or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Reseller's website offline following pledge of $400 Mac clone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Reseller's website offline following pledge of $400 Mac clone - Page 5

post #161 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Monopoly is illegal. You have been crying "Apple has monopoly over Mac Market" I did not make anything up, anyone who reads your post will see that. Mac OS is a software and software have copyrights (you may want to look up the definition of copyright). As the owner of a software, you specify how your software shall be used (an operating system or not) plain and simple.

Some monopolies are legal. Cable companies, as an example. As solipsism pointed out, there is the dictionary definition and the legal definition. Either could be interpreted as applying to the Mac market.

And copywrite protections can be considered invalid if use inappropriately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

There is nothing called "Mac Market monopoly". Mac is brand name and specific product manufactured by a specific company not a market. Mac = Apple Manufactured Hardware + Apple manufactured OS. A PC with Mac OS is not a Mac, it runs Mac OS but still not a Mac.

Um, if you by a Mac and install Windows, is it still a Mac? yes. And when Apple allowed clones, those were not Apple manufactured, but were still Macs. Your math is off and your logic is flawed.

Simple question: is there a viable Mac market that is separate and distinct from the PC market in general?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #162 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Some monopolies are legal. Cable companies, as an example. As solipsism pointed out, there is the dictionary definition and the legal definition. Either could be interpreted as applying to the Mac market.

And copywrite protections can be considered invalid if use inappropriately.

Cable companies are service providers. You have an alternative to get TV channels, so they are actually not monopoly. Remember AT&T? was broken down to break the monopoly. No matter who you are, monopoly is illegal, there is nothing called legal monopoly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Um, if you by a Mac and install Windows, is it still a Mac? yes. And when Apple allowed clones, those were not Apple manufactured, but were still Macs. Your math is off and your logic is flawed.

Simple question: is there a viable Mac market that is separate and distinct from the PC market in general?

You still need Mac OS 10.5 to run Windows on a MAC. So your math is off. It is still a Mac. The clones were never Mac, they were clones.
post #163 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Cable companies are service providers. You have an alternative to get TV channels, so they are actually not monopoly. Remember AT&T? was broken down to break the monopoly. No matter who you are, monopoly is illegal, there is nothing called legal monopoly.

yeah, there is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

You still need Mac OS 10.5 to run Windows on a MAC. So your math is off. It is still a Mac.The clones were never Mac, they were clones.

The clones were still mac compatible. They were competition within the Mac market.

Also, there are people that have Windows running on their Macs without OSX. I can't imagine why they would do that, but it is technically possible.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #164 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Do we also need to mention that Apple encourages people to install Windows on their computers, and in fact uses it in their advertising as a selling point? Wouldn't it be a bit hypocritical for Apple to get pissed off at a PC manufacturer who does the same with OSX?

You are aware that MS decided to keep Windows Vista Home from running in bootcamp (via EULA) until January this year? And Windows IS a monopoly OS unlike OSX.
post #165 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Please vinea, explain to me my wealth of options and competition available with the Mac market?

Actually, let's make it more simple. I have explained, why I think they are a monopoly within the Mac market. Your turn. Explain why they are not a monopoly within the Mac market. One assumption: you stay within the Mac market. (please don't say, buy a PC with Windows, as that sort is outside of the Mac market, which we are discussing)

OSX is a Open Brand UNIX 03 registered product. There are at least 3 other competing UNIX 03 products on the market. Solaris, HPUX and AIX. The core of the OS is BSD Unix, now certified, running on a Mach kernel. On the server market, I'd say Apple has pretty low share. Of course, in the desktop market it probably is the most successful Unix.

Of course, if you wish to look at OSX as a desktop operating system vs a unix one, then yes, you DO need to consider Windows.

Oh wait, do you want to argue that OSX isn't an operating system? Like the Accord is somehow not a car?

The only way that Apple has a "monopoly" is if OSX had 80% market share in desktop operating systems. It doesn't.

The "Mac Market" as you define it is no different from the "Honda Market" or the "PS3 Market". Only Sony makes PS3s and the PS3 OS on it. Oooohhh...no kidding?

If I choose dumb assed assumptions I can clearly come up with dumb assed conclusions.
post #166 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

point?

The point is that a monopoly covers a product market or a particular region.

Product MARKET. Not PRODUCT.

In any case, the US DOJ defintion for this product category is "Intel-based desktop operating systems". Which is what it used in the Microsoft monopoly case. Which OSX also clearly belongs.

Apple clearly has no control over the price of either Intel-based desktop operating systems OR Intel-based desktop computers. It has zero monopoly power in these markets because it doesn't have enough market share to matter.

This is very different than in the download music market where Apple does seem to be able to influence the price of all digital music downloads.
post #167 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Well, I know lots of folks here are going to say that Apple can't afford to offer OSX customer service to computers they don't build, or something like that, and that might be true - if they did, they might end up with similar, or worse, customer service and quality issues than Microsoft has.

That said, it would be great if it was possible to have an OSX desktop that sacrificed the pretty plastic form-factor of the existing Apple-built options for a super-cheap mid-tower option as this company was trying to do.


This model was basically the same specs as an iMac and much, much cheaper than even an old macmini. I wonder what it would cost them to build something closer to a Mac Pro?

Stop it! This is the internet! You're making too much sense!
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #168 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

QFT.

iMac is cheaper and comes with a display.
Vast majority of customers do not care about "upgrades."
Vast majority do not want to futz with cables.
Vast majority do not even know what a video card IS.

The "$999 xMac" wouldn't sell as it does not come with a display.

The "$1500 xMac" wouldn't sell as the iMac is cheaper and DOES come with a display.

Put them side-by-side in the Apple Stores and the customer will buy the iMac the vast majority of the time. A big heavy tower, connecting cables, increased footprint, and no display far outweigh the "advantage" of "upgrading the video card" to the customer.

iMac locks you into the display of Apple's choice. As for "futzing with cables," that's exactly what iMacs and Mac minis force you to do. Want more than one hard drive? Add a USB or Firewire cable and a power supply for the external 3.5" enclosure. I've seen an iMac with three external hard drives. It had more cables than a tower would have, and ate up a lot more outlets on the UPS with bulky transformer blocks that suck power at all times. Also, a mini has as many cables as a tower would. That doesn't seem to be hurting its sales, despite AI's past prognostications of doom for the small computer. People want to do more than just upgrade video cards. They don't want to be locked into the CPU Apple installed. Upgrading it on the iMac and mini is not for the faint of heart or the light of wallet since Apple chose laptop CPUs for those systems. Or they may want more disk space, especially now that there's Time Machine. Or they may want more RAM. More than 2GB is effectively impossible on the mini and difficult on the iMac, since its two slots require more expensive 2GB DIMMs. Video isn't the only thing people want to upgrade, and the only option for an upgradeable Mac now is a $2200+ Mac Pro, which is unpalatable for many and unaffordable for others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ros3ntan View Post

OS X cannot run on a PC. you have to get an emulator.

Completely wrong. OS X can run natively on a PC as long as you have the right patches and drivers for the hardware that's not standard on Macs. That's nothing like an emulator. VirtualPC was an emulator. Parallels is not an emulator for Windows. Neither is VMware Fusion. Boot Camp is not an emulator. And the OSx86 project is not an emulator.
post #169 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

OSX is a Open Brand UNIX 03 registered product. There are at least 3 other competing UNIX 03 products on the market. Solaris, HPUX and AIX. The core of the OS is BSD Unix, now certified, running on a Mach kernel. On the server market, I'd say Apple has pretty low share. Of course, in the desktop market it probably is the most successful Unix.

Of course, if you wish to look at OSX as a desktop operating system vs a unix one, then yes, you DO need to consider Windows.

Oh wait, do you want to argue that OSX isn't an operating system? Like the Accord is somehow not a car?

The only way that Apple has a "monopoly" is if OSX had 80% market share in desktop operating systems. It doesn't.

they do have 100% of the Mac compatible systems market

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

The "Mac Market" as you define it is no different from the "Honda Market" or the "PS3 Market". Only Sony makes PS3s and the PS3 OS on it. Oooohhh...no kidding?

I do think that the Mac market is distinct enough and unique enough to consider it market. Cable operators are a monopoly. Can you argue otherwise? No, because they are. Yet, you can buy your TV service elsewhere, i.e. cable. But, for those with eyes to see, satellite, IP TV, etc are distinct enough to be consider separate markets, even though they overlap in offerings and customers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

If I choose dumb assed assumptions I can clearly come up with dumb assed conclusions.

Obiously.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #170 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

The point is that a monopoly covers a product market or a particular region.

Product MARKET. Not PRODUCT.

In any case, the US DOJ defintion for this product category is "Intel-based desktop operating systems". Which is what it used in the Microsoft monopoly case. Which OSX also clearly belongs.

not at the time of the trial it wasn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Apple clearly has no control over the price of either Intel-based desktop operating systems OR Intel-based desktop computers. It has zero monopoly power in these markets because it doesn't have enough market share to matter.

They do have 100% control over the price of OSX compatible hardware systems. Something even MS cannot control on Windows compatible hardware systems.

If you cannot see the Mac market as distinct, then you are completely correct. I guess this is the easy line of thought, as Apple is the only company selling OSX compatible systems, then it is easy to compare them to say, Honda, as part of the larger PC market as Honda is part of the larger car market. Let me repeat when I have had to say before: Apple is clearly not a monopoly in the over all desktop computer market. Similarly, Microsoft is not a monopoly in the overall computer OS market (all sub-categories).

I see it as a distinct market. Obviously, when the allowed clones, someone thought it was a distinct product market (not viable, distinct). At that time, if Apple forced pricing directly on the clones, they could have been open to an anti-trust suit. Just because they closed the clones down and no longer have competitors in their market, doesn't mean the product market disappeared. If one can conceive of the idea that the Mac market is a distinct product market within the desktop/laptop market, then Apple does hold a monopoly position.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #171 of 236
When MS wouldn't allow Netscape browser to properly install on MS Windows computers, they were denying Netscape access to 100% of the Windows PC market. But this wasn't why MS got in trouble for abusing their monopoly. They got in trouble because they were denying Netscape access to over 90% of the consumer computer market. In which they are also deemed a monopoly. If MS Windows was only 10% of the computer market, they wouldn't have gotten in trouble because they would not be considered a monopoly in the consumer computer market. Even though they would still be denying Netscape access to 100% of the Windows PC market. In this case, Netscape would still have 90% of the market to sell their product in.

Apple Macs makes up about 10% (depending on how to caluculate market share) of the consumer computer market. But they have 100% of the Mac market. A consumer isn't forced to use a Mac. They have other choices. They can choose to use what the other 90% of the market uses. Be it a Dell, HP, Sony, IBM. etc.. A Windows PC can do everything a Mac/OSX can do. You just have to make the right choice in software. And it's your choice. If you want to run iLife, then you made the choice to also buy a Mac. Otherwise there are plenty of other programs that will do what iLife does, that will run on a cheap Windows PC.

Now if you bought a copy of OSX then you can only install it on a Mac. OSX is was written for a Mac. It states cleary on the EULA that it's only to be installed in a Mac. It doesn't matter that you think it should run on a cheap Dell. It's not your intellectual property. Apple never intended OSX to run on anything except a Mac. Just because you (or someone else) can make it run on a Dell doesn'r mean that Apple should allow it. If you want to buy cheap hardware, then buy a Dell. Apple is not stopping you. "But I can't run OSX on a Dell" you cried. Well, you can cry a river for all Apple care. It was you who first made the choice to buy cheap hardware. Apple did not limit your choices. You did. If you had chosen to spend more on hardware, then you could have bought a Mac and be able to choose between OSX, Vista, XP, Unix, Linix, Etc..

Look at it tis way. If you only want to spend $15,000 on a new car, is it BMWs', Porsches' or Mercedes' fault that they don't have a car for you to choose from. Did they limit your choices because they have a monopoly in their respective market? No. Because you can still choose to buy a Kia, a Toyota, a Nissan, a Ford, etc.. "But I can't go over 130MPH in those" you cried. Well, you can cry them a river for all they care. They shouldn't be forced to sell cheaper cars so that you can own one. Nor should they have to offer their technology so that Kia, Toyota, Nissan, Ford, etc. can market a car that can go over 130MPH for $15,000.

Now if you can buy a Kia body and install a Porsche engine in it for $15,000, should you be allow to do so? Yes. For your own personal use. Even if Porshce doesn't agree to it. But should you be able to market a Kia with a Porsche engine? No. Because a Porsche engine is not designed for a Kia body. Porshce has every right to stop you from marketing such a car with their engine in it. Porsche has every right to prevent you from tarnishing their brand by you marketing such a car. You can argue all you want about how the engine (with a few modifications) can be made to work in a Kia body. Or how Porsche is abusing their monopoly in the Porsche engine market by making you buy an expensive Porsche. The courts will be on Porsche side. Even in the EU. And the courts will be on Apple side with this issue.
post #172 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

Completely wrong. OS X can run natively on a PC as long as you have the right patches and drivers for the hardware that's not standard on Macs. That's nothing like an emulator. VirtualPC was an emulator. Parallels is not an emulator for Windows. Neither is VMware Fusion. Boot Camp is not an emulator. And the OSx86 project is not an emulator.


You need to trick OSX into thinking that it is loading into a Mac. A Mac has a piece of firmware that let OSX know it's a Mac. Even if you have a PC configured exactly like a Mac, OSX will not load. I think the "emulator" that "ros3ntan" is referring to is a software hack that must be loaded into the PC before OSX will load. It tricks OSX into thinking that the PC is a Mac. It's "emulating" a Mac on a PC. After OSX loads, it runs as though it's natively on a Mac. Not in "emulation" mode. The hack is an infringement of the Apple firmware found in a Mac.
post #173 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

No matter who you are, monopoly is illegal, there is nothing called legal monopoly.

There can be and are legal monopolies. I don't know where you get this idea that all monopolies are illegal. There are certain activities that are illegal for a monopoly to do though.
post #174 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

The hack is an infringement of the Apple firmware found in a Mac.

What kind of infringement exactly? Do you have a link to technical details?
post #175 of 236
Psystar wants to make easy money by telling to the public that their cheap PC can run OSX where in truth, your Core2Duo PC can run Leopard.

So there are in a way cheating the public consumer!
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
post #176 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Agreed. The question is whether Apple using this software EULA to stifle competitors on their hardware is legal. They are a monopoly on Mac compatible hardware and on the OS. Are they using their monopoly position on the OS to unfairly prevent competition to their hardware? I am not in anyway saying that they are. Just trying to explain why a company that is prevented from selling hardware that is OSX compatible might have a case to argue.


The answer is no. And here's why. 90% of the hardware that makes up a Mac is no different than that found on a PC by Dell, HP, Sony, etc.. They (including Apple) are all competing in the computer hardware space. OSX is Apples' competitive edge. OSX is what Apple uses to lure customers into buying a Mac. Just like how MS uses "Halo" to lure customers into buying an Xbox. "Halo" is one of MS competitive edge against Sony and Wii. You would not even think of forcing MS to port "Halo" to work on a PalyStation. "Halo" is not prohibiting competition. If Sony wants to compete, let them write a better game than "Halo". MS is not stopping them. No way should MS give up "Halo" to help the competition compete against them. The same with OSX. You can't take away Apples' competitive edge because the competition can't compete. Apple is not in the business of developing software to help Dell sell more cheap computers.

Here you are crying about how Apple is hurting the consumers by prohibiting competition. But you're willing to accept that Apple should be forced to give away their rights to develope advantages that helps them compete in their market. And they are competing in the computer hardware market. Not the Mac market. Apple already owns 100% of the Mac market. They don't need to compete there. Just like how MS is not competing in the Xbox market. They compete in the game console market. But all of Apples market share only amounts to about 10% (depending on who's doing the counting) of the US computer hardware market and less the 4% of the world market. A far cry from a monopoly. No matter who's definition you choose to use.

The technology that Apple developes may give them an unfair advanage over Dell, HP, Sony, IBM, etc.. So you cry unfair use of their monopolistic power in the Mac market. I say that if Dell, Sony, HP and the likes wants to compete in the Mac market, let them write their own OS. Instead of depending on MS. Let them start their own platform and convince developers to write programs for them. Let them try to develope their own advantage that will get Mac users to buy a Dell. Apple is not stopping them. And Apple should not have to provide them with any technological help.

Apple could choose to sell their Mac hardware with MS Windows. But this don't give them any advantage over Dell, Hp, Sony, etc.. That's the way competition works. You come up with an advantage and this forces your competitors into developing something better than your advantage. The consumers win. Do you think that MS would have developed XP and Vista if it weren't for Apple developing OSX? Do you think that other cell phones makers would be working so hard on improving their touch screen phones if it weren't for the competition they're getting from the iPhone?: Don't you think that right now, Sony is working on a game better than "Halo"? The consumers win when companies are forced to come up with their own ways of competing. Not when advantages are taken away form one company and given to another to help level what is a temporary unevenness in the playing field.
post #177 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

You need to trick OSX into thinking that it is loading into a Mac. A Mac has a piece of firmware that let OSX know it's a Mac. Even if you have a PC configured exactly like a Mac, OSX will not load. I think the "emulator" that "ros3ntan" is referring to is a software hack that must be loaded into the PC before OSX will load. It tricks OSX into thinking that the PC is a Mac. It's "emulating" a Mac on a PC. After OSX loads, it runs as though it's natively on a Mac. Not in "emulation" mode. The hack is an infringement of the Apple firmware found in a Mac.

Now you're just guessing. And you're guessing wrong.
post #178 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

What kind of infringement exactly? Do you have a link to technical details?


http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/EFI

Read the section under EFI. Apple wrote their own firmware using Intels EFI architecture. The EFI is equivilent to what was once called the BIOS. The Apple EFI is what the hack "emulates" in order for OSX to load. The "illegal" "Hackintosh" version of OSX has the EFI emulator as part of the boot sequence. If you want to load from an original version of OSX then you have to hack the EFI on your PC on your own before OSX will load. There are sites that tells you how to rewrite it so your PC appears to be a Mac to OSX. The EFI firmware belongs to Apple. It's meant to be used only on their Macs'.
post #179 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/EFI

Read the section under EFI. Apple wrote their own firmware using Intels EFI architecture. The EFI is equivilent to what was once called the BIOS. The Apple EFI is what the hack "emulates" in order for OSX to load. The "illegal" "Hackintosh" version of OSX has the EFI emulator as part of the boot sequence. If you want to load from an original version of OSX then you have to hack the EFI on your PC on your own before OSX will load. There are sites that tells you how to rewrite it so your PC appears to be a Mac to OSX. The EFI firmware belongs to Apple. It's meant to be used only on their Macs'.

I know what EFI does. I don't know which specific piece of software infringes and on what. Emulation isn't infringement.
post #180 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

The answer is no. And here's why. 90% of the hardware that makes up a Mac is no different than that found on a PC by Dell, HP, Sony, etc.. They (including Apple) are all competing in the computer hardware space. OSX is Apples' competitive edge. OSX is what Apple uses to lure customers into buying a Mac. Just like how MS uses "Halo" to lure customers into buying an Xbox. "Halo" is one of MS competitive edge against Sony and Wii. You would not even think of forcing MS to port "Halo" to work on a PalyStation. "Halo" is not prohibiting competition. If Sony wants to compete, let them write a better game than "Halo". MS is not stopping them. No way should MS give up "Halo" to help the competition compete against them. The same with OSX. You can't take away Apples' competitive edge because the competition can't compete. Apple is not in the business of developing software to help Dell sell more cheap computers.

Is there a Windows PC market? Forget Apple in there for a moment, because until a couple years ago, they were not using Intel. Again, is there a Windows PC market, as a sub market within the overall desktop/laptop market? Of course there is. Using the simplistic definition used by others here, there are numerous competitors selling Windows PCs.

So, how many competitors make a market? Answer? The number is irrelevant. If you want cable services, be it TV or internet, you have to go through your one local cable company. There doesn't mean there isn't a cable market. Sure, you could go to other vendors for TV service or internet, but for cable, there is only one. So, just because Apple is the only vendor for Mac compatible hardware systems, does not mean there is no market. Just as there is a Windows PC market within the larger market, there is a Mac market within the larger market. It just happens that they have been able to prevent competitors from succeeding in this market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

Here you are crying about how Apple is hurting the consumers by prohibiting competition. But you're willing to accept that Apple should be forced to give away their rights to develope advantages that helps them compete in their market. And they are competing in the computer hardware market. Not the Mac market. Apple already owns 100% of the Mac market. They don't need to compete there. Just like how MS is not competing in the Xbox market. They compete in the game console market. But all of Apples market share only amounts to about 10% (depending on who's doing the counting) of the US computer hardware market and less the 4% of the world market. A far cry from a monopoly. No matter who's definition you choose to use.

I am crying about what? I really don't care that Apple doesn't allow others to compete. I buy Macs from Apple because I like the hardware and software. A number of people I know bought PowerComputing systems back in the day because they were cheaper and faster, but that doesn't affect my feelings.

As for your logic: "Apple already owns 100% of the Mac market"...and you don't see that as a monopoly, within the Mac market? There was a time they did not own 100% of the Mac market, so you can hardly say it is not a distinct market...there were competitors within the Mac market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

The technology that Apple developes may give them an unfair advanage over Dell, HP, Sony, IBM, etc.. So you cry unfair use of their monopolistic power in the Mac market. I say that if Dell, Sony, HP and the likes wants to compete in the Mac market, let them write their own OS. Instead of depending on MS. Let them start their own platform and convince developers to write programs for them. Let them try to develope their own advantage that will get Mac users to buy a Dell. Apple is not stopping them. And Apple should not have to provide them with any technological help.

How can they compete in the Mac market by writing their own OS? That makes zero sense. Certainly they can compete against Apple with their own OS, within the overall PC market, but they can continue to use Windows for that. If they want to compete within the smaller mac market, they need to sell Mac compatible hardware. (Well, technically, they already do, they just aren't allowed to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

Apple could choose to sell their Mac hardware with MS Windows. But this don't give them any advantage over Dell, Hp, Sony, etc.. That's the way competition works. You come up with an advantage and this forces your competitors into developing something better than your advantage. The consumers win. Do you think that MS would have developed XP and Vista if it weren't for Apple developing OSX? Do you think that other cell phones makers would be working so hard on improving their touch screen phones if it weren't for the competition they're getting from the iPhone?: Don't you think that right now, Sony is working on a game better than "Halo"? The consumers win when companies are forced to come up with their own ways of competing. Not when advantages are taken away form one company and given to another to help level what is a temporary unevenness in the playing field.

There arguments are valid, within the larger, overall PC, market. Within the Mac market, Apple is the only player, and that is their competitive advantage. At one point in the past there were other players. Did that make it a distinct market? Other here foolishly say it isn't a market now because they are the only company in the market, but when there were clones, was it a market? If so, then did getting rid of the clones magically make it no longer a market? So, if a company can eliminate there competitors, that means there is no longer a market? faulty.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #181 of 236
So now the "normal" user browses to Psystar's website, sees that they're selling OS X and thinks something like "mhhh ... Apple allows others to sell this system? Great, I'll order a cheap "Mac" instead of the expensive ones from Apple. Now he has his PC / Mac and installs an update (I know that they're saying don't do this, but who'd care?) ... and "his Mac" is not working anymore (and he lost all his documents, music, mails et cetera) - because of Apple, not Psystar. Do you think he will ever buy an Apple product again?

I wanted a Mac (OS X) since ages, tried OSX86 on 3 computers - no success. Running it inside a virtual machine worked, but was _very_ slow, so I thought it's crap. Then I got my Macbook and changed my opinion within seconds

Btw: Macbooks have two-finger-scrolling / -clicking, iSight, this magnetic power plug ... Psystar NOT!

edit: Even if they're right, Apple can sell OS X Media Center (Mac mini) for 500$, OS X Mobile (Macbook) for 1,500$ and OS X Ultimate for 2,000$ and OS X Update (only for Ultimate) for 120$ ... all Apple systems come with an (OEM) Ultimate Licence.
post #182 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisbk View Post

Btw: Macbooks have two-finger-scrolling / -clicking, iSight, this magnetic power plug ... Psystar NOT!

I didn't see a notebook offered, so much of that is moot so far.

The mini doesn't have any of these either. The only thing that might apply is the iSight. The two finger thing I can use, though I hate finger-wagger-pads in general. The iSight doesn't have much use other than as a novelty and a bullet point on the feature list.

Not that I'm trying to justify what this person is doing in trying to sell Mac clones, I'm just saying much of what you're talking about in the quoted section doesn't apply here.
post #183 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I didn't see a notebook offered, so much of that is moot so far.

I thought they were comparing to the entire line - but you're right, they only compare to the Mac Mini.
post #184 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post

Um, no thanks.

Quite.

Presumably this appeals to people who aren't concerned with downtime or futzing with the the thing? I moved to Apple to stop messing with computers after years and years with Solaris, Linux, and Windows - I need them working or it can cost me money.

The risk and level of potential effort attached to running a Hackintosh/OpenMac compared to an Apple solution make it a no brainer for me. That's without Apple making active attempts to prevent OSX running on grey hardware.
15" PB, 15" MBP, MB, MBA, G5 iMac, C2D iMac, Mac Mini, UK iPhone 3G, SGI RealityEngine2, SGI/Division Virtual Reality Rig, NetApp F760C
Reply
15" PB, 15" MBP, MB, MBA, G5 iMac, C2D iMac, Mac Mini, UK iPhone 3G, SGI RealityEngine2, SGI/Division Virtual Reality Rig, NetApp F760C
Reply
post #185 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by datamodel View Post

Presumably this appeals to people who aren't concerned with downtime or futzing with the the thing? I moved to Apple to stop messing with computers after years and years with Solaris, Linux, and Windows - I need them working or it can cost me money.

There seem to be a lot of comparisons to hackintosh boxes and problems with PCs running in general. This company is doing what Apple do in that they offer a small amount of options that they can support well to ensure a good experience.

PCs in general don't offer this because there are so many manufacturers and incompatible parts and drivers. This wouldn't necessarily be the case here.

All they have to do is build the computer that a huge number of people wish Apple would build in one or two configurations and support those builds well and they'll have already done a better job than Apple. And I bet their repairs will be cheaper too.
post #186 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

There seem to be a lot of comparisons to hackintosh boxes and problems with PCs running in general. This company is doing what Apple do in that they offer a small amount of options that they can support well to ensure a good experience.

PCs in general don't offer this because there are so many manufacturers and incompatible parts and drivers. This wouldn't necessarily be the case here.

All they have to do is build the computer that a huge number of people wish Apple would build in one or two configurations and support those builds well and they'll have already done a better job than Apple. And I bet their repairs will be cheaper too.

Except that the open source community seems annoyed with them, moved to non-commercial licenses so anything Apple does that breaks the EFI emulation leaves them completely screwed as they won't be able to use the updated EFI hacks and OSX will no longer run on their boxes.

Ooops.
post #187 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_lha View Post

Yes, but with the mini you are not just paying for a low end machine, you're paying for the form factor. How much would a PC with the same form factor and specs as a $599 Mac mini cost?

But the Mini's form factor is not a selling point to folks considering the clone. A Computer that doesn't require putty knife surgery to upgrade and uses a desktop hard drive would be an improvement for me. Open RAM slots would be an improvement as well. Tower/ Pizza Box/ whatever I've used them all and they work for me. The reason I bought a Mini was it was the cheapest way to get a new Mac, not because it looks like a nice tissue box.
"Moo" said the chicken
"Cluck" said the cow
Dr. Frankenstein rubbed his hands together with glee
Reply
"Moo" said the chicken
"Cluck" said the cow
Dr. Frankenstein rubbed his hands together with glee
Reply
post #188 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Is there a Windows PC market? Forget Apple in there for a moment, because until a couple years ago, they were not using Intel. Again, is there a Windows PC market, as a sub market within the overall desktop/laptop market? Of course there is. Using the simplistic definition used by others here, there are numerous competitors selling Windows PCs.

So, how many competitors make a market? Answer? The number is irrelevant. If you want cable services, be it TV or internet, you have to go through your one local cable company. There doesn't mean there isn't a cable market. Sure, you could go to other vendors for TV service or internet, but for cable, there is only one. So, just because Apple is the only vendor for Mac compatible hardware systems, does not mean there is no market. Just as there is a Windows PC market within the larger market, there is a Mac market within the larger market. It just happens that they have been able to prevent competitors from succeeding in this market.

But the Windows/PC market and OSX/Mac market isn't defined until one has already purchased a computer. You can not put a group of consumers together, that don't already own a computer, and predict which market they will end up in. They may make their decision based on the type of programs they want to run, what they using at work, games they want to play, price, home decor, OS preference, form factor, weight, etc.. It is from this market that ALL computer makers compete in. Dell, Apple, HP, Sony, etc.. People are not born to use Macs' or PCs'. There's no genetic marker that determined which computer they will eventually end up using. Every potential computer buyer is fair game to ALL computer hardware makers. No one has a monopoly in this market segment. Every computer hardware maker will do what's needed to win over these consumer by marketing their hardware.

Why are there more venders competing in the Windows/PC market than the OSX/Mac market? BECAUSE MICROSOFT (with Windows) IS DEEM A MONOPOLY. (sorry for yelling )MS must license their OS to anyone that wants to sell a PC. Otherwise they would be denying the vender access to 90% of the World computer market. Apple (with OSX) is not a monopoly. Apple doesn't not have to open their OS to anyone. By not doing so only denies a vender access to less than 4% of the World computer market.

A cable company having a monopoly in an area is no where near the same as Apple having a monopoly in the OSX/Mac market. When a cable company has the monopoly in an area, everyone in the area, that wants or needs cable service must buy it from that cable company. This is not true with Apple monopoly in the OSX/Mac market. Once a consumer buy a Mac and is part of the OSX/Mac market, he/she no longer has to buy any more product from Apple. Ever. Not even an OS. He can choose to buy his programs. HD, ram, keyboard, mouse, monitor, router, printers, etc. from any vender that sells compatible products. The only items he /she may need to buy from Apple is replacement parts that only Apple has. But Apple does not sell replacement parts as a money making venture. It's a service they provide to it's Mac users. So having a monopoly in the OSX/Mac market is not what you think it is. Apple would like them to use Apple products, and if Apple was a true monopoly in this market, they would have to use Apple products.

So the OSX/Mac market is really of no value to the likes of Dell, HP, Sony, IBM, etc. from the viewpoint of computer sales. That is, not until he/she is ready to buy another computer. Then all is fair game again. Apple would have the upper hand but is not a slam dunk that an already OSX/Mac user will buy a Mac the next time around. Now venders like HP and IBM do make a descent amount of money selling computer accessories like printers and HDs'. And they are not locked out of the OSX/MAC market because Apple has a monopoly in the OSX/Mac market.

Every vender that sells programs and accessories for computers can sell their products (that are compatable) in the OSX/Mac market. This hasn't always been true. But ever since Steve Jobs took over and began adopting standard architectures, Macs' can use the same accessories that PCs' uses. But you'll be surprise how how many people still believe that you have to buy (and pay a lot more for) your HD, keyboard, mouse, ram, etc., from Apple (if you own a Mac).

So where is the "monopoly" in Apple having a monopoly in the OSX/Mac market? We can say (and agree) that Apple has a monopoly using the layman definition of monopoly. But I will argue that Apple has no where near a monopoly in the legal definition of monopoly. You can always reach a point of any company being a monopoly if you defined the market narrowly enough. You may disagree. But you havn't yet posted anything that would substantiate such a claim.



Quote:
I am crying about what? I really don't care that Apple doesn't allow others to compete. I buy Macs from Apple because I like the hardware and software. A number of people I know bought PowerComputing systems back in the day because they were cheaper and faster, but that doesn't affect my feelings.

As for your logic: "Apple already owns 100% of the Mac market"...and you don't see that as a monopoly, within the Mac market? There was a time they did not own 100% of the Mac market, so you can hardly say it is not a distinct market...there were competitors within the Mac market.


How can they compete in the Mac market by writing their own OS? That makes zero sense. Certainly they can compete against Apple with their own OS, within the overall PC market, but they can continue to use Windows for that. If they want to compete within the smaller mac market, they need to sell Mac compatible hardware. (Well, technically, they already do, they just aren't allowed to.


Even back when there were several Mac clones venders, Apple still had 100% of the Mac OS market. Apple did not have to license out their technology. It was a choice Apple made in hopes of increasing their market share in the computer market. Apple did not intend for these venders to compete in the Mac market. As it ended up, these venders were just selling their clones to already Mac users. Apple was still losing market shares in the computer market. So Apple (Jobs) pulled the plug on the licensing of Mac clones. Apple had every right to so. These clone venders did not develope any of the technology in a Mac. These venders did not write or maintained the OS that went into these clones. These venders were the likes of Dell. A screwdriver shop that put together computers. And their main goal was to make it cheaper. As it was back then and is now, why should Apple license their technology so a competitor can compete agaisnt them? Useless they command enough of a market share in the computer market, to be deemed a monopoly, they don't have to.

If Kia wants to compete in the Porsche market (in which Porsche has a monopoly), should Porsche be forced to supply Kia with Porsche engines. So that Kia can market a car with a Porsche engine and call it a Porsche clone. Tell me where's the logic in that? If Kia wants to compete, let them develope their own car with an engine that is better than a Porsche. In hopes of getting Porsche owners to switch over. It would be a different story if Porsche produced 90% of the auto market engines.

And that's the key, getting owners to switch over to your product. Competitors should compete by making their products better than their competitors. In hopes of getting consumers to buy your product over that of a competitors. And if this means developing an OS, so be it. That's what Apple had to do, with OSX. Their "Copeland" project was dead in the water. So they paid NeXT $400 million for NextStep (written for a X86 architecture none the less). From which OSX eventually emerged, three years later. It have to be ported to run on a IBM PPC chip. There was zero (or nearly zero) native programs for OSX when it first came out. Except for what Apple wrote. (But it still ran OS9 programs.) There was no guarantee that any third party venders would write programs native for OSX because Apple had less than 4% of the US computer market share at the time. And if you want to believe the rumors, was on the verge of bankruptcy. Jobs had to convince programers that Apple had a future and that OSX was the key to it. It was a tough sell but Apple did it. And they did it with less than 1/10 of the market cap Dell, HP or Sony has now. Apple is now beginning to reap the rewards of that effort. Apple wasn't given their OSX/Mac marketr shares. They had to fight to keep what they had. And they didn't compete IN the Windows/PC market. They competed FOR the Windows/PC market. And they are slowly getting Windows/PC owners to switch. Along with convincing new computer buyers to buy a Mac as their first computer. And you think that Apple competitors should be given a free ride by forcing Apple to licence out OSX? I say let the likes of Dell, HP, IBM, Sony, etd., compete FOR Apple OSX/Mac market shares. Not until Apple OSX/Mac market shares reach the point of being a monopoly should Apple be forced to give up OSX. No matter what you may think about Apple having an 100% share of the OSX/Mac market, it's still less than 4% of the World computer market and about 10% of the US market.



Quote:
There arguments are valid, within the larger, overall PC, market. Within the Mac market, Apple is the only player, and that is their competitive advantage. At one point in the past there were other players. Did that make it a distinct market? Other here foolishly say it isn't a market now because they are the only company in the market, but when there were clones, was it a market? If so, then did getting rid of the clones magically make it no longer a market? So, if a company can eliminate there competitors, that means there is no longer a market? faulty.

Back in the mid 90s' there were literally dozens of PC venders. You couldn't turn the pages of a computer magazine without having flyers dropping on your lap, advertising PCs' for sale. Those venders are all gone now. Victims of Dells' "don't make it better, make it cheaper" business motto. Giants like the founder of the PC (IBM) and the founder of the PC clone (Compaq) no longer in the PC business. (IBM still sells laptops and Compaq had to be rescue by HP.) Even HP was at the brink of getting out of the PC market before they aquired Compaq. Dell has put more PC venders out of business than there are venders left. Was this competition good for for the consumers? Well back then it was, because PCs' got cheaper and cheaper. But a lot of the price reduction would have naturally happened anyways as technology advanced. But now look at the PC market. Do consumers have have more choices? The price of a PC has reached the point where the most expensive piece is the OS. How long do you think Apple would survive against a Dell Mac clone? What happens when Apple software team spend more time on PC configuration problems than working on a new OS? What happens when Apple is driven out of the computer business? It's not as though Apple can afford to lose a lot of market shares. All it takes is a loss of 4 or 5% of their present market share. Will the consumer eventually be better off? Who will support the OS on your cheap mini tower Mac clones when Apple can no longer afford to? MS has an 80% margin on their OS. They can afford to drop their price quite a bit in order to maintain their monopoly in the OS market. Now if Dell is allow to eliminate the competition (Apple) because Apple had to give up OSX, would there still be an OSX/Mac market? And you find no fault with this?
post #189 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

But the Windows/PC market and OSX/Mac market isn't defined until one has already purchased a computer.

This is where your entire argument that there is no distinct Mac market fails. A market is the segment of consumers who might purchase or have purchased. Not much point in targeting a 'market', if it only means those who already own the product. By definition, it is the group that you hope to sell into.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

You can not put a group of consumers together, that don't already own a computer, and predict which market they will end up in. They may make their decision based on the type of programs they want to run, what they using at work, games they want to play, price, home decor, OS preference, form factor, weight, etc.. It is from this market that ALL computer makers compete in. Dell, Apple, HP, Sony, etc.. People are not born to use Macs' or PCs'. There's no genetic marker that determined which computer they will eventually end up using. Every potential computer buyer is fair game to ALL computer hardware makers. No one has a monopoly in this market segment. Every computer hardware maker will do what's needed to win over these consumer by marketing their hardware.

In the overall PC market, yes. Within the subgroup, the Mac market, those that have bought buy Mac, might buy Mac, there is only one choice. Within the subgroup, the Windows market, there are many options.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

Why are there more venders competing in the Windows/PC market than the OSX/Mac market? BECAUSE MICROSOFT (with Windows) IS DEEM A MONOPOLY. (sorry for yelling )MS must license their OS to anyone that wants to sell a PC. Otherwise they would be denying the vender access to 90% of the World computer market. Apple (with OSX) is not a monopoly. Apple doesn't not have to open their OS to anyone. By not doing so only denies a vender access to less than 4% of the World computer market.

Yes, MS is a monopoly or has been determined to be one. But no one has a monopoly on the systems required to run Windows. Only Apple now produces the hardware systems for running MacOS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

So the OSX/Mac market is really of no value to the likes of Dell, HP, Sony, IBM, etc. from the viewpoint of computer sales. That is, not until he/she is ready to buy another computer. Then all is fair game again. Apple would have the upper hand but is not a slam dunk that an already OSX/Mac user will buy a Mac the next time around. Now venders like HP and IBM do make a descent amount of money selling computer accessories like printers and HDs'. And they are not locked out of the OSX/MAC market because Apple has a monopoly in the OSX/Mac market.
But the Windows/PC market and OSX/Mac market isn't defined until one has already purchased a computer.

This is where your entire argument that there is no distinct Mac market fails. A market is the segment of consumers who might purchase or have purchased. Not much point in targeting a 'market', if it only means those who already own the product. By definition, it is the group that you hope to sell into.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

You can not put a group of consumers together, that don't already own a computer, and predict which market they will end up in. They may make their decision based on the type of programs they want to run, what they using at work, games they want to play, price, home decor, OS preference, form factor, weight, etc.. It is from this market that ALL computer makers compete in. Dell, Apple, HP, Sony, etc.. People are not born to use Macs' or PCs'. There's no genetic marker that determined which computer they will eventually end up using. Every potential computer buyer is fair game to ALL computer hardware makers. No one has a monopoly in this market segment. Every computer hardware maker will do what's needed to win over these consumer by marketing their hardware.

In the overall PC market, yes. Within the subgroup, the Mac market, those that have bought buy Mac, might buy Mac, there is only one choice. Within the subgroup, the Windows market, there are many options.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

Why are there more venders competing in the Windows/PC market than the OSX/Mac market? BECAUSE MICROSOFT (with Windows) IS DEEM A MONOPOLY. (sorry for yelling )MS must license their OS to anyone that wants to sell a PC. Otherwise they would be denying the vender access to 90% of the World computer market. Apple (with OSX) is not a monopoly. Apple doesn't not have to open their OS to anyone. By not doing so only denies a vender access to less than 4% of the World computer market.

Yes, MS is a monopoly or has been determined to be one. But no one has a monopoly on the systems required to run Windows. Only Apple now produces the hardware systems for running MacOS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

A cable company having a monopoly in an area is no where near the same as Apple having a monopoly in the OSX/Mac market. When a cable company has the monopoly in an area, everyone in the area, that wants or needs cable service must buy it from that cable company. This is not true with Apple monopoly in the OSX/Mac market. Once a consumer buy a Mac and is part of the OSX/Mac market, he/she no longer has to buy any more product from Apple. Ever. Not even an OS. He can choose to buy his programs. HD, ram, keyboard, mouse, monitor, router, printers, etc. from any vender that sells compatible products. The only items he /she may need to buy from Apple is replacement parts that only Apple has. But Apple does not sell replacement parts as a money making venture. It's a service they provide to it's Mac users. So having a monopoly in the OSX/Mac market is not what you think it is. Apple would like them to use Apple products, and if Apple was a true monopoly in this market, they would have to use Apple products.

Your arguement again makes no sense.
"When a cable company has the monopoly in an area, everyone in the area, that wants or needs cable service must buy it from that cable company. This is not true with Apple monopoly in the OSX/Mac market."
It is just as true that everyone that wants or needs a Mac compatible system must buy it from Apple. Do not take this as a complaint, as that would be a dumb assumption. It is simply a statement of fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

So where is the "monopoly" in Apple having a monopoly in the OSX/Mac market? We can say (and agree) that Apple has a monopoly using the layman definition of monopoly. But I will argue that Apple has no where near a monopoly in the legal definition of monopoly. You can always reach a point of any company being a monopoly if you defined the market narrowly enough. You may disagree. But you havn't yet posted anything that would substantiate such a claim.

If you acknowledge that there is a Mac market, that is unique and definable, which you partially have, that absolutely, Apple meets the literal definition of a monopoly. Do the meet the legal definition of an Illegal Monopoly? That would be for the courts to decide if someone challenged there behavior. Just as MS was a literal monopoly in the overall PC market(without quite 100% of the overall PC market), it was up to the courts to define them as an Illegal monopoly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

Even back when there were several Mac clones venders, Apple still had 100% of the Mac OS market. Apple did not have to license out their technology. It was a choice Apple made in hopes of increasing their market share in the computer market. Apple did not intend for these venders to compete in the Mac market. As it ended up, these venders were just selling their clones to already Mac users. Apple was still losing market shares in the computer market. So Apple (Jobs) pulled the plug on the licensing of Mac clones. Apple had every right to so. These clone venders did not develope any of the technology in a Mac. These venders did not write or maintained the OS that went into these clones. These venders were the likes of Dell. A screwdriver shop that put together computers. And their main goal was to make it cheaper. As it was back then and is now, why should Apple license their technology so a competitor can compete agaisnt them? Useless they command enough of a market share in the computer market, to be deemed a monopoly, they don't have to.

Apple did not, however, have 100% of the Mac market. They controlled the OS, but had competition for the systems. That is should be obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

If Kia wants to compete in the Porsche market (in which Porsche has a monopoly), should Porsche be forced to supply Kia with Porsche engines. So that Kia can market a car with a Porsche engine and call it a Porsche clone. Tell me where's the logic in that? If Kia wants to compete, let them develope their own car with an engine that is better than a Porsche. In hopes of getting Porsche owners to switch over. It would be a different story if Porsche produced 90% of the auto market engines.

Car analogies don't hold up. The individual manufacturers rarely produce a product unique enough to define a separate category on their own. Within the overall PC market, Apple does produce a product that is unique enough to define a separate market. Distinct platform, distinct market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

And that's the key, getting owners to switch over to your product. Competitors should compete by making their products better than their competitors.

Within the Windows market, there is still competition between system vendors. With the Mac market there is not. Some don't want to see there is a Mac market. In that case, fine, there is no Mac market and there is no monopoly. But, if these same people acknowledge there is a Windows systems market, then there must be a Mac system market. The difference in size is obvious. But simply because there is only now a single vendor is not a valid excuse for magically saying there is no mac market.

There really is no argument here, though there have been far too many posts on the issue. Either there is a Mac market, unique and definable, in which case it is a clear and obvious literal monopoly. Or, there is no distinct Mac market. Obviously, if there is no market, then you cannot have a monopoly. But for those that acknowledge there is a distinct Mac market, how can they possible claim there is no monopoly is...sketchy.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #190 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

[...] In the overall PC market, yes. Within the subgroup, the Mac market, those that have bought buy Mac, might buy Mac, there is only one choice. Within the subgroup, the Windows market, there are many options. [...]

You have got completely wrapped in marketing. Look at Mac like a Pavillian or Vaio.

If I want a Vaio I have to go through Sony.
If I want a Pavilion I have to go through Dell.
If I want a Mac I have to go through Apple.

These all come with different model types within the marketing category. Take Mac off its pedestal. It's just marketing. Just because Apple shied away from the very term they created to differentiate themself from non-GUI machines they are all still Personal Computers (aka PCs) and they are still still fighting for the same customers. The only difference is that Apple has to compete with the likes of Dell and Sony on one front and Windows and Linux on another front.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #191 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You have got completely wrapped in marketing. Look at Mac like a Pavillian or Vaio.

If I want a Vaio I have to go through Sony.
If I want a Pavilion I have to go through Dell.
If I want a Mac I have to go through Apple.

These all come with different model types within the marketing category. Take Mac off its pedestal. It's just marketing. Just because Apple shied away from the very term they created to differentiate themself from non-GUI machines they are all still Personal Computers (aka PCs) and they are still still fighting for the same customers. The only difference is that Apple has to compete with the likes of Dell and Sony on one front and Windows and Linux on another front.

Within the overall PC market, 100% agreed. I see distinct submarkets within the overall market, one being Windows systems and another being Mac systems. If you do not see these distinctions, then no, there is not a Mac market and there is not a Windows market. My seeing the distinction has nothing to do with putting Apple or the Mac on a pedestal.

For the most part, you are right, there is not much difference between the two markets. Perhaps so little that there are not separate markets within the overall PC market. The fact that the Mac is a separate and distinct platform is why I see them as a distinct sub-market.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #192 of 236
Quote:
For the most part, you are right, there is not much difference between the two markets. Perhaps so little that there are not separate markets within the overall PC market. The fact that the Mac is a separate and distinct platform is why I see them as a distinct sub-market.

In many industries you have separate and distinct platforms. That is how companies differentiate themselves and their products.

Nearly everyone comes up with a way to accomplish the same thing slightly differently. Companies patent and protect their product or service and they are not obligated to share their patents with competitors.

Quote:
Car analogies don't hold up. The individual manufacturers rarely produce a product unique enough to define a separate category on their own. Within the overall PC market, Apple does produce a product that is unique enough to define a separate market. Distinct platform, distinct market.

This is not true at all. Car companies are very competitive. They all develop and use different technologies. Different engines, transmissions, breaking systems, and so on.

Chrystler would not let any other car company develop its Hemi engine. Toyota would not allow another car company to develop its Hybrid Synergy Drive. The list goes on.
post #193 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Chrystler would not let any other car company develop its Hemi engine. Toyota would not allow another car company to develop its Hybrid Synergy Drive. The list goes on.

Those are more trade names or brand names than anything else. Other companies have made engines with hemispherical combustion chambers, it's not a big deal. I don't think there's necessarily anything special about "Hybrid Synergy Drive" either.
post #194 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

In many industries you have separate and distinct platforms. That is how companies differentiate themselves and their products.

Nearly everyone comes up with a way to accomplish the same thing slightly differently. Companies patent and protect their product or service and they are not obligated to share their patents with competitors.



This is not true at all. Car companies are very competitive. They all develop and use different technologies. Different engines, transmissions, breaking systems, and so on.

Chrystler would not let any other car company develop its Hemi engine. Toyota would not allow another car company to develop its Hybrid Synergy Drive. The list goes on.

And so you do not see a distinct Mac market. That's ok and end of discussion. I do see a distinct distinct Windows systems market and therefore a distinct Mac systems market.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #195 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Those are more trade names or brand names than anything else. Other companies have made engines with hemispherical combustion chambers, it's not a big deal.

To add to what you stated, Chrysler trademarked "Hemi engine" but neither invent it, was the first to use it and is not the only one using it today. All modern internal combustion engines use a variation of the original hemispherical engine.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #196 of 236
Quote:
Those are more trade names or brand names than anything else. Other companies have made engines with hemispherical combustion chambers, it's not a big deal. I don't think there's necessarily anything special about "Hybrid Synergy Drive" either.

Chrysler did not invent the hemispherical engine. But they do have specific design patents on how their variation of it works.

Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive is a specific technology. Honda's Integrated Motor Assist is a different hybrid technology. BMW, Daimler AG, and General Motors have been developing another type of hybrid technology.

Quote:
To add to what you stated, Chrysler trademarked "Hemi engine" but neither invent it, was the first to use it and is not the only one using it today. All modern internal combustion engines use a variation of the original hemispherical engine.

I'm not saying they were. I'm saying Chrysler has some specific designs for its own version of a hemispherical engine.

Even though every car uses the same basic engine design. Every car company does something a bit different and proprietary to their engine to give it some type of edge in fuel savings and performance.
post #197 of 236
Quote:
And so you do not see a distinct Mac market. That's ok and end of discussion. I do see a distinct distinct Windows systems market and therefore a distinct Mac systems market.

We can put it this way. Simply because you you feel the Mac is a distinct market does not mean by law Apple can be forced to licensed OS X to any computer.
post #198 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Chrysler did not invent the hemispherical engine. But they do have specific design patents on how their variation of it works.

Unless they made additions in the last 20 years, those patents have probably expired. It's quite an old brand, it was popularized in the muscle car era is from 40 years old. I wouldn't be surprised if they got the expertise when they bought Hudson.


Quote:
While their are other hybrid engine technologies, Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive is a specific technology. Honda's Integrated Motor Assist is a different hybrid technology. BMW, Daimler AG, and General Motors have been developing another type of hybrid technology.


What makes Toyota's so special?
post #199 of 236
Quote:
Unless they made additions in the last 20 years, those patents have probably expired. It's quite an old brand, it was popularized in the muscle car era is from 40 years old. I wouldn't be surprised if they got the expertise when they bought Hudson.

You don't think they've changed anything about engine design in the last 20 years?

Quote:
What makes Toyota's so special?

To keep this from spiraling way off topic I'll put it this way.

Its like asking what makes Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux any different from each other. They all basically do exactly the same thing. The answer is they do the same thing, but they all do it somewhat differently.
post #200 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

We can put it this way. Simply because you you feel the Mac is a distinct market does not mean by law Apple can be forced to licensed OS X to any computer.

True, my views are irrelevant, it would be up to a judge to decide a) if there is a definable Mac market b) if Apple holds a monopoly position within that market and c)if their behavior within that monopoly constitutes anti-trust behavior and so is an illegal monopoly.

If one views a) as false, then b) and c) are obviously not under consideration. If a) is true, it would be difficult to argue against b) and then c) would be a matter of opinion.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Reseller's website offline following pledge of $400 Mac clone