EFi-X USA to sell pre-made PCs as do-it-yourself Mac clones - Page 4

As if "Ha-ha-ha-ha... NO!" wasn't an indication.

Yes. I'm sure they never considered the possibility of being contacted by Apple when they started this project.

Hackintosh isn't a company, or entity that could be served a cease and desist order, its a term for non Apple computers running OS X. The OSX86 Project is an open source project / community that works on making non Apple systems run OS X. Psystar just tried to capitalize on this. EFI-X used very similar approaches like that of BOOT 132 (from OSX86) to installing OS X from a genuine Leopard disc onto non Apple systems.

You had to type in a serial number when you updated OS X? Please pay attention before you scoff at legitimate concerns being raised.

Who, in their right mind, is going to drop nearly $2,000 on a knock off when they could spend a little more and get the real thing??

It would be one thing if we were talking about a $700 hardware package, but we are talking about $2,000. That is not throw away money. I just don't see them selling very many...

Wow, you're really that stupid aren't you?

NO PRODUCT THAT APPLE MAKES SHOULD COMPETE WITH ANY OTHER ONES IN THEIR OWN DAMN LINEUP!

That's Dell's problem! They have ten DIFFERENT computers in their OWN lineup that are competing with each other! Everytime they sell ONE computer, that's NINE MORE that won't sell!

Remember the 90's? I bet you don't!

During that time, Apple had low-cost Performas and high-quality Powermacs. Which one sold? The performas! Where did Apple lose their money? on all the powermacs that DIDN'T SELL!

Were the performas as good as the powermacs? HELL NO!

Were Performas a good deal? HELL NO!

Joe consumer will buy what looks like the cheeapest. Even if it ISN'T the best deal!


Uh-huh.

How you gonna keep those desktop CPUs cool? Ever think of that?

There is a REASON why the iMac uses mobility processors!

FYI, I read every crappy word of that post. It's garbage, plain and simple.

Plus, dumbass, i recall saying that LED was a 'maybe' for iMacs, IF it can be done and Apple can meet their price point.

Apple IS a business, you know...



I READ EVERY WORD OF THE POST!

The Idea is a crappy one!

'No Threat'? Did you just say that??

Well, for starters the iPhone and iPod touch are DIFFERENT PRODUCTS. A Netbook would instantly be seen as a CHEAP laptop and be bought over getting a Macbook, regardless of how much better a macbook would be as a computer!



Seriously, look at what the competition is charging to upgrade their laptops to SSD. Some of them aren't even as big as Apple's. Sure, you can go and buy a drive for $225, but after you buy it and pay your technicians to load OSX onto them, Test and INSTALL them, you still want to charge $225?

BTW, I don't know what planet you live on, but here on EARTH the upgrade costs $500, NOT $700. Look it up, kid.

Don't be stupid, the CPU that is used in the MBA costs WAAAAAAAY more than $32! For starters, it is on a much smaller die than normally. That makes it a custom chip! Look it up!

Plus, on top of that, it is a MOBILITY component! Rule of thumb with mobility components, THEY COST MORE!


Oh, that's sooooooo funny, you tried to make an insult. That's cute.

You should concentrate on coming up with ideas that have some kind of value instead of trotting out your FAIL-tier insults.

While I agree the mini is popular, it is not exactly over powering iMac sales. Apple has a lower PM on the mini, have hampered the performance so they can upsale you to an iMac.

I believe more normal people want the iMac due to clutterless factor and the everything is right there in front of me look. Every PC person that comes into our office wants to look at our iMac's up close and personal once they realize the whole computer is inside. They have seen them on TV, but have believed they are just monitors. I think it would do Apple well to show a DVD sticking out of the side of the iMac.

I think the MIni is nice for servers and people that need cheap replacement boxes. But I don't think they have a large place with mainstream Joe Computer user like we would believe and hope (in some cases).

Just my $0.02.

Yes you can send a cease and desist to anyone that is violating your rights, you don't have to be a company. The reason why these projects like iPhone jailbreaks and Hackintosh are legal is because they can be used for educational purposes, as long as the buyer does not use them illegally. The liability becomes the buyers and not the ones who make the code, it's one of those things that are legal to make and own, but are illegal to use. There are many products that fall into that category.

EFi-X USA are not breaking any laws whatsoever and Apple cannot sue them and win, Psystar on the other-hand are on the wrong and seem to have no leg to stand on.

Here it is from Wikipedia:
A cease and desist (also called C & D) is an order or request to halt an activity, or else face legal action. The recipient of the cease-and-desist may be an individual or an organization.

The term is used in two different contexts. A cease-and-desist order can be issued by a judge or government authority, and has a well-defined legal meaning. In contrast, a cease-and-desist letter can be sent by anyone, although typically they are drafted by a lawyer.

If Apple is going to try and force their mirror ultra glossy glass displays down my throat then I want an alternative.

So, there are too many damn PC converts screwing things up for the true Mac fans and all these pesky "Mac clone" companies are screwing things up for the happy Hackintosh community...

Give me a f*cking break.

Whiners complaining about the popularity of OS X only give credence to those who would dismiss Mac-heads as masochistic snobs, happy only when an abused minority.

Anyone arguing against the clone companies (especially the likes of the more innocent ones like EFi-X) while supporting OSx86 "hobbyists" is a hypocrite, plain and simple. You either honor the EULA or you don't. I can't fault EFi-X for making and selling hardware; I have no sympathy for the EULA breaker or copyright violator.

Whereas Psystar deserves to get crushed, there's nothing wrong with what EFi-X is doing (except for the poor English on their website).

That increasingly myriad companies are providing hardware capable of running OS X is a good thing. It's good for Apple. There is no conspiracy; OS X is simply an excellent OS. I bet Ol' Steve is eating it up. Sure, he's maniacal about the Mac experience, but he's not an idiot; he saw this coming. I can't believe he's exactly fuming now. Of course Apple cares about marketshare; they continuously prove this with every transgression against their cult base (Intel, glossy screens, no Firewire on new MacBook, copy-protection video hardware, even a two-button mouse...).

Moreover, these clone companies are good for Mac lovers. Claims that opening up the software would lead to support nightmares are proof: all the more reason to stick with Apple hardware. Factor in PA Semi and the incentive is even stronger. Forget what you've known as the Apple experience; in the future, PA Semi is the Apple experience. Apple will not worry about clones that do not violate their copyrights; even with all their cash, they cannot go after individual EULA violators or even so-called facilitators. Is it a crime to advertise a fact of reality--namely that certain hardware is capable of running certain software? Please. Everyone here, regardless of how hardcore-Mac they are, should know this is bogus.

Apple will not modify their hardware to stop clones; there will only be new work-arounds. Apple will not switch from Intel back to Power PC; they need BootCamp. Apple will use PA Semi to optimize Mac hardware and let clone competitors/consumers fend for themselves with inferior products. Furthermore, one day, Steve will leave; by no means am I rooting for this or otherwise intending to be provocative; it's just a fact. The Mac experience is not so vaunted as to fend against resulting pragmatism (and I think Steve himself realizes this and is comfortable with the future). Unlike the days when Apple was poorly positioned for licensing their software, they are now perfectly poised. It's just a matter of time. Linux is a player (hell, Mac die-hards posting in this thread have threatened to switch to Linux under one circumstance or another. (Personally, I love Linux and find myself loving OS X more for its uniformity and ease of use; I use both and can't envision completely abandoning Apple--until such time as Linux eventually acquires uniformity and ease of use; it's hard to argue with free.)

Then go buy a PC.

Whatever makes some of you think you are "entitled" to anything is beyond me. If you don't like Apples computers, don't buy one, but that doesn't mean they have to give you their OS just because you think your entitled to it.

Apple chose Intel so Hollywood could choose them.

A posting is made regarding someone wanting an alternative to Apple's glossy displays. Your response is "Then go buy a PC." followed by a candid admission of your chronic bewilderment regarding some entitlement issues. Would not the polite suggestion to buy another brand of computer monitor (not the shiny Apple one) solve this person's problem in a relatively constructive fashion?!

But if that was all you said, I'd have kept my virtual mouth shut this morning. But instead, as a direct response to your admittedly confused state of mind, I'm gonna attempt to explain the lack of logic in your argumentative position that if taken to the extreme would imply that no Apple customer is entitled to anything (or to paraphrase. that every Apple customer is entitled to nothing).

Generally speaking, companies sell products to consumers. They make a profit on those sales (unless that product is an American-made car, of course). If these customers are happy customers and they remain happy customers, they are more likely to generate future sales with that repeat business making more profits for the company. And profits can make even the saddest company happy once again (except for stupid companies that waste a big chunk of those profits on stupid TV commercials that feature Seinfeld). These happy customers are also likely to recommend this company and their products to their warm market (family and friends and everyone else they know who's running a high fever).

But would you like to guess what happens if those customers do not remain happy customers? That's right. A fifth grader could have guessed the correct answer to that one. They won't buy from that company again...regardless of the elevated levels of emotionally-triggered enthusiasm that they previously possessed. And neither will they recommend that company and that company's products to their warm market or their cold market for that matter (including deceased acquaintances). This is not good for the company since less profits from a reduction in sales (from new customers and from repeat buyers) often necessitates pursuing an untested course of action meaning that when the foggy mirage of material success begins to fade, they gotta go ask Congress for a multi-billion-dollar bail-out to hopefully bring back those happier days. And it's not really good for the consumer either if he is unable to find similar products at similar prices from a competitor (who may or may not exist) without even slightly compromising the personal standards of high-quality and hyper-cool innovation he felt justifiably ENTITLED TO in the first place.

So let me break it down for you in another way. I prefer to use the word EXPECTATIONS instead of entitlement as it pertains to what I expect from a company and their products. First of all, my expectations as a customer/consumer are dynamic and they evolve over time. They may and should differ from other customers (since as far as I can cognitively surmise, every customer is a unique individual with a unique personality, etc...). I expect the product to conform to the tech specs and do basically what the advertising materials (and my independent research) indicates it should do (as in function properly) for at least the duration of the warranty period as well as for the extended period of time that I will pay extra for. I expect the person on the other end of a customer service phonecall to at least speak English fluently enough so that I do not have to ask them if they just gave me their Mom's secret recipe for Lamb Jalpharezi when all I asked for was their first name. I expect manuals and tutorials and teaching tools galore and it's a really big plus if I can just download them from the company's online store. I expect to pay for periodic upgrades as long as they improve the product and/or "the user experience" in some tangible way. I expect the company to come out with better products down the road based on the inevitable introduction of technological discoveries and engineering advancements in their industry but this expectation is also accompanied by my genuine desire that they NOT abandon me relatively quickly (as in a few years) by introducing dramatic improvements that I can't add as upgrades to my current product (thus "forcing" me to spend more money than I'd prefer spending having to buy a brand new model of their product with every other tick or every other tock of a Semi-Intelligent wind-up clock).

And last but not least, I expect that if I don't wanna buy their glass-glossy display for whatever reason, they don't tell me (in essence) TO GO COPULATE MYSELF by banishing me to The Desolate Land of The Stained Windows...where shiny reflections from the glass-screen monitor might even be a true blessing in disguise...especially if it prevents me from seeing either the ghostly illumination from The Blue-Screen-of-Death or thwarts my best efforts to use the most seriously flawed OS-on-crutches this side of the Milky Way.

Sorry, but you're wrong about that. Most parts can be used on any model so they've only lost a sale on particular parts, not a whole computer.

If anything, what you're pointing out is a flaw in Apple's current methodology. If Apple had a headless Mac in the iMac tier, they couldn't use most of the more expensive parts in the headless since I'd assume that it wouldn't be using mobile computer components.


Again, you're pointing out a problem on Apple's end. If Apple truly lost a lot of money on the PowerMacs, that's a problem with their inventory control for creating a purchase forecast that was unrealistic and thus ordering parts that were unnecessary. If the Performa was selling like hotcakes, it shouldn't have been an issue to increase inventory for them and let PowerMacs slowly dwindle down.

Keep in mind, apple doesn't own EFI. In addition to this device there are motherboards that use EFI and more coming out all the time. And nothing illegal about any of it.

you want Apple to capitalize on their balls?


makes sense to me...

Indeed, and if Apple sold a headless desktop at the same price-points as the iMac, using desktop parts with no built-in display, their margins on that product would be huge. It would definitely eat iMac sales, and Mac Pro sales, as well. But doesn't the fact that it would do that indicate just how flawed Apple's lineup is?

the lack of a mate screen iMac is bad for iMac sales. Also is selling 1000+ desktop macs better then 500+ mac pros?

What is Apple's margin on a Mac Pro at $2500? What would it be on a desktop Mac at $1200? We can't speak definitively on those numbers, but I think it absolutely would be better. More computer sales mean more OS and software sales, too.

Do you think maybe you can use a few more exclamation points? I'm not sure we completely get the strength of your convictions yet. You may also try to tone down your own insults, like stupid and dumbass. Jumping into a forum then calling people names and calling them "kid" without actually knowing their age is not a good way to build credibility.

One might look at it as there is nothing in the EULA to break. The question is where does one get the right to install and execute Apple's software anywhere, if that right is not provided in the EULA? Have you ever seen or heard of a license from Apple that allows Mac OS X to be installed onto a non-Apple computer? I dare say none exists. And if we believe that, then any software or any device whose sole purpose is to facilitate the copying of Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer only exists to facilitate copyright infringement.

By the way, it's a very special form of copying that we're interested in here: that which creates a bootable copy.

If EFi-X wanted to be legal and still distribute the dongle, they could create a pseudo-OS (not necessarily a real OS or a complete OS or an OS at all) that has the same hardware requirements for copying/installation as Mac OS X. Of course, that assumes there is nothing inherently illegal about the dongle.

Wow. What a fuss.

I suppose if Apple *really* wanted to make money, and shut down the cloners, the company could introduce its own USB dongle for EFI.

Box it, sell it as a bundle with Mac OS X for those interested. We'd know what the "Apple tax" for OS development is up front. It'd have a EULA saying the dongle would work *only* with that version of OS X. Kill the cloners' market, make it legal, collect "taxes" on it. It'd also be a way to make money off of software.

Of course, this would make Apple more like Microsoft... which is why I don't think it'll ever happen. Even so, I thought I'd throw this out to liven up the discussion on a Saturday afternoon.

That doesn't make them legal!


Who is Hackintosh? How much revenue does Hackintosh bring in?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoran...is_non_excusat

I've owned and used nothing but Apple hardware since the late 70's, and i am squarely in the clone makers corner on this issue.



Exactly. It's not that I want hardware made by a third party, it's that those third parties are offering me the product I want, that Apple refuses to make. I won't use Windows if you paid me, but if I do want a mid priced real upgradeable desktop tower. If Apple won't make one, and somebody else offers one that will run OS X, that lost sale is Apple fault, not the clone makers.

Apple; make a proper consumer tower and the clone makers will have no market, full stop.

If you read down through the comments in the article you will find a reply from a
salesperson at efi-x usa. In it he says they will still produce the machines on a
one-off request basis, but that the parent company had asked them to remove
the offer from their website and they complied. I don't think we have heard the
last of this yet.

hillstones wrote:
Wow, you are really clueless! Apple doesn't make a computer that fits the target market? Pull your head out of the sand! Apple has sold more Macs now more than ever in their history! People don't want a piece of shit cheap tower! They are selling iMacs and MacBooks like crazy. I think they found the market. Apple did a headless mini tower, it was called the Power Mac G4 and it was priced $1500 to $1800. It was very popular. Apple also made the Power Mac G4 Cube for $1799. You could upgrade the RAM, hard drive, video card, and optical drive...all the features that you claim you want in a headless Mac...Guess what? It was a failure! And it was at the price point that you claim is reasonable! If you want all the capability of swapping out parts, buy a Mac Pro, it is only $400 more than your $1800 price point.

No one is giving a look to the so-called clones because they are pieces of crap that no one would want in the first place. If you want a cheap computer, go back to using Windows on your cheap Dell or knock-off, because that is apparently what you want, a junk computer.

----
Response:

Wow, you really are an idiot. You probably masturbate to pictures of Steve Jobs. What an ignorant fanboy. I've been using Macs since the very first Mac in 1984, you moron. I've never owned a PC

The G4 wasn't a minitower, it was the previous generation of what is now the Mac Pro in the line up of the time. The cube was replaced by the mini in form. Think of how many more computers Apple could sell if they finally addressed the gigantic hole in their product line up. The price range I stated was $1500 to $1800, so we're talking about a difference of $500 to $800—if that isn't significant to you, then let me give you my address and you can send me that much in cash since you've deemed that amount of money meaningless, you won't miss it.

The computer I'm taking about is a mid-level machine aimed at pros—the iMac without the built-in monitor with innards accessible to the user. Why would one pay $2299 for huge, heavy, hobbled workstation? Why would one pay $500 dollars more for a 2.8 dual core tower than the iMac with the same processor and a monitor if there was something in between? Why would I pay more to get the specs I want without a monitor? That is truly stupid. No one said Apple should make a crappy computer. Do you consider the iMac crappy? All I'm saying is that Apple needs a machine with the same specs as the iMac without a built in monitor or the number of drive bays and mass of the Pro. There is no such beast in the Apple's lineup. I know you fanboys can't see this but the iMac is not a pro machine and the Tower is a top end workstation. It's a great workstation, but not every pro needs that much machine or wants that big a price tag. Pros users helped Apple become the company it is today. Apple is ignoring them in favor of consumers. Not that Apple shouldn't make a consumer machine, but they shouldn't ignore the true needs of Pros to do so. Apple offers pros the choice of a consumer model with no choice of monitor and limited access or a tricked out workstation but nothing in between. If you think the iMac and the MacPro fit every Pro's price range and needs than you're not too bright, fanboy. Jobs probably thinks a min-tower would take sales away from the Mac Pro and the iMac. It might for a few, but people who want an iMac will still buy an iMac and people who want a workstation class computer will still get the Mac Pro. Any sales of those machines lost to a headless minitower would still be sales to Apple. The number of people who don't want an all in-one (a computer merged with a monitor is not a good idea anyway) and those who don't want the price and size of a full-blown workstation would represent a large increase in sales. You, like Jobs, are the clueless one with head up a$$ if you can't see that Apple would sell a ton of mini-towers to Apple Pro users who don't need a workstation or a consumer machine aimed at sheep who are easily swayed by pretty shiny things and like to look at their own reflection while they use their computer. I bet Jobs holding a laser pen cat toy could keep himself and you entertained for hours getting you to chase a little red light on the wall

great post...

If Jobs doesn't know how to make a $500 computer that 'isn't a piece of junk' then he should look at the economic world in which he lives and shut his f**king mouth...... oh and find another job.

I'm in the UK and this PC at under $450...

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/edi...paq-pc-tv-deal

is sufficient for the vast majority of users.

Jobs needs to get real..and understand that the Mac's growing marketshare is down to MS' missteps not anything he's done great.

When MS improves...and they will then the momentum goes the other way. AT that point I'm sure Jobs will be more receptve to what the consumers want.

And at the same time he can be more socially and economically responsible.

Now wouldn't that make him happy\\?

Apple can make cheaper Macs, but they choose not to get into that market. However, many Mac fans are waiting for a mid-tower, many would be mac-switchers are also waiting for a mid-tower.


If you watched the last keynote, you'd realize that Apple does realize that its success was partially due to the unpopularity of Vista.


While I do agree with Jobs that the cheap PC industry is not the industry for Apple, he should also realize that Apple's computer product line has a large gaping hole in it, and the xMac serves as a good part of that hole. In my opinion a Duo-Dock like device is another piece of the hole.

I don't own a Mac, and never will with the current lineup. I don't want an underpowered machine (Mac mini), I don't want to be stuck with the same monitor (iMac) and the Mac Pro is way too expensive and overpowered for my use. I'm the perfect example of a lost sale, and my only option to use OSX would be via the 'hackingtosh' method. So they've lost a hardware and software sale to me because they won't provide the product I want, even though I would quite like to buy it

if your major concern is really about OSX having serial numbers then i will scoff... \

Apple is the KING of product activation
just look at all their programs (Apperture, Logic, Final Cut, etc...)
and then take a long hard look at their telephone (whooo that's a good example of smooth & rapid prod activation right there)

yes a product activation stage which takes what, 30 seconds max is truly worrying
especially when (if the apple experience continues to be true) it only needs to be entered once in a computer's lifetime

consider my scoffing starting.... now

The iMac is a mid-range computer you clowns.

Most of my peers in the 'creative/design' industry are moving to iMac's.

Sure my Mac Pro is hot, but it's overkill for 95% of what I do. Design, print, web, video.
I won't use any of the empty slots. I don't need a raid array. I'm not working on an Earth simulation.

Apple left the display in their mid-range computer because it was perfect timing for them to make money off the CRT to LCD transition. Besides, they couldn't compete in the display market. 4 years between a refresh anyone?

Besides, there are tones of mid-range Apple tower solutions out there in the $1000 - $1600 range... just go to craigslist or eBay.

there are others as SJ said, other probable big name players, seems it's a conspiracy to violate the law....why isn't RICO used, and take all the assets that allow this???
i guess there will always someone out there that will try to get apple on the cheap, it does put pressure on apple to lower price, but also puts more emphasis on the iphone as portable computer system, now how does syncing iphone play with these hackintoshs??? that's why gaming went to the standalone system, to reduce piracy. they do the same thing, except they call it a xbox, can another company make parts for consumers to create there own xbox, i don't think so, also the os is different, but same concept.
apple can make the ecosystem they have developed to not work with these hacks.
i feel that is one of the strengths of apple's ecosystem dependent approach.

so you have a hack, it will look like a hack, then other products of apple's won't play
so your iphone, mobleme, sync, ipod, and any other apple product....you will be in a desert.

maybe that's why they bought the chip company, they will put their own designs in the apple products

The iMac is designed for the consumer market, period. The first Mac was an all in one and (speculation on my part of course since I don't know Steve personally) Steve loves that form and wants it to always be in the product lineup. When he came back to Apple he brought back the design and it helped turn Apple's sales which were suffering. I believe the real thing that turned them around was simplifying their product lineup. At the time, Apple had gone hog wild in targeting the consumer market with too many configurations and experimented with selling machines in Sears. They had too many models with confusing names. Rather than having a machine aimed at reasonable demarkations of market segments (entry, mid, high-end) that could be configured with different memory and a few options of processor speeds with in each range, Apple had a different machine and name for different configurations but they were all far too similar. They had the Performa and Proforma lines (I think those were the names, but I could be remembering that wrong) each of those had several similar machines with number and letter names. The result was a confused customer base and stores like Sears stuck with a large inventory of machines, which in turn eventually ended up with Apple also stuck with a large inventory of machines that was difficult to manage and Apple suffered. When jobs came back, Apple simplified their lineup greatly and the iMac was how they did it. However, they went too far in trying to have the iMac pull double duty as the consumer model and the low-end Pro machine. It doesn't fit that role. It increased sales to consumers, but it is costing them sales to Pros and costing the number of switchers they could get. Apple, like many here, think that increased sales to consumers is evidence of how successful that approach has been instead of looking at the big picture and seeing how much more sales they could get if they added a true mid-level machine designed for pros.

The iMac was just the update to the original Mac and consumers see it as a convenience to buy one thing. The original iMac had a built in CRT, the switch to LCDs had nothing to do with the reasoning for an all in one. Many creative design people use iMacs because they don't have any other option. The difference in cost between the Pro tower and the iMac is huge when you multiply it by the number of computers in a department or if you are a self-employed freelancer to whom every penny matters. I've read posts about design departments that went the iMac route. One poster elsewhere said their design department loved the iMac when they first got them. A few months later the whole department grew to hate the reflective screen and really regretted the investment in all the iMacs and the head of the department decided the next time around, if the iMac was the only Apple computer at the price level that fit their department's budget, they will switch to PCs.

If you're saying that the solution for people who want a mid-level machine but not the iMac is to buy a used tower, that is a piss-poor solution. It may work for some, but I am not about to pay a grand and a half for a used computer from some stranger I don't know and don't know what kind of hell that machine has gone through. That solution just reiterates the fact that Apple is completely ignoring a large chunk of their customer base and losing sales buy not adressing that segment of the market.

EFi-X USA is not selling Mac Clones with the EFIX USB dongle installed as of their news release on 12/12/08. The original post that started this thread should be updated to reflect this information.

Nods*. 2009 brings fresh hope, I guess?

As for the 'Clones'. They're infringing Apple's copyright and enabling users to break that copyright. It's a matter of time before they are brought to the sword. Court cases take ages.

I don't agree with everything in Apple's line up in as much as some things are missing eg mid-tower. But these parasites have contributed nothing to Apple's OS development or market and are out for a fast buck. Apple isn't the same as M$. They're different. You buy the whole widget and that's part of the agreement...or sod off and get a m$ product. I'm surprised Apple hasn't issues cease and desist letters or can't enforce them to stop. I guess that's what the court is for. I hope it gets sorted soon.

However, it's good 'bad' press in a way. Get's people talking Apple.

Apple have had the best 'free' press in the industry for the last ten years now...

Lemon Bon Bon.

I love MacOS X. Windows and Linux can't touch it. Heck, they try to mimic it to no avail.
But Apple the computer? Whatever.
$700 Canadian gets me a low end MacMini with NO DVD burner and a bare minimum of a computer.
You need about $1300 for a decent Mac.
On the other hand, $500 can buy me a refurbished PC with a couple GBs of RAM, decent memory, DVD Lightscribe burner and a lot of goodies. I'd sacrifice my beloved MacOS X but I'd get a lot of bang for my buck.
If Apple wants to stop the clones, make a consumer friendly computer.
C'mon, a decent $500 Canadian iMac with DVD burner can't be that hard.
As for quality. I'm happy in a Chevy instead of a Mercedes. A lot of people are. If Apple takes that attitude with its computers, the clones will die down.
My nickel,
Frank D.

The imac hardware is ok the lack of mate screen is not.

I'm not sure if you would have ever bought an Apple product and, if you did, whether you'd enjoy it. This highlights a major current dilemma for Apple. They've made a few changes to align their products so Windows users can see the benefits and switch but what are the real consequences of switchers and do Apple want the custom from certain areas of the market?

This is a case in point; even though the poster admits to not/never having OSX and therefore doesn't really understand what it and it's software will do with those hardware resources they still believe they should have the right to configure/re-configure their systems. Given back-to-base upgrades are still feasible once you know what you're talking about the argument for a hackintosh is pretty weak.

One way of Apple ensuring a high degree of user satisfaction is to have a product range which doesn't entice those who are too far gone i.e. those who've been conditioned to believe they are capable of making certain decisions that they probably will never be able to.

Batting off criticisms from non (& never-will-be)-believers is one thing but when it comes from the ranks of it's own customer base and marketshare is on the line it becomes dangerous and could force Apple to compromise on values which are key to it's point of difference.

McD

I agree with you for the most part, but the obvious issue here is, Apple wants you to pay a premium if are going to modify their machine. If they would have had a headless expandable mac or a low end MacPro available, I would have bought cheap and upgraded on my own terms. That is the last thing Apple wants.

I have no doubt everybody or nearly everybody on this website could assemble a mac with a butter knife, but when you start getting people (like my parents) trying to jam the wrong type of hard drive into a machine or the wrong kind of ram, incompatible video cards, etc., it jams up their tech support lines. This is why it's such a pain in the ass to swap the ram in a mac mini.

You create an all in one solution for the majority (not the hobbyists), the quantity of phone calls to tech support go down.

I don't think Apple is afraid of a dull tower, they just don't want unqualified people tinkering with their computers because any problems created by said tinkering will come back to bite Apple in the rear.