hurting you ? He makes some excellent points about holes in Apple's product line. All the vitriol from your direction is really undeserved.

e.g. the Mini is made of under-powered, laptop parts and is almost obscenely expensive for what you get. And while the iMac is a nice machine, not everyone wants an all-in-one machine (esp. not at a $1200-$1500 entry price when comparable Core 2 Duo hardware is avail in the Windows world for hundreds less).

Argue all you want about how much better the OS X experience is. Heck, I'll probably agree with you. But Apple has a consumer perception problem when comparing the Mini to the typical $399 Dell machine, and the iMac to what you can get for $800-ish. With that in mind, what's wrong with the idea of an upgradable, Apple mid-tower for around $800 ? (i.e. sort of a head-less iMac).

I really don't give a damn about Psystar one way or the other - I just want Apple to take better care of their (current & potential) consumers.

I suppose Apple's record Mac sales (in a recession), continued top ratings in customer satisfaction year after year, record quarters, somehow suggest there is a glaring deficit in Apple's product line or a deficit in "caring" for their customers? 2009 is going to be a record year in terms of Mac sales. Where's the deficiency?? We haven't even seen what the new iMacs bring to the table, either. Not only is there no evidence to suggest what you're saying represents reality, but it's premature at this point to suggest thre is something actually wrong with Apple's current vision of desktop computing.

Granted, Apple *could* introduce a new model in-between one of their current lines, but there's absolutely no evidence at this point that they need to. The problem with the "upgradable, Apple mid-tower" is that 1) there isn't any demand for it, and 2) it's a desktop. Apple has to do some serious justification in order to in good conscience add an old upgradeable-box paradigm to their current iMac lineup, especially in a market that is seeing the slow death of that same idea in favour of compact, mobile solutions. It's difficult enough to sell desktops as it is, and you propose Apple re-introduce an outdated, poorly-selling concept in a market that's turned in the other direction? The Mac Pro line need not be recast as a second, lower-powered "upgradable-box" line.

Futher, Apple's really the only tech outfit that seems to have "consumer perception" down to a fine art.
post #47 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhuff View Post

How are geekdad's calm, thoughtful remarks hurting you ? He makes some excellent points about holes in Apple's product line. All the vitriol from your direction is really undeserved.

He may be calm but he is not thoughtful. He is only thinking about himself and the insular, small and self-important segment of the market that he represents. he is giving no thought to the wider 'consumer' marketplace or the economic realities of running a large business.

His remarks do not hurt me, they bore me. We have been hearing this 'geek' logic for nearly half a decade now... and with each passing month the argument gets weaker.


Quote:
But Apple has a consumer perception problem when comparing the Mini to the typical $399 Dell machine...

Here we go again! How many $399 PC tower users would even consider switching to a Mac... at ANY price? How much profit does Dell make on those systems.

With Apple increasing their sales and market share for 6 CONSECUTIVE YEARS... that's a "consumer perception problem" that a lot of the PC manufacturers would like to have.

No-one here is arguing that there are 'holes' in Apple's product line. The debate is the size of the holes and whether it's worth Apple filling them.
post #48 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhuff View Post

Argue all you want about how much better the OS X experience is. Heck, I'll probably agree with you. But Apple has a consumer perception problem when comparing the Mini to the typical $399 Dell machine, and the iMac to what you can get for $800-ish. With that in mind, what's wrong with the idea of an upgradable, Apple mid-tower for around $800 ? (i.e. sort of a head-less iMac).

I really don't give a damn about Psystar one way or the other - I just want Apple to take better care of their (current & potential) consumers.

The problem from Apple view is that they can't pass the buck when an upgrade goes wrong. On a PC, it's easy for Dell to say it's Microsoft problem, Microsoft to say it's the upgrade part maker driver problem and the upgrade part maker to say it's a conflict on the MB. So the upgrader is stuck trying to resolve the problem himself.

But Apple controls everything on a Mac and thus can't say it's some one else's problem when an upgrade part don't work. Apple owns the hardware, software and specifies how the "drivers" should work. And specially when they sell an upgradable Mac for the average consumer. So Apple ends up spending time on trying to help fix a problem some one is having with some third party $30 upgrade. Apple don't want to have to deal with making their OS run bug free with every upgrade part that can be installed. Apple also don't want to rewrite their OS to run on a new processor for those few Mac owners that want to upgrade their CPU. And Apple don't make any money on the sale of third party upgrade parts. Except maybe a license fee.

The only capable upgrade worth having is the graphics card. But really, the graphics card that comes with a Mac (mini or iMac) will more than suffice for most users. Only gamers need to install the lastest and greatest graphic card every time one comes out. And nearly all serious gamers uses a PC anyways. (Because that's where the games are.) Other than that, nearly everything else can be upgraded externally using USB or Firewire. Most CPU upgrades (for the sake of of an incremental increase in GHz) aren't usually worth it. The only CPU upgrade worth doing are for the improvemant due to achitectural changes and this usually requires a new MB.

At least with the upgradable PowerMac or MacPro there is very little need to upgrade for several years. Except for adding HD, memory, drives or graphic cards. Which are all easy to do. And with the high resale of Macs, it's more practical for owners to sell their Macs used and buy a new one when they need more processing power several years down the line.

Take a look around. In the late eighties and nineties there were dozens of computer stores that specialize in selling upgrade computer parts. Back then, every six months they came out with faster CPU, faster modem, faster CD drives, graphic cards with more memory, better sound cards, bigger HD, cheaper RAM, etc.. And every six months the price of upgrading got cheaper. And back then, even a six month upgrade made a noticable improvement.

Now all those stores are gone. Except for Fry's. And even Fry's, now of days, spend more time advertising TV's, home theater, refridgerators and washing machines that they do computers stuff. Right now you won't even notice any improvement to your computer with any upgrade you do within 6 month of purchase. (Except maybe ram).

Steve Jobs made the right discission back in 2000 to discontinue their upgradable consumer desk top computers (PowerMac are geared toward professionals) and concentrate of computers for the average users and laptops. Laptops now makes up more than 60% (and increasing) of computer purchases. The fact that they not upgradable isn't stopping anyone from buying a laptop. And for many, the laptop is the most powerful computer they own and replaces their desktop.
post #49 of 51
DavidW makes some good points. And I didn't mean to suggest that a low priced Apple desktop should be as tweak-able as the Mac Pro (e.g. CPU and graphics card upgrades). My "headless iMac" remark was mainly meant to suggest that, perhaps, the Mini could evolve into a small, Apple desktop that's
  • Easier to open (for simple upgrades like RAM & such)
  • Made with slightly less expensive components (i.e. not so many laptop parts) so that it could be sold at a lower price
Such a device could serve the function of an Apple "gateway drug" and compete favorably against lower priced Windows PCs. Much like the Mini did before the upper-end model rose to the ridiculous price of $799.

Of course, it looks like there might be a new Mini on the way shortly, so maybe I'll get my wish (or part of it)
post #50 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhuff View Post

DavidW makes some good points. And I didn't mean to suggest that a low priced Apple desktop should be as tweak-able as the Mac Pro (e.g. CPU and graphics card upgrades). My "headless iMac" remark was mainly meant to suggest that, perhaps, the Mini could evolve into a small, Apple desktop that's
  • Easier to open (for simple upgrades like RAM & such)
  • Made with slightly less expensive components (i.e. not so many laptop parts) so that it could be sold at a lower price
Such a device could serve the function of an Apple "gateway drug" and compete favorably against lower priced Windows PCs. Much like the Mini did before the upper-end model rose to the ridiculous price of $799.

Of course, it looks like there might be a new Mini on the way shortly, so maybe I'll get my wish (or part of it)

No need. Current growth figures don't support this.

Apple's gateway drug is (and has historically been) the iPod an now the iPhone.
post #51 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

No need. Current growth figures don't support this.

Apple's gateway drug is (and has historically been) the iPod an now the iPhone.

Well, certainly the iPod/iPhone gets people interested in Apple technology. But they're different animals than Mac OS X desktops/laptops. After all, the iPod with iTunes is equally usable (or hideous, depending on how you feel about iTunes) under Windows. So I remain unconvinced that an iPod will always lure a user over to the Light Side...

But a $499 Mini with decent specs and slightly easier expandability ? Now you're comparing apples to, well... you get it
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Psystar, Apple both look to avoid 2010 trial