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 2

post #41 of 236
The website isn't down anymore, now it's called Open Computer instead of OpenMac.
ALTER BRIDGE is the greatest rock band of today. Myspace || Street Team
Reply
ALTER BRIDGE is the greatest rock band of today. Myspace || Street Team
Reply
post #42 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Despite appearances, Apple is a hardware company. The purpose of the software is to add value to the hardware. Sure, they sell some software like Aperture, Final Cut, etc. But OSX and iLife are all about selling you the hardware. That's the reason they can sell you Leopard for $129 vs MS selling Vista for hundreds more. Apple makes their money on the hardware (that goes for computers, iPods, iPhones, etc).

If they let other companies sell the hardware, we'd start seeing OS upgrades costing more and there would start to be draconian activitation processes like Windows has to prevent piracy. As it is, Apple is pretty liberal with their OS. You never have to enter an license codes or anything to install (unlike their professional apps).

Agreed 100%.
I think though.. Apple may actually be in for a little battle if this goes to courts, because the argument the other way invites competition -- which is what a Capitalist society is based on. Our society.
post #43 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobertoq View Post

The website isn't down anymore, now it's called Open Computer instead of OpenMac.

Either they heard from Apple legal or this was as clever method of getting free press for their Hackintosh capable machine.
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 #44 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

The End-User license agreement is just that - an agreement with the "End User", not the manufacturer or necessarily the installer. The only person who can violate is whoever buys it. Apple would have to take the company to court to get lists of purchasers, and then sue the individual users, which would be difficult and time consuming.

Does anyone know of any instances of a company actually suing for breach of EULA? I know that all of the recent piracy lawsuits have involved copyright law exclusively and not breach of EULA...

the reason no one is suing is because its time consuming and costly. But, if you can win millions of dollars in profit after lawyers and stuff, they might pursue.

As for UELA agreement, psystar has to buy those OS X from somewhere, and that would be Apple. They used it to install in a computer that is not approve by Apple and violates the agreement, Apple has a case here.
post #45 of 236
bsenka, you are going to get precisely what you pay for with this knock-off. That, and definitely no more. This is a hacked together wanna-be that's living on the edge legally, has absolutely NO track record for functionality and/or reliability, and comes from a company with absolutely NO record for service/warranty after the sale. NONE! And THIS is what you want as a replacement for your iMac?

Man (or woman), you REALLY deserve this machine. Gawd help you and your heartbeat--you're truly going to need it.
post #46 of 236
Good. Maybe this will kick Apple in the pants and lead them to plug that goatse-sized hole in their lineup.
post #47 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by yvo84 View Post

Agreed 100%.
I think though.. Apple may actually be in for a little battle if this goes to courts, because the argument the other way invites competition -- which is what a Capitalist society is based on. Our society.

I really doubt that a 7~8% market share is considered a monopoly!

I always thought that people who want cheap PC are better off buying a Windows or Linux machine. It is true that there are many free program available for Mac OS X but still Windows have more variety in price. The reason I switched to Mac is for the peace of mind. I don't have to worry about driver/OS update problems and I don't have to pay money if the computer breaks (yes I bought Apple Care). I got my iMac logic board replaced on warranty few months ago ($400 value for the parts).

Just like those who jailbreak their iPhones. those who buy Hacked Mac computers are missing the most important features of any Apple product. Sure you can save $100 or $200, but is it worth the trouble and headache if you have problem?!

Upgrades?! My iMac is 18 months old and I really don't see a need for any upgrade. Nothing really new except the aluminum case and a small increase in processors speed. I think I can go another year at least without worrying about an upgrade.

That's what I think.
post #48 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

There will always be cheapos out there unwilling to pay even a nickel for something, yet they will spend all of their waking hours to get something for nothing. This thread is evidence of that.

Very much agree. For whatever reason, individuals have a false-sense of entitlement of wanting anything of value for next to nothing. They can complain about OSX being too expensive a price-point for entry. Well you know what? Too bad! A lot of things out there in the world are too expensive for me. If I can't afford it, I don't buy it.

Apple machines work well because everything is designed to work well together. OSX in the wild would have the same problems as the windows environment. Unstable software components wreaking havoc and ruining the user-experience. Apple does not want to be in the business of supporting someone elses' hardware. If a regular user buys this guy's OSX-Clone to save a few bucks and it doesn't work right, they are going to blame Apple. But there are users out there that display a "screw-you" attitude.

This manufacturer will most likely get a major licking from Apple's legal department and be thrown out of business.

I will be buying my first Apple computer sometime this year. There is no way I would ever consider buying some chop-shop PC with a hacked OSX just to save a few bucks. And to refuse to deny Apple revenue for their machines simply because of your twisted sense to "Stick it to Jobs" or Apple-is-evil mentality just makes no sense.

Why is Apple being teated different than any other closed-system company? If you can break a product (i.e. Toaster, PC, whatever) and get it to work for you, more power to you. If you do it illegally and expect it to work exactly the way the manufacturer of said product designed it, then you only have your own ignorance to blame for it.
post #49 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmon750 View Post

Very much agree. For whatever reason, individuals have a false-sense of entitlement of wanting anything of value for next to nothing. They can complain about OSX being too expensive a price-point for entry. Well you know what? Too bad! A lot of things out there in the world are too expensive for me. If I can't afford it, I don't buy it.

Apple machines work well because everything is designed to work well together. OSX in the wild would have the same problems as the windows environment. Unstable software components wreaking havoc and ruining the user-experience. Apple does not want to be in the business of supporting someone elses' hardware. If a regular user buys this guy's OSX-Clone to save a few bucks and it doesn't work right, they are going to blame Apple. But there are users out there that display a "screw-you" attitude.

This manufacturer will most likely get a major licking from Apple's legal department and be thrown out of business.

I will be buying my first Apple computer sometime this year. There is no way I would ever consider buying some chop-shop PC with a hacked OSX just to save a few bucks. And to refuse to deny Apple revenue for their machines simply because of your twisted sense to "Stick it to Jobs" or Apple-is-evil mentality just makes no sense.

Why is Apple being teated different than any other closed-system company? If you can break a product (i.e. Toaster, PC, whatever) and get it to work for you, more power to you. If you do it illegally and expect it to work exactly the way the manufacturer of said product designed it, then you only have your own ignorance to blame for it.

Agree completely on all points. I GLADLY pay a bit of a premium to have the Apple experience. Hardware and Software both.
post #50 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinitaBoy View Post

bsenka, you are going to get precisely what you pay for with this knock-off. That, and definitely no more. This is a hacked together wanna-be that's living on the edge legally, has absolutely NO track record for functionality and/or reliability, and comes from a company with absolutely NO record for service/warranty after the sale. NONE! And THIS is what you want as a replacement for your iMac?

Man (or woman), you REALLY deserve this machine. Gawd help you and your heartbeat--you're truly going to need it.

No track record works both ways, they have no negative experiences yet either. When I said "if it comes to fruition" I guess I should have added "if it really works as a Mac". IMO, they don't even have to discount it. The form factor alone will drive sales. They could charge $1500 and they'll still get it if it works.

Like I said in the first post, I want to buy a Mac from Apple, but Apple doesn't make the Mac I and millions of other Mac users need. If Apple gave me a choice, I'd go with them. Since they don't, I'll take my chances with the guy who actually gives me what I ask for instead of telling me what I should take. As it is, I bought a machine I hate, only because it was the only option that Apple gave me.
post #51 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Why are people so thick headed and ignorant? Apple sells hardware. That's the ONLY reason OS X, iTunes and the iPhone SDK exist. Turn OS X loose on crap PC hardware, iTunes loose crap MP3 players, and the iPhone SDK loose on crap cell phones, and Apple ceases to exist the next day. It's that simple. Don't you people know your Apple history? Apple turned Mac OS loose on third party hardware and damn near went out business in the 90's. Is the concept just too complicated for small minds to grasp?

Where do you get the idea that I, as a consumer, must support Apple? If they don't have a product I want, then maybe a competitor should be allowed to step in to provide it.

The OpenMac looks pretty damn good to me. Then again, I think the iMac and its Las Vegas glossy display sucks and the Mini is a freakin' overpriced box of circa-2006 leftovers. I've been using Macs for 15+ years and Apple, for the first time since I've been using Macs, has nothing that fits my needs and budget. And Apple apparently cannot hear the numerous calls from both consumers and high profile tech commentators for them to release a mid-range tower.

Somewhere along the way, it appears that Apple lost their passion for making decent computers and are too infatuated with selling music and making cell phones. Look at the buyer's guide on MacRumors and explain why Apple is taking almost a year between updates on the iMac and the Mac Mini now? It wasn't like that three years ago. We could count on regular price drops or spec bumps every 4-5 months. But now Apple is showing a surprising lack of interest in their consumer machines.

So you think I should support Apple? How about if Apple gets with the program and gets out of this 1998 all-in-one mentality and start making the products that people really want?
post #52 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by suhail View Post

We need Apple to listen closely, we've been begging for a mid-tower Mac for ages!

Exactly. Even if Apple Legal successfully sues these guys, if this is the kick in the pants Apple needed to realize the incredible demand for a mid-level headless Mac and actually build one, it's still a win.
post #53 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmon750 View Post

Very much agree. For whatever reason, individuals have a false-sense of entitlement of wanting anything of value for next to nothing. They can complain about OSX being too expensive a price-point for entry. Well you know what? Too bad! A lot of things out there in the world are too expensive for me. If I can't afford it, I don't buy it.

Apple machines work well because everything is designed to work well together. OSX in the wild would have the same problems as the windows environment. Unstable software components wreaking havoc and ruining the user-experience. Apple does not want to be in the business of supporting someone elses' hardware. If a regular user buys this guy's OSX-Clone to save a few bucks and it doesn't work right, they are going to blame Apple. But there are users out there that display a "screw-you" attitude.

This manufacturer will most likely get a major licking from Apple's legal department and be thrown out of business.

I will be buying my first Apple computer sometime this year. There is no way I would ever consider buying some chop-shop PC with a hacked OSX just to save a few bucks. And to refuse to deny Apple revenue for their machines simply because of your twisted sense to "Stick it to Jobs" or Apple-is-evil mentality just makes no sense.

Why is Apple being teated different than any other closed-system company? If you can break a product (i.e. Toaster, PC, whatever) and get it to work for you, more power to you. If you do it illegally and expect it to work exactly the way the manufacturer of said product designed it, then you only have your own ignorance to blame for it.

The main point of your little speech seems to be that people who purchase this clone will expect Apple to support it. Even though no one on this thread -- or on any of the other boards I've read today on the subject-- has stated this expectation. I think it's a fair to make the assumption that anyone who would purchase a clone would be aware that they can't turn to Apple for support.,

Your secondary point is that people who would choose to purchase a clone would be doing so out of spite (or because they're cheap), rather than to fill their need for a mid-range, expandable desktop. Again, you seem to be addressing comments/people that don't exist.

In short, you talk a lot for someone who "will be buying my first Apple computer sometime this year".
post #54 of 236
For $399 you get a piece of junk PC box with no software. They charge you $155 so they can install OS X for you. Add the software, FireWire, etc, and you are getting close to the price of an iMac without a display. Not only that, it will probably be a noisy piece of junk just like all the other PC's since the hardware won't be controlled by the software and the fans will run full speed all the time. Yeah, that is what people want. Since Apple's hardware is already flying off store shelves, people are willing to spend money for quality. They aren't looking for a cheap piece of junk. That is what Windows users want.

Apple already had a mid-tower, the Power Mac G3 and G4. If you really want a tower, buy a Mac Pro. Apple isn't losing any money over not offering a cheap tower. Laptops already outsell desktops, and the iMac is very successful. So I think your market for a cheap mid-tower is pretty small. Small enough where Apple doesn't need one, which is why they phased out the smaller G3/G4 tower box and left the Mac Pro for the Pros.

I much prefer my whisper quiet iMac over a noisy tower anyday.
post #55 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

I much prefer my whisper quiet iMac over a noisy tower anyday.

Me too, but there are plenty of people that prefer an expandable machine that doesn't start at $2,500. I can't tell you how big the market is for a midrange, headless Mac, but if this forum is any indication there are a more than a few.
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 #56 of 236
Apple could charge $1,000 per copy for OSX without updates and discount it if it's being installed on an Apple upon registering the upgrade.
Cubist
Reply
Cubist
Reply
post #57 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Me too, but there are plenty of people that prefer an expandable machine that doesn't start at $2,500. I can't tell you how big the market is for a midrange, headless Mac, but if this forum is any indication there are a more than a few.

I personally know three people IRL who were interested in buying Macs but went back to a Windows PC when they found out that the most affordable tower was not really affordable at all and didn't even come with a display. The iMac filled a need in its day, but it's time for Apple to let the all-in-one concept die.
post #58 of 236
My typical response to people who whine about there not being a commodity desktop mac is, "go build one if you think there's such demand." Finally, a taker.

If Apple Legal gives them trouble, they should open-source the HW design and all the FW.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #59 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

My typical response to people who whine about there not being a commodity desktop mac is, "go build one if you think there's such demand." Finally, a taker.

If Apple Legal gives them trouble, they should open-source the HW design and all the FW.

I don't hear people whining about Apple not making a commodity desktop Mac. What people really want is a reasonably priced tower Mac. That's not an unthinkable thought unless you're Apple and have fully entrenched yourself in the idea that the consumer level offerings should be all-in-one or scaled back in some unnecessary ways.

If Apple made a couple mid-range towers for around $900-1200, I would buy (and I know others who would too) but that not because I'm cheap. It's because the Mac Mini is underpowered for my needs and the iMac is unacceptable with its glossy, low-quality screen. I think this kind of machine appeals to a wide range of people, not just people looking for OS X on commodity hardware.
post #60 of 236
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 #61 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

How about if Apple gets with the program and gets out of this 1998 all-in-one mentality and start making the products that people really want?

but it's time for Apple to let the all-in-one concept die

It's funny how Apple's Mac sales are growing between two and three times the rest of the PC industry by selling systems that nobody wants.

Also funny that while Apple should kill of it's AIO desktop all the big PC players have just been introducing theirs.

Kind of amusing that while sales of desktops (especially to consumers) are falling, the 'mid range Mac tower' brigade all justify their needs by saying "I want one." My three friends want one" "millions of other Mac users want one too" Finally they come up with the old "Apple is stupid... shooting themselves in the foot" routine.

Look, it's a shame that Apple doesn't make the perfect system for you, but stop trying to say that it's a glaring error on Apple's part and that they are losing out on millions of dollars in sales. I suspect Apple takes a different view.
post #62 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmon750 View Post

This manufacturer will most likely get a major licking from Apple's legal department and be thrown out of business.

The thing is, Apple does not even have to win in court. Their pockets are so much
deeper than this little company that they can probably force bankruptcy by just
dragging things out for a while.
post #63 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

The iMac filled a need in its day, but it's time for Apple to let the all-in-one concept die.

Why? iMac sales were a huge contributor to the product mix last quarter and appear to be strong again this quarter.
post #64 of 236
This Miami company is going to need pockets as deep as the Mariana Trench if they think they will EVER bring one machine to market running OS X. If anyone truly believes that purchasing a copy of Leopard (with its "onerous" EULA) gives him the right to do with it whatever he pleases, let him run, not walk, to the nearest coterie of attorneys specializing in copyright law. I realize that most of the posters on this site and others like it want (demand?) a cost + 1% tower from Apple with a 10 year full-replacement warranty, free OS software upgrades for life, open-srouce productivity suites, and the like . . . but it just ain't gonna happen.

bsenka, buying something you absolutely loathe is the mark of an unsettled mind. PC makers can--and should--provide you with all that you need and more. Why not support DELL, GATEWAY, HP, ACER, ALIENWARE, et al., and be happy about it, rather than sleeping with what has very clearly become your enemy?

Apple and its products are truly not for you; but then again, neither is a Lexus or a Benz. PC/XP is more your style. Enjoy the savings, live long, and prosper.
post #65 of 236
Quote:
Very much agree. For whatever reason, individuals have a false-sense of entitlement of wanting anything of value for next to nothing. They can complain about OSX being too expensive a price-point for entry. Well you know what? Too bad! A lot of things out there in the world are too expensive for me. If I can't afford it, I don't buy it.

Apple machines work well because everything is designed to work well together. OSX in the wild would have the same problems as the windows environment. Unstable software components wreaking havoc and ruining the user-experience. Apple does not want to be in the business of supporting someone elses' hardware. If a regular user buys this guy's OSX-Clone to save a few bucks and it doesn't work right, they are going to blame Apple. But there are users out there that display a "screw-you" attitude.

This manufacturer will most likely get a major licking from Apple's legal department and be thrown out of business.

I will be buying my first Apple computer sometime this year. There is no way I would ever consider buying some chop-shop PC with a hacked OSX just to save a few bucks. And to refuse to deny Apple revenue for their machines simply because of your twisted sense to "Stick it to Jobs" or Apple-is-evil mentality just makes no sense.

Why is Apple being teated different than any other closed-system company? If you can break a product (i.e. Toaster, PC, whatever) and get it to work for you, more power to you. If you do it illegally and expect it to work exactly the way the manufacturer of said product designed it, then you only have your own ignorance to blame for it.

You got that right .

Anyway, what would you feel if Apple offer a mid range desktop computer that is not upgradeable? Would you still want it? Its obvious that Apple will never release a fully upgradeable computer cause they must then invest in hardwares support. Apple could sell Leopard OS without having packages like MSoft because they sell both Hardware and Software. Would you want Apple to bundle features like Vista? Maybe OS X Leopard Home Premium, Leopard Business, Leopard Ultimate? I sure dont.

Anyway from my opinion, this method of making people buy their product while in truth you can do exactly the same thing on your own 3 years old PC is bad. the Hackintosh community never sell their solution for running OS X on normal PC, all the .kext are offered free and what Psystar is doing is bad. There are actually a pretty detailed guide for installing Hackintosh and there are great support for your problems in the forum.

I have read the person statement in the website some poster give but from my opinion its just a poor excuse, its clearly they want to make money from giving false advertising because any PC regardless its a Dell XPS, HP, Acer or whatever can run Mac OS X in their PC. Psystar is just cheating the public to make easy money.

What would you feel if something you offered for free and someone took it and named it theirs?.
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 #66 of 236
That may be true, however, one company cannot distribute another companies product without its permission. Amongst other legal theories, that is a blatant violation of Trademark law. Consequently, this company could never legally distribute OSX without Apple's permission.

Arguably, the company could sell a Mac capable clone under a Fair-use theory. I, however, think that is sketchy at best. A key component to any Fair-use argument is not interfering with the copyright holder's key market. Here, Apple's product is being reversed engineered to interfere with Apple's market.

This company will not stay in business very long. If Apple's letters don't scare the company, I suspect Apple will be in court before the end of the month.

Tha
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

The End-User license agreement is just that - an agreement with the "End User", not the manufacturer or necessarily the installer. The only person who can violate is whoever buys it. Apple would have to take the company to court to get lists of purchasers, and then sue the individual users, which would be difficult and time consuming.

Does anyone know of any instances of a company actually suing for breach of EULA? I know that all of the recent piracy lawsuits have involved copyright law exclusively and not breach of EULA...
post #67 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

This company will not stay in business very long. If Apple's letters don't scare the company, I suspect Apple will be in court before the end of the month.

My previous link indicates that they are taking Apple to court over antitrust violations with the EULA.
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 #68 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

Why? iMac sales were a huge contributor to the product mix last quarter and appear to be strong again this quarter.

The logical error in the thinking behind your post and piot's is that it assumes Apple wouldn't have done as well or better without the iMac. We have no way of knowing that so pointing to Apple's sales and saying that sticking with the all-in-one iMac design was a winning approach is kind of meaningless.

The fact that Psystar put themselves on the map overnight by offering a Mac mid-range tower speaks volumes, as far as I'm concerned. Who heard of these guys two days ago?
post #69 of 236
There is an important distinction to be made here. I think an end user can legally buy a copy of OSX and install it on a PC. That is non commercial use, and just because an end user license prohibits such use, it doesn't mean the restriction is legally enforceable. Companies can put anything they want in an end user agreement. This doesn't mean a court will enforce it. Fair use would allow a user to modify the OS to use on another product provided the use isn't commerical in nature.

However, a company cannot benefit commercially from hacking Apple's copyrighted software. The end user license has nothing to do with this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VinitaBoy View Post

This Miami company is going to need pockets as deep as the Mariana Trench if they think they will EVER bring one machine to market running OS X. If anyone truly believes that purchasing a copy of Leopard (with its "onerous" EULA) gives him the right to do with it whatever he pleases, let him run, not walk, to the nearest coterie of attorneys specializing in copyright law. I realize that most of the posters on this site and others like it want (demand?) a cost + 1% tower from Apple with a 10 year full-replacement warranty, free OS software upgrades for life, open-srouce productivity suites, and the like . . . but it just ain't gonna happen.

bsenka, buying something you absolutely loathe is the mark of an unsettled mind. PC makers can--and should--provide you with all that you need and more. Why not support DELL, GATEWAY, HP, ACER, ALIENWARE, et al., and be happy about it, rather than sleeping with what has very clearly become your enemy?

Apple and its products are truly not for you; but then again, neither is a Lexus or a Benz. PC/XP is more your style. Enjoy the savings, live long, and prosper.
post #70 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelhot View Post

Anyway, what would you feel if Apple offer a mid range desktop computer that is not upgradeable? Would you still want it?

I would, if it were reasonably priced. My concern isn't the ability to upgrade, but rather the ability to avoid buying the iMac's demonstrably lousy display (to which Apple offers no build-to-order alternatives) as well as not wasting my money on that box of leftovers from 2006 called the Mac Mini. Repackage the iMac's components in a headless tower for $1000 and I'm there.

What you and others appear to miss is the fact that there are *many* reasons people want a mid-range tower, not just one.
post #71 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

My previous link indicates that they are taking Apple to court over antitrust violations with the EULA.

Too bad Apple isn't a monopoly and these people are idiots. IANAL of course but they are still idiots.
post #72 of 236
The problem with this line of thought is it forgets Apple writes software to sell hardware. It is a hardware company first. All it's software initiative are designed to sell hardware, including iTunes. For the most part, Microsoft writes software to sell software. If a company allows Leopard to run on generic boxes, it is undermining Apple's core business of selling hardware. It legally cannot do that.

Just because people have a need for something, doesn't mean the company who owns the rights to the property you want to utilize in another way has the obligation to provide what you want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco View Post

The main point of your little speech seems to be that people who purchase this clone will expect Apple to support it. Even though no one on this thread -- or on any of the other boards I've read today on the subject-- has stated this expectation. I think it's a fair to make the assumption that anyone who would purchase a clone would be aware that they can't turn to Apple for support.,

Your secondary point is that people who would choose to purchase a clone would be doing so out of spite (or because they're cheap), rather than to fill their need for a mid-range, expandable desktop. Again, you seem to be addressing comments/people that don't exist.

In short, you talk a lot for someone who "will be buying my first Apple computer sometime this year".
post #73 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

I personally know three people IRL who were interested in buying Macs but went back to a Windows PC when they found out that the most affordable tower was not really affordable at all and didn't even come with a display. The iMac filled a need in its day, but it's time for Apple to let the all-in-one concept die.

I agree, but the iMac does have a beautiful display (aimed towards you other post) so hopefully Apple will make some new (cheaper) cinema displays (20", 24", 30", 36") with high-quality iSight camera and mic, with an optional matte or glossy display.

If they made a $400 mid-range tower (just like the OpenMac -- now know as Open Computer -- or even better then the OpenMac) with a great design (not super mini-ized and filled with laptop parts - with the aluminum case), I would buy one IMMEDIATELY. Not only that, it would be my first Mac.
ALTER BRIDGE is the greatest rock band of today. Myspace || Street Team
Reply
ALTER BRIDGE is the greatest rock band of today. Myspace || Street Team
Reply
post #74 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Too bad Apple isn't a monopoly and these people are idiots. IANAL of course but they are still idiots.

Apple could certainly be considered a monopoly.
"A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service"
By any definition, Apple has a monopoly within the Macintosh market. Meaning, they have 100% control over the hardware and software. Are they a monopoly within the over all PC market? No, but then MS is not considered a monopoly with the entire computer industtry is you broaden the definition of the market enough. MS considered a monopoly in the computer market if you narrow it down to just PC's. Apple is a monopoly position within the Macintosh ecosystem/market.

This has been a good thing for end users, in many respects. Tight integration is a result of their absolute control. Are they an illegal monopoly? Probably not. But, enforcing their monopoly position through their EULA could certainly bring anti-trust interest. Banning installation of their software on a competitor's systems is certainly, only done to protect their monopoly position on their hardware.

"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 #75 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

That may be true, however, one company cannot distribute another companies product without its permission. Amongst other legal theories, that is a blatant violation of Trademark law. Consequently, this company could never legally distribute OSX without Apple's permission.

If that were true, eBay wouldn't be nearly as good as it is, now, would it?
post #76 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Apple could certainly be considered a monopoly.
"A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service"
By any definition, Apple has a monopoly within the Macintosh market.

That's like saying Honda has a monopoly on Accords.

Quote:
Are they a monopoly within the over all PC market? No, but then MS is not considered a monopoly with the entire computer industtry is you broaden the definition of the market enough.

Yes, it's called a market segment of which the Macintosh belongs...and Windows still holds what? 90+% share?

Quote:
This has been a good thing for end users, in many respects. Tight integration is a result of their absolute control. Are they an illegal monopoly? Probably not. But, enforcing their monopoly position through their EULA could certainly bring anti-trust interest. Banning installation of their software on a competitor's systems is certainly, only done to protect their monopoly position on their hardware.

The only place Apple needs to worry about a monopoly position is iTunes and iPods.

Even Microsoft is allowed to restrict the use of Windows in certain ways. For example, the restriction on using the Vista Home on VMs until they finally changed thier minds. Probably because Vista isn't selling well anyways and letting folks run it on a Mac if they wanted was better than nothing.

But clearly it was to restrict running Vista Home from inside competitor OS's (Linux and OSX) hosting VMs.
post #77 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Are you 12 years old? Where did you learn about law - the schoolyard?

Is that where you learned namecalling?
post #78 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

Where do you get the idea that I, as a consumer, must support Apple? If they don't have a product I want, then maybe a competitor should be allowed to step in to provide it.

The OpenMac looks pretty damn good to me. Then again, I think the iMac and its Las Vegas glossy display sucks and the Mini is a freakin' overpriced box of circa-2006 leftovers. I've been using Macs for 15+ years and Apple, for the first time since I've been using Macs, has nothing that fits my needs and budget. And Apple apparently cannot hear the numerous calls from both consumers and high profile tech commentators for them to release a mid-range tower.

Somewhere along the way, it appears that Apple lost their passion for making decent computers and are too infatuated with selling music and making cell phones. Look at the buyer's guide on MacRumors and explain why Apple is taking almost a year between updates on the iMac and the Mac Mini now? It wasn't like that three years ago. We could count on regular price drops or spec bumps every 4-5 months. But now Apple is showing a surprising lack of interest in their consumer machines.

So you think I should support Apple? How about if Apple gets with the program and gets out of this 1998 all-in-one mentality and start making the products that people really want?

If you don't like what Apple has to offer, then go somewhere else. No other OSX options? Well, that is just too bad! Apple has every right to safeguard their systems to prevent chop-shops like these guys from diluting and tarnishing OSX. Apple having complete control over hardware and software is why they work so well. What part of that equation do you not understand? You are in such a ridiculously low minority of people who think that the iMac hardware is inferior. You're just more vocal. They may not use the most current components out there but they definitely work more in harmony with the OS than Windows. Stick with Windows or Linux. It's obvious that OSX is not for you. If Apple does not come out with a low-end Mac Pro, then they don't. Move on with your life.
post #79 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmon750 View Post

If you don't like what Apple has to offer, then go somewhere else. No other OSX options? Well, that is just too bad! Apple has every right to safeguard their systems to prevent chop-shops like these guys from diluting and tarnishing OSX. Apple having complete control over hardware and software is why they work so well. What part of that equation do you not understand? You are in such a ridiculously low minority of people who think that the iMac hardware is inferior. You're just more vocal. They may not use the most current components out there but they definitely work more in harmony with the OS than Windows. Stick with Windows or Linux. It's obvious that OSX is not for you. If Apple does not come out with a low-end Mac Pro, then they don't. Move on with your life.

I'm sorry, did you get lost on your way to the MacRumors forums?
post #80 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Are you 12 years old? Where did you learn about law - the schoolyard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Is that where you learned namecalling?

ohh hahaha
I kind of agree... fighting is totally useless, and childish, and will get us nowhere.
ALTER BRIDGE is the greatest rock band of today. Myspace || Street Team
Reply
ALTER BRIDGE is the greatest rock band of today. Myspace || Street Team
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