or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Mac clone maker vows to test Apple on OS X licensing terms
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mac clone maker vows to test Apple on OS X licensing terms - Page 2

post #41 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

DELL:

PROCESSOR\tIntel® Core2 Q6700 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache,2.66Hz,1066FSB)\tedit
OPERATING SYSTEM\tGenuine Windows Vista® Home Premium with Digital Cable Support\tedit
MEMORY\t4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 4 DIMMs\tedit
HARD DRIVE\t1TB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 32MB Cache\tedit
OPTICAL DRIVE\tSingle Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability\tedit
MONITORS\tNo Monitor\tedit
VIDEO CARD\tnVidia GeForce 8800 GT 512MB\tedit
SOUND CARD\tIntegrated 7.1 Channel Audio\tedit
SPEAKERS\tNo speakers (Speakers are required to hear audio from your system)\tedit
KEYBOARD\tDell USB Keyboard\tedit
MOUSE\tDell Optical USB Mouse\tedit
FLOPPY & MEDIA READER\tNo Floppy Drive or Media Reader Included

$1958 including Office

Mac Pro
Part Number: Z0EM
One 16x SuperDrive
One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core)
Apple Mighty Mouse
iWork '08 preinstalled
Apple Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X
4GB (4 x 1GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
Accessory kit
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)
\t
$3428 including iWork (75% more expensive than the Dell...)

Dell doesn't offer Xenon "Octo"-core systems, instead they have Core2 Extreme, which is the overclocked gaming equivalent. It would cost $600 to upgrade to it on the dell, $500 to upgrade on the Mac. Also, Apple charges more for memory upgrades, video card upgrades, hard drives and displays, and Dell offers BluRay, which Apple doesn't...

Build me an equivalent Dual Xeon DELL System.
post #42 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by floccus View Post

Have we all forgotten our computing history? The whole reason Microsoft became so successful was that they specifically allowed their OS to be used on multiple types of computers. Previous to that, the OS and hardware were almost always locked together (e.g., the original Macintosh). Also, Psystar would be aiding and abetting software piracy if they specifically marketed a machine for the purposes of allowing a purchaser to buy/install a copy of OSX in violation of the EULA.

That's certainly a big reason for Microsoft's success--but we can't look at the history from the 70s-80s too literally as a guide for today:

a) That's not the only route to success: Apple has taken a different but also successful path. Instead of mass domination, design great products.

b) "Then" (dawn of personal computing, pre-Internet, heavily focussed on business) is not "now" (mature post-Internet market, extending far beyond business).

c) Apple is not Microsoft. Different strengths, different weaknesses, different markets entirely.

d) The Windows monopoly stemmed from the DOS monopoly in business, which predated the Mac. No such opportunity to take over the computing market exists today. (But handhelds may be another story!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

How do I eject a CD without an Apple keyboard? This is an issue that may come up from time-to-time when using your Open Computer with the OS X operating system. As you may know Apple keyboards have an eject button and that is what actually opens the drive tray. PC-based keyboards do not have this button. What PCs do have is an eject button on the drive trays, but Apple computers don't and consequently lock the drive and ignore this button like most Linux/BSD operating systems, requiring the drive to be unmounted first.
*
\t•\tPress and hold F-12
\t•\ttype the command 'drutil eject' in terminal

Can I run updates on my Open Computer? The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are safe. It's best to check the web for this information but when in doubt don't update it. You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update.

Will my software work? Psystar has tested our Open computers with standard OS X software. We have not found any software incompatibilities with the standard OS software but we cannot guarantee that any of the software on your computer will work in Leopard. In Windows everything should work just fine assuming you have the proper device drivers and in Ubuntu everything should, in theory, work fine but Linux applications often require dependencies and a bit of work on the user's part.

Ouch!
post #43 of 238
Quote:
This has been widely written about many times over. If you compare the cost of a mac with specific components, to a PC from the major carriers with near the same specs, you will find the mac is a less expensive system...and in many ways better designed and built.

I'm aware of that, and I'm not talking about specific components. I'm talking about ANY 8-core system. At all. I can't find anything on Dell's site for less than $400 more than a Mac Pro, and it has worse specs than Apple's.

Yes, when you're looking at machines at half the spec or lower (quad core non-Xenon or less) PCs are very competitive. Mostly because Apple doesn't sell anything comparable in that market segment. That's, of course, where this Open Computer lands and why it's so interesting. It's exactly what a lot of Apple customers want and have been begging Apple to build.
post #44 of 238
Seriously, These guys have t be insane. Apple's software is Apple's software. Plain and simple.
post #45 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

DELL:

PROCESSOR\tIntel® Core2 Q6700 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache,2.66Hz,1066FSB)\tedit
OPERATING SYSTEM\tGenuine Windows Vista® Home Premium with Digital Cable Support\tedit
MEMORY\t4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 4 DIMMs\tedit
HARD DRIVE\t1TB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 32MB Cache\tedit
OPTICAL DRIVE\tSingle Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability\tedit
MONITORS\tNo Monitor\tedit
VIDEO CARD\tnVidia GeForce 8800 GT 512MB\tedit
SOUND CARD\tIntegrated 7.1 Channel Audio\tedit
SPEAKERS\tNo speakers (Speakers are required to hear audio from your system)\tedit
KEYBOARD\tDell USB Keyboard\tedit
MOUSE\tDell Optical USB Mouse\tedit
FLOPPY & MEDIA READER\tNo Floppy Drive or Media Reader Included

$1958 including Office

Mac Pro
Part Number: Z0EM
One 16x SuperDrive
One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core)
Apple Mighty Mouse
iWork '08 preinstalled
Apple Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X
4GB (4 x 1GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
Accessory kit
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)
\t
$3428 including iWork (75% more expensive than the Dell...)

Dell doesn't offer Xenon "Octo"-core systems, instead they have Core2 Extreme, which is the overclocked gaming equivalent. It would cost $600 to upgrade to it on the dell, $500 to upgrade on the Mac. Also, Apple charges more for memory upgrades, video card upgrades, hard drives and displays, and Dell offers BluRay, which Apple doesn't...

What kind of comparison is that? At least get the same processor in each. And there's no question that it's stupid to buy upgrades from apple (900 of your price is ram and hard drive upgrade) - compare using third party ram and drive upgrade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_M View Post

I've just been on the Psystar site and that $400 doesn't even include OS X.
That will cost you an extra $155!

Where did you get 155? List price is $129 and many places have it cheaper. I'm sure Tiger is probably an option as well.
post #46 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by radwansk View Post

This has been widely written about many times over. If you compare the cost of a mac with specific components, to a PC from the major carriers with near the same specs, you will find the mac is a less expensive system...and in many ways better designed and built.

However when you go below $1000, you find there are many systems less expensive on the PC side. But you have to watch the specs, many times they are using AMD or Hypersonic processors or a lesser video card, which aren't a good point of comparison. If you compare a mac, and a pc, with x HD by brand y, xvideo card by brand y, Xram by brand y, usually the mac is cheaper. Why? I would have to guess that is the uplift for Windows licenses.

I simply don't buy a computer for less than $1,000. I've got an 8 year old G4 that has long since paid for itself 50 times over.
post #47 of 238
[Checks Calendar] It's not April 1, someone is a little late with their April Fools Day prank.
post #48 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Right now, Apple has a monopoly on OS-X-running computers.

True, but that's like saying Honda has a monopoly on cars running vTec engines. Should GM be able to put vTec engines in their cars and sell them?

If Apple makes both, they are allowed to decide how their products are sold. They aren't exactly doing anything nefarious here.

The big issue here is that Apple is using hardware sales to subsidize OS development. If some company comes along and cannibalizes hardware sales, then Apple has a big problem. This is why they killed the clones back in the 90s - the clones were supposed to expand Mac market share, but instead they ate too much into Apple's sales and thus ate away money needed to develop the OS and the platform. When the cloners asked to pay more for the OS, they complained. Apple had to kill the clones then, and this is why they don't allow it now.
post #49 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagerDragon View Post

Specially the kids putting their money together to get a Mac and then see this opportunity, they jump and get hurt. I don't like kids getting hurt.

Whew... I'm so glad someone's thinking about the children.
post #50 of 238
Monopolies are not illegal. Anti-competitive behavior in the market is illegal.

Many companies control software and hardware.. One example is gaming hardware i.e. Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo are similar to Apple in that they write proprietary OS's for the hardware they don't licence. So each has a monopoly for their platform in the gaming market, but it's not illegal.

They will need to make a distinction between the "Computer Market" and the "Mac Market". In the "computer market" Apple cannot be considered a monopoly. In the Mac market obviously they have a monopoly in the hardware, just like the Playstation has a hardware lock on the Playstation Market.

And since the Justice department hand slapped Microsoft wich was found egregious unlawful in multiple instances I think and an anti trust suit is a PR stunt.

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply
post #51 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink View Post

Monopolies are not illegal. Anti-competitive behavior in the market is illegal.

Many companies control software and hardware.. One example is gaming hardware i.e. Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo are similar to Apple in that they write proprietary OS's for the hardware they don't licence. So each has a monopoly for their platform in the gaming market, but it's not illegal.

They will need to make a distinction between the "Computer Market" and the "Mac Market". In the "computer market" Apple cannot be considered a monopoly. In the Mac market obviously they have a monopoly in the hardware, just like the Playstation has a hardware lock on the Playstation Market.

And since the Justice department hand slapped Microsoft wich was found egregious unlawful in multiple instances I think and an anti trust suit is a PR stunt.

APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY. Nor Nintendo etc. If you don't like nintendo, you can buy an xbox or PS3. Nintendo would only have a monopoly if they were the only option for gaming boxes. And they're not. For purposes of "monopoly" you DO define the market as computers and not just macs, otherwise EVERY company would have a monopoly since they are the only company that makes their particular product, and that would be nonsensical.

Seriously, read a basic definition of the term.
post #52 of 238
This is good & everything but Psystar should just STFU and keep making $$$ while it last. Apple could put them out of business with a simple patch throw a software update & they know it, so STFU before apple starts imbedding all kinds of security into Leopard to check for real macs
post #53 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraklinc View Post

This is good & everything but Psystar should just STFU and keep making $$$ while it last. Apple could put them out of business with a simple patch throw a software update & they know it, so STFU before apple starts imbedding all kinds of security into Leopard to check for real macs

Wouldn't apple be trying to do it already since people are doing their own hackintoshes?
post #54 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrisbaneDigital View Post

While many of the issues raised in the replies to this post are all valid, perhaps the threshold issue on this subject is through what mechanism and how much is Psystar paying Apple for a licensing fee for OSX. Since Apple does not have an OEM program, the only (arguably) legal mechanism that Psystar has to legally acquire the OS, is to purchase retail versions. This coupled with the cost of components and packaging, is likely drive the Cost of Goods to at least $400, if not higher (that doesn't take into account other costs such as product design, testing, assembly, distribution, marketing, etc... (Of course, we can't forget Legal! ).

The other question raised is, who has the legal duty to support the customers of these systems? Even if Apple wanted to, there is no way that they can provide support without knowing the precise configurations of these systems and the specific components used.


This sounds more like a publicity stunt rather than a legitimate attempt to enter the OSX clone business.

Just my two cents....


(actually, given my hourly rate, that is my $46.

Well, there are so many posts to reply to here, but Ill do it to yours as you're near the end.

They are not paying Apple anything, because Apple has no licensing scheme for this as they don't license out the OS at all.

Otherwise, there are more problems. As Nagromme has pointed out, all Apple sells are upgrades, as the OS comes with the machine. They could easily argue that no retail version of the OS is licensed to anyone other than to the one who boght the original license with the original program, which means that only if you boght a Mac would you have license to use the "upgrade".

This is well established law. It can be used instead of the "Mac only" install that Apple specifies now, though that is legal as well.

I know that there are some in Europe who don't understand the legalities with this, even though European law SEEMS to say otherwise. It really only pertains to an OS that is sold as MS's is.

Apple's OS is an integral part of the hardware, though, that argument has been lessened with the switch to Intel, which allows Windows to be an equal partner.

Nevertheless, Even if Psystar doesn't sell the OS, they could be in legal trouble if they can be seen as encouraging others to violate the license. If they then profit off those violations, they could have a criminal case against them, depending on how many units they sell, and if it can be assumed that for each unit sold, a license violation occured.
post #55 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY.

Apple has a monopoly in the Mac market. There is nothing wrong with that.

Monopoly
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."

There is no competition in the Mac market and that is not illegal.

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply
post #56 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

I remember buying a Mac clone. It was from Power Computing and the problems I had with compatibility almost drove me to buy a Windows machine. I did buy a real Mac directly Apple and I couldn't get over the difference in stability. All the driver and device issues vanished with having the real thing. So from my prospective, I think bringing back Mac clones is a bad idea.

I had the same experience.
Recommended a Power Computing clone for a friend and whenever she had problems with it, she was SOL. Add to that the fact that she never really got the 'just use it' experience you get from an actual Mac, and it was a waste of money. Cheap things are usually worth what you paid for them.
(Parenthetically, my friend became my wife, so I suppose it wasn't that big of a catastrophe.)
post #57 of 238
These guys are out of their minds. Apple has always marketed an operating system paired with hardware. Just because you can purchase that operating system separately from the hardware doesn't change this fact.

It's like saying Research in Motion or PALM have to make their Blackberry/PALM OSs available for use with other devices. Or that the XBox or Playstation OSs have to be made compatible for other systems.

These companies have always sold a "whole package", with benefits in both hardware and software. The only way to get the incredible software is to get the hardware as well. There's not been a real distinction between the two. Apple sells OSX to Mac users who want to upgrade their systems, but don't verify that you actually own the system before allowing you to buy. However, they DO stipulate that is the requirement in the terms of use. Do we really want Apple to start verifying ownership of a Mac system before you can buy the OS?

As much as I want Mac prices to drop or for there to be viable competition, I hope Apple kicks these guys' in their collective asses (then turns them around to kick them in their balls). If these guys are intent on infringing on Apple's copyrights and violating intellectual property laws, then they deserve to lose more than their nuts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?," he said. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"
post #58 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnathan View Post

oh christ, here comes the onslaught of mac wannabe's.. well everyone.. i guess we've enjoyed our niche for long enough..

What do you mean 'here comes' (as in future tense)? What the hell do you think Windows is?
post #59 of 238
Personally, and I know this is such a lovely topic around here, I think that anything that has a better GPU is worth it and I say Hurrah, Hurrah for the OSX86 and companies like this.

Pro users DO not make up the base, its all iPods and iPhone users.
Mac Pro's and Macbook Pro's hardly move off the shelves in the apple stores compared to iMacs, Macbooks, Minis and especially iPhones.
For a few hundred, you can build a great machines, buy a dual DVI nvidia card and have a machine the romps a Mac Pro for a fraction of the cost.
Apple charges $600 for 4 GB of RAM, you can buy RAM at New Egg for $104 dollars and most memory will have a lifetime warranty so no worries should it fail in a year or so.

The whole notion that Apple is still on its high horse with graphic cards drives me nuts - they still think the PROS will flock to the cheap-o systems if they released a cheap machine with a $50 graphic card. So what if they do? They are such a small portion of the market. Personally, I don't think its a matter of "if" but a matter of "when" as Apple needs to get a grip.

While the machine is probably ugly, I think you're better of building your own machine for much cheaper.

Here is a link for a HACK for less than $800 and with the exception of one benchmark, it beats the Mac Pro -

http://lifehacker.com/software/bench...rks-322866.php

And to think as an Apple user I pat them on the back -

I think there is a group of us, PRO PC until Apple went X86 (as Steve used to FUDGE all the numbers), that are POST X86 Apple users, and those of us who are, are also savvy to INTEL say vs AMD and know what cost a GPU or MEMORY is, and how (APPLE) Intel used to operate until AMD came along with their first 1.0 GHZ Athlon. I think competition and seeing better machines cheaper may someday force Apple to wake up and release a overall decent machine thats not crippled in any department.

Right now, if you want to play any game at all that uses 3D, you have to get an iMac, however, if you want a laptop, you have NO CHOICE but to purchase a Macbook Pro.
post #60 of 238
..........
post #61 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

It had better specs than a real Apple at the time, but software conflicts drove me insane.

.

Well, that's kinda the point.
Everyone seems to think that any rube with a soldering iron and a disk burner (you there Bill Gates?) can put together a seamless computing experience.
post #62 of 238
Macs and OSX are parts of Apple's brand. They created the systems. They own the brands. What do you not understand?

What you said is like saying there is no competition in the Civic market because only Honda makes Civics.

Get real.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tink View Post

There is no competition in the Mac market and that is not illegal.
post #63 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Wouldn't apple be trying to do it already since people are doing their own hackintoshes?

Well buy announcing the App store apple pretty much kill jailbreaking already if that's what you mean, most of the good games & good apps have disappear from app tap already, i guess since the app store is going to be available to more than 10 million people everyone is in a hurry to license the apps so they can get at least $1 per user
post #64 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink View Post

Apple has a monopoly in the Mac market. There is nothing wrong with that.

Monopoly
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."

There is no competition in the Mac market and that is not illegal.

That's just stupid.

The "given TYPE of product" is a computer. Not a mac - if you don't want a mac, you just buy a PC which serves the same purpose.

Aside from that, doesn't your logic imply that EVERY company has a monopoly if "type of product" is defined as the brand of product? Of course there's competition in the mac market. It's called a PC, and it's the reason Macs have single digit market share.

And for the record, I didn't say it was bad/illegal/whatever. I'm just saying it simply IS NOT a monopoly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankiilacomposer View Post

Mac Pro's and Macbook Pro's hardly move off the shelves in the apple stores compared to iMacs, Macbooks, Minis and especially iPhones.

Do you have a source or is that just speculation? I'd be shocked if the minis are outselling any other mac models, especially the MB pro.
post #65 of 238
It is not good that the Mac is a monopoly of Apple. Mac OS X should run on any Intel hardware, being made by Apple or others. Greed is never good. And we want a Mac miniTOWER that Apple does no make, but others can offer. And so on. Windows people can choose the hardware they want from a myriad of vendors. Mac users cannot. That is not good for the Mac community. And by Mac I mean Mac OS X, of course. Apple, move on!
post #66 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Where did you get 155? List price is $129 and many places have it cheaper.

www.psystar.com

Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

I'm sure Tiger is probably an option as well.

Not at at www.psystar.com.
post #67 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraklinc View Post

Well buy announcing the App store apple pretty much kill jailbreaking already if that's what you mean, most of the good games & good apps have disappear from app tap already, i guess since the app store is going to be available to more than 10 million people everyone is in a hurry to license the apps so they can get at least $1 per user

What does that have to do with hackintoshes?

Apple has tried repeatedly to kill jailbreaking and so far every attempt seems to have failed. I wouldn't be surprised if the iTunes store is worked around as well.

The point is, Apple already tries to have the OS detect if it's genuine mac hardware or not. Problem is, the mac is 99% the same as PC hardware, and it hasn't been too hard for people to hack the rest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

It is not good that the Mac is a monopoly of Apple. Mac OS X should run on any Intel hardware, being made by Apple or others. Greed is never good.

So I guess along the same lines, it's not good that only Coke can make Coke and only Toyota can make toyotas? That's "greed" on the part of Coke? You seriously think any company should be able to make Coke or Toyotas? Why would any business go to the trouble of creating a product if any other company could just make the exact same thing?

And again, THE MAC IS NOT A MONOPOLY. Unless you use twisted logic to define "monopoly" in a way that EVERY product from EVERY company is a monopoly.
post #68 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankiilacomposer View Post

Personally, and I know this is such a lovely topic around here, I think that anything that has a better GPU is worth it and I say Hurrah, Hurrah for the OSX86 and companies like this.

Pro users DO not make up the base, its all iPods and iPhone users.
Mac Pro's and Macbook Pro's hardly move off the shelves in the apple stores compared to iMacs, Macbooks, Minis and especially iPhones.
For a few hundred, you can build a great machines, buy a dual DVI nvidia card and have a machine the romps a Mac Pro for a fraction of the cost.
Apple charges $600 for 4 GB of RAM, you can buy RAM at New Egg for $104 dollars and most memory will have a lifetime warranty so no worries should it fail in a year or so.

The whole notion that Apple is still on its high horse with graphic cards drives me nuts - they still think the PROS will flock to the cheap-o systems if they released a cheap machine with a $50 graphic card. So what if they do? They are such a small portion of the market. Personally, I don't think its a matter of "if" but a matter of "when" as Apple needs to get a grip.

While the machine is probably ugly, I think you're better of building your own machine for much cheaper.

Here is a link for a HACK for less than $800 and with the exception of one benchmark, it beats the Mac Pro -

http://lifehacker.com/software/bench...rks-322866.php

And to think as an Apple user I pat them on the back -

I think there is a group of us, PRO PC until Apple went X86 (as Steve used to FUDGE all the numbers), that are POST X86 Apple users, and those of us who are, are also savvy to INTEL say vs AMD and know what cost a GPU or MEMORY is, and how (APPLE) Intel used to operate until AMD came along with their first 1.0 GHZ Athlon. I think competition and seeing better machines cheaper may someday force Apple to wake up and release a overall decent machine thats not crippled in any department.

Right now, if you want to play any game at all that uses 3D, you have to get an iMac, however, if you want a laptop, you have NO CHOICE but to purchase a Macbook Pro.

Since you can't buy a Mac Pro as slow as the one they benchmarked anymore, I'm not sure how relevant those benchmarks are. Current Mac Pros have twice as many cores at higher MHz. They also did not appear to benchmark any "pro" operations at all, only simple consumer stuff. If you're going to just play around with the computer don't get a pro! If you're going to do a lot of compiles or high-end video/rendering you're going to get several times the performance over the "Hackintosh".

In short, you generally get what you pay for if you're pushing your machine to the limit. If not, your return on investment will top out somewhere-- probably significantly short of the Mac Pro's sweet spot.

And, of course, don't buy your RAM from Apple.

That leaves the sub-$1000 pro-sumer market wide open. It's a market Apple doesn't address at all. iMacs are too expensive and are bundled with what is for most people an unnecessary extra monitor. The mini doesn't have a graphics card and is severely underpowered for the price. That's why this clone is so interesting to so many people.
post #69 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post

That leaves the sub-$1000 pro-sumer market wide open. It's a market Apple doesn't address at all. iMacs are too expensive and are bundled with what is for most people an unnecessary extra monitor. The mini doesn't have a graphics card and is severely underpowered for the price. That's why this clone is so interesting to so many people.

That's the key right there. The only reason this exists is because apple doesn't offer any reasonably priced mid to low end boxes, specifically a midtower. If apple would finally release one, it would make this whole thing moot.

I doubt this will make much of a splash, but I think it will focus public attention on the hole in Apple's product line and put some pressure on apple. And I think that's a good thing.
post #70 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samnuva View Post

Seriously, These guys have t be insane. Apple's software is Apple's software. Plain and simple.

And Microsoft said that their software was their software, and they had the right to integrate Internet Explorer into their software.

At issue is whether Apple's EULA is legal to be bound to a specific hardware. Microsoft's "EULA", in essence, was to force everyone to use IE if they wanted Windows. The federal anti-trust regulators here in the US and in Europe decided that Microsoft had too much of a monopoly in the browser department, and forced MS to 'play nice' with other software makers. Why shouldn't Apple be told to 'play nice' with other hardware makers?

The saving grace for Apple is that they're still a two-bit player, relatively speaking.
post #71 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by floccus View Post

Have we all forgotten our computing history? The whole reason Microsoft became so successful was that they specifically allowed their OS to be used on multiple types of computers. Previous to that, the OS and hardware were almost always locked together (e.g., the original Macintosh). Also, Psystar would be aiding and abetting software piracy if they specifically marketed a machine for the purposes of allowing a purchaser to buy/install a copy of OSX in violation of the EULA.

Whoa there pardner.
MS became successful because of brilliant manipulation of exclusive licensing agreements with hardware manufacturers (i.e. thou shalt ship with no other OS), FUD tactics that killed upstart competitors, and business practices that gave their applications home field advantage, grandfathering them into corporations.

What is certainly true is that Windows is the nightmare is is PRECISELY because of the open hardware model that it is now chained to.
post #72 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by G_Warren View Post

There are interesting competition law points here. If we assume that the relevant market is 'Computer hardware capable of running Mac OS X' then clearly Apple is in a dominant position with 100% market share. It is not completely unforseeable that Apple could be forced to licence OS X or remove the relevant paragraphs from the agreement.

Of course, one could argue that in that case, Nokia should be releasing its software so that Sony Ericsson users can use it etc.

A few complaints to national competition authorities might raise some interesting results.

Except it really doesn't work that way. The fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in Windows isn't what got them in trouble. What got them in trouble was that they used their monopoly in abusive ways. They used their monopoly in one area (operating systems) to illegally interfere with businesses in another area (web browsers and Netscape). Mac hardware and the Mac OS are not two seperate markets. They are a single market. MS also used their monopoly to force PC makers to include Windows on all of their computers, even if the customer didn't want it included. There probably would have been nothing illegal if they had told HP that they had to exclude Windows an certain models, but forcing them to include it and pay for it was an abuse of their monopoly.

Apple doesn't abuse their "monopoly" (and I use that term very loosely!) in OS X. They don't force other companies to buy it and include it with their hardware. If they chose not to license it to you, that's their [perfectly legal] choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Idiots

If Microsoft wanted to write into their EULA that windows should only be installable on Dells they "could". It wouldn't be smart but they could if they wanted to.

"Robert" should be kept away from the press. What a moron. This company will soon be a footnote. I'm sure they have a legal departmen that matches Apple's in every way<sarcasm>

If Apple could shut down Thinksecret over rumors they're going to do a number on this little company that makes Thinksecret look like a love tap on the ass.

In fact, MS's Vista license does actually preclude you from installing certain versions on virtual machines. I think they relaxed it a bit from the original version; but by license, you are not allowed to install the lower end versions of Vista on virtual PCs. So you could have a Dell running a fully license version of Vista. But if you then wanted to buy the retail version of the low-end Vista (whatever it's called...who can keep track!) and install it in a virtual machine running on that Dell, you would be in violation of the license agreement. It's MS's property that you are licensing, and they have decided that they don't want their product used in that way...perfectly legal!
post #73 of 238
UUGGGGHHH! Another stupid statement.

Mac is a BRAND that belongs to APPLE, the same way that an XBox is a brand of Microsoft's or a Camry is a brand of Toyota. The Mac brand (let me repeat) BELONGS TO APPLE.

Macs are not synonymous to PCs. A Mac is a brand of computer, just as a Sony Vaio or Dell Dimension is a brand of computer. A PC is not a brand of computer but is pretty much synonymous with being a computer. It is a short for "Personal Computer". A Mac, however, is a different class of computer that runs an operating system currently known as OSX (also a brand that BELONGS TO APPLE), whereas most other computers run the Windows operating system that is a brand of Microsoft. Microsoft has different usage terms for their OS than does Apple and because these OSs are owned by the company that developed them, that company has the right to state what those usage terms are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

It is not good that the Mac is a monopoly of Apple. Mac OS X should run on any Intel hardware, being made by Apple or others. Greed is never good. And we want a Mac miniTOWER that Apple does no make, but others can offer. And so on. Windows people can choose the hardware they want from a myriad of vendors. Mac users cannot. That is not good for the Mac community. And by Mac I mean Mac OS X, of course. Apple, move on!
post #74 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

And Microsoft said that their software was their software, and they had the right to integrate Internet Explorer into their software.

At issue is whether Apple's EULA is legal to be bound to a specific hardware. Microsoft's "EULA", in essence, was to force everyone to use IE if they wanted Windows. The federal anti-trust regulators here in the US and in Europe decided that Microsoft had too much of a monopoly in the browser department, and forced MS to 'play nice' with other software makers. Why shouldn't Apple be told to 'play nice' with other hardware makers?

The saving grace for Apple is that they're still a two-bit player, relatively speaking.

I disagree. The issues was not that they had a monopoly in the browser department. As I stated above, the issue is that they used a monopoly in one market to gain advantage in another market. The courts viewed the OS and the browser as two seperate markets. The rulings were that MS illegally "tied" the two seperate things together. No court has ever said that MS can't make Internet Explorer and include it with every copy of Windows. They said they can't tie it to Windows the way they did.

So, Apple's "saving grace," if you must use that term, is that Mac hardware and the Mac OS are NOT two seperate markets. They are sold as a single product. You are buying the hardware and licensing the software (which you can pay to upgrade if you chose). And the last time I checked, Apple's OS department isn't forcing Apple's hardware department to sell hardware with the Mac OS against their will! So unless Apple is threatening to sue itself, there really is no comparison between Apple's monopoly and Microsoft's monopoly.
post #75 of 238
You cannot have a monopoly on something that is your own brand. Windows is a brand that belongs to Microsoft and OSX is a brand that belongs to Apple. Neither of these companies can have a monopoly on a brand they created.

Microsoft's monopoly wasn't in Windows but in their share of computer operating systems and their influence as a result of this share. This share allowed them the ability to dictate to people what they use on their computers and this is where it got them into trouble.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly because their OS is tied to their hardware (Macs). The features they put into their OS only goes so far as to impact their own computer brand (Macs), not the computer industry. However, as Apple delves into sectors of the computer industry (i.e. music, Internet, etc.), they are entering markets that are no longer tied to their own brand and are becoming increasingly at risk of creating monopolies. But these monopolies are separate from the issue we're discussing here, which is the fact that OSX is an Apple product, tied to the Mac, which is another Apple product. There is no possibility of a monopoly here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Except it really doesn't work that way. The fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in Windows isn't what got them in trouble. What got them in trouble was that they used their monopoly in abusive ways. They used their monopoly in one area (operating systems) to illegally interfere with businesses in another area (web browsers and Netscape). Mac hardware and the Mac OS are not two seperate markets. They are a single market. MS also used their monopoly to force PC makers to include Windows on all of their computers, even if the customer didn't want it included. There probably would have been nothing illegal if they had told HP that they had to exclude Windows an certain models, but forcing them to include it and pay for it was an abuse of their monopoly.

Apple doesn't abuse their "monopoly" (and I use that term very loosely!) in OS X. They don't force other companies to buy it and include it with their hardware. If they chose not to license it to you, that's their [perfectly legal] choice.



In fact, MS's Vista license does actually preclude you from installing certain versions on virtual machines. I think they relaxed it a bit from the original version; but by license, you are not allowed to install the lower end versions of Vista on virtual PCs. So you could have a Dell running a fully license version of Vista. But if you then wanted to buy the retail version of the low-end Vista (whatever it's called...who can keep track!) and install it in a virtual machine running on that Dell, you would be in violation of the license agreement. It's MS's property that you are licensing, and they have decided that they don't want their product used in that way...perfectly legal!
post #76 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

At issue is whether Apple's EULA is legal to be bound to a specific hardware. Microsoft's "EULA", in essence, was to force everyone to use IE if they wanted Windows. The federal anti-trust regulators here in the US and in Europe decided that Microsoft had too much of a monopoly in the browser department, and forced MS to 'play nice' with other software makers. Why shouldn't Apple be told to 'play nice' with other hardware makers?

Because MS had a monopoly in the computer OS market (not the browser market) and was leveraging it to help their other products. Apple doesn't have a monopoly.
post #77 of 238
Right now Apple depends only on the legal system to protect their software copyrights. There is a warning message buried in the OS code that discourages piracy, but that is about it. But way back in the early days they used a ROM chip to prevent others from running the OS on non-Apple computers. Since they are clearly capable of hardware locking their OS, if necessary, they could easily choose to go that route again. Either way you can depend on Apple protecting their brand.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #78 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Build me an equivalent Dual Xeon DELL System.



holy crap. are people that stupid??


here you go mdriftmeyer....





The dual quad core 2.8 ghz mac pro with 2 GB ram and a 256 MB video card is $2800
the dual quad core 2.8 ghz dell with 2 GB of ram and a 256 MB video card is $3800
post #79 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Right now Apple depends only on the legal system to protect their software copyrights. There is a warning message buried in the OS code that discourages piracy, but that is about it. But way back in the early days they used a ROM chip to prevent others from running the OS on non-Apple computers. Since they are clearly capable of hardware locking their OS, if necessary, they could easily choose to go that route again. Either way you can depend on Apple protecting their brand.

I don't know about that. In the early days there was little danger of other people building mac hardware without permission just because the mac hardware was so vastly different from PC hardware so the job would be extremely difficult.

Now that their hardware is nearly identical to PC hardware, they can try to do hardware locking, and they've tried at least a little bit already. But I don't know how successful they can be. Obviously they could make their machines more different than PC hardware, or add some sort of hardware copy protection, but that would take away some of the benefit of using commodity hardware not to mention I don't know how they'd do it while still letting the OS run on all the intel macs already in use that didn't have new hardware protection.

Considering that apple has so far failed to stop hackintoshes, it seems like their best bet is either the legal front, or the possibility that "clones" just don't end up selling well.
post #80 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead View Post

Macs and OSX are parts of Apple's brand. They created the systems. They own the brands. What do you not understand?

What you said is like saying there is no competition in the Civic market because only Honda makes Civics.

Get real.

Getting a little snippy aren't we.
Yes, Macs and OSX are parts of Apple's brand. Yes they own the brands. I think everyone has a pretty firm grasp on that, thanks. I'll throw your question back at you; What do you not understand about the definition of Monopoly?

Where can you by another computer running Mac OSX. Apple has the monopoly for the Mac market. I've only been able to by Macs running the Mac OS from Apple since my first Mac in 1987. ( Except for that 1 Power Computing box back 11 years ago or so), but...

The car analogy is getting old and never worked for me. Honda doesn't have a monopoly on the roads or the gas they operate on, just their brand. Dell or HP doesn't have a monopoly on the operating system they run on, just their brand. Apple has a monopoly on the operating system and they have their brand. No other brand drives on the Mac OSX road, no other brand runs on that Mac OSX fuel.

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Mac clone maker vows to test Apple on OS X licensing terms