Another Mac clone maker tries its luck with Apple - Page 2

Strangely enough, the "get it" link from quocomputer.com is a mailto to rush@izdigital.com.
The home page at www.izdigital.com is a directory containing only a file named geforce.html wich will redirect you to an ebay page ... ???

i hope mr. de silva has not taken out a very long lease on his shop space.

A great answer - make your mum proud?

I am a Mac user but I have long fallen out of love with Apple.

An amazing argument.

Even if Apple's share of the "high end market" is 70%+ it is still a fraction of the overall market. Without unbundling it is unlikley to ever be better.

Apple needs to add some custom parts to their hardware, that will put a stop to this.

It's quite comical how these little companies that emerge feel as if they can just pick up Mac OS X and just build a computer, install it on there on just go about there damn business knowing the haven't even discussed what the are doing with Apple and thinking they won't take legal action because they are "expanding their marketshare"? Is this guy drunk or something. I mean, it sounds like he really believes that he is doing Apple a favor! Far out little man...Far out...

Well, at least they admit it, not like some companies. Are you listening BING??

YAY!!! Im happy

Ha that wouldnt change a thing software hacks easily make their way around any hardware issues

I'm no lawyer, but a monopoly is more than just marketshare, it's a company uses unfair and/or predatory practices to gain and maintain dominance and ABUSES the power of dominance.
Microsoft is an example of ALL of it.

There's a long history (and list) of companies damaged or put out of business by Microsoft's policies.

The 1990's DoJ antitrust case against Microsoft was converted into a slap on the hand by Bush administration cronies.

Right. A monopoly itself isn't a problem. It's abuses of that monopoly that is the problem.

It depends, if the OS evolves around parallel processors and custom controllers, then you would have to make a motherboard that corresponds to that.

Little flourishes like still being in business next year, for one thing.

Well It's certainly conceivable that Apple could grab a few more percentage points, but certainly nothing approaching 10-15% more than their greatest share over the last 3 years. I don;t see Apple, with their current business model, going north of 20% US. Not even 15%, assuming Apple's highest was 10% US over the last three years. Not while MS is in the picture. But Apple doesn't need to. Just a couple of percent more means an absolute galaxy of profit for Apple (there are already 35-40 million Mac users.) And this is a good thing for Apple, and an argument can be made that this is a good thing for the consumer, too. You've got a Premium-positioned brand in a #2 spot that is just as conspicuous as MS, but branded far more effectively, commanding greater desirability and far greater product loyalty, and dealing successfully in margins.

It's a brilliant game Apple has going on. It's a careful balance between exposure and dilution of the brand name. Accessible but not too common. And this brings with it the aura of exclusivity, specialness, desirability. And for the most part Apple delivers on this.

I certainly agree that if Apple untethers OS X from Apple hardware, you'd probably see greater market share for a time. Until OS X becomes a Windows clone. Apple giving away their core business like that will not only irreparably hurt Mac sales, but will also kill most of what differentiates OS X from everything else out there. There's a difference between having these little Psystars and Quos out there, and licensing out OS X to everyone and their dog. Eventually it will become a Windows-like experience. You can't prevent that in a Windows-like open system that uses a horizontal model, wherein you're dependent on the hardware manufacturers delivering a good chunk of the user experience on all kinds of hardware in a sea of different configurations and drivers. OS X desirability will tank. Just another OS with the same issues as the other ones. And Apple can say goodbye to nearly 50% of their revenue. The whole point of OS X, indeed the entire user experience from unboxing to years of enjoyable use, depends on OS X being tied to Apple hardware. Apple controls the experience, delivering a specific, exact level of user experience to everyone, across the board. Provided this user-experience is a good one - and clearly it is - there's no way Apple can go wrong with this. And by the looks of it they've been doing very well by it for years.

Another reason to continue along the same road (among others every year):

http://www.macdailynews.com/index.ph..._for_2nd_year/

Prior to the election, it was widely being reported that, no matter who won the election, the antitrust case was going to lose its teeth. The people who were shocked at the outcome are the same people who have a tantrum right after a Stevenote, stamping their feet, saying "But I'd heard the new laptop was gonna use OLED and cost $300! What a rip-off!" Improper reality checking leads to much bitterness.

Whether you're right or not, I think that's clearly the belief at Apple. And it may well be correct. A part of me would like to believe that it's possible to create a computer OS that would run nicely and enjoyably, without having to control the entire widget. Because you're right, I think Apple's marketshare has an innate cap on it (I hope it's north of 20%, because it was, once, but who's to know).

Not that you're trying to make it so simple, but I'll go ahead and beat this dead horse again: clearly, part of the problem at Microsoft isn't simply the "we don't own the whole widget" thing. Even when they do own the whole widget (Zune), they don't produce best-of-breed products. They simply lack vision and originality. If they've got some originality, they're not letting it peek out the doors.

If and when there's an address for Quo, I think I'll take a ride over there and see what's what. Could be interesting.

Not to be too tedious about this, but monopoly isn't a very useful term in this context, since it has multiple definitions none of which really apply to antitrust law. The antitrust laws are designed to prevent abuses of market power. A subtle but important difference.


Now there's a completely fact-free assertion. Quite to the contrary, it was clear before the election that if Bush won that his Antitrust Division of the DOJ would get out of Microsoft's way. He as much as said so during the campaign. He was true to his word -- shortly after he took office, the government offered up a toothless settlement, which Microsoft gratefully accepted.

My guess is that it is short for "Quid pro quo", a latin term loosely meaning something for something of equal value. If true it would be something of an inside joke to the backers and owners of Quo.

Either way, the timing is ridiculously suspicious.

Ah, point taken.

How do you know what Apple's average consumer is asking for, please cite your or anybody else's study. Where have you shown that Psystar didn't sell any, please cite numbers. Could be that Psystar did not sell major numbers because of the extra trouble involved in dealing with its set-up - this has no relation to what quantities Apple might sell - this is an illogical argument.


Again cite numbers, how do you know that only tech enthusiasts frequent these sites, I'm not, I'm here, how many others, I don't know, neither do you. No, Apple wouldn't be selling one otherwise, a very solid case may be made that Apple, aka Steve Jobs, has a position that consumer computers should be like appliances and is diametrically opposed to a consumer desktop tower in any configuration.


Yes, Mac laptops have been selling extraordinarily well, desktops not so much. Who said ,"people were expecting to customize this fabled headless mid-range Mac desktop for next to nothing". You did. Most people aren't, haven't and continue to hope Apple would make an upper end consumer to low end pro computer. Another false argument.


Yes, except repeatedly Apple executives have stated their desire to increase market share in quarterly conference calls. Apple was in laptops, until the net book craze.


Yes, Apple caters to the premium end of the consumer market, but only those who will accept an AIO computer. How's that going on the Windows side? Seems to me not very well, take a stroll down the aisles in Best Buy or Fry's.


Almost no one is advocating Apple introduce " junk-box ", another false argument.


See above.


I need to see the sales of high end, > $799, desktop computers here broken down to believe Apple has 70% of this market.

What more proof does anyone need that this is a lone dilettante looking for publicity rather than a real business. I predict he won't even open his doors or if he does it will be for all of a few hours.

None of this is good for Apple. None of this is good for Apple's consumers or consumers in general.

There is one quick and easy way for Apple to eliminate all these troubles forever and that's to tie OS-X as an upgrade to specific machines and machine ID's. It's likely they will start moves in this direction with Snow Leopard in that we can expect to see more prominent wording on the package so as to get around the "German exception," as well as wording that labels OS-X more definitively as an upgrade for Apple branded machines only. Actually tying it to the specific machine comes right after that although it's so onerous they may hold off on that for a while.

Welcome to Apple's new world of Microsoft-esque product identification and verification. All because of a few lazy a-holes with more greed than common sense, and less brains than they have morals.

With Snow Leopard, these fake Mac makers are going to be exposed as offering seriously non-competitive performance. SL is hugely optimized for both multi processor *AND* GPU offload via implementing GPGPU OpenCL v1.0, which means that the upcoming retail shrink wrap OS X 10.6 is going to offer 'some' performance bump on generic Intel platforms, but massive bumps on the OEM loads installed on new Macs... ones factory tweaked for total system optimization. The performance difference of an Apple-built product shipped with OS 10.6 and some nominally hardware-equivalent third-party white box on which a retail OS 10.6 load has been installed will be palpable.

I don't doubt that one of the key justifications for the entire strategic direction of Snow Leopard was this very issue: clearly differentiating genuine Apple computers from hackintosh computers. With OS 10.6 the entire discussion of a so-called "Apple tax" will skid sideways, as it will become glaringly evident just what those few extra dollars buy for customers.

Brilliant move for Apple. Bad news for cheesy outfits like Quo and the others.

I'm a recently returned user to the Mac-fold. I built myself a "hackintosh" on some Shuttle hardware (small form factor) and LOVED it. Plenty of power, expandability, etc for my needs but in a nice small box. It was working beautifully until 10.5.7 killed it and rather than try to fix it I went out and bought a refurb 2008 Mac Pro.

Let me be clear about one thing: I did NOT want a Mac Pro sized box. I WANTED a headless but powerful machine, which is not offered by Apple except in the Mac Pro. If Apple had offered a box that's half the size of a Mac Pro (Shuttle sized) I'd have happily bought one brand new and never attempted the hackintosh project. Why did I want a small, powerful, headless machine? Because I have two 24" monitors from a 3rd party that I wanted to continue to use and I didn't want to have this monstrous Mac Pro on my desk. But if I wanted the Apple experience they forced me to buy something that was more than I wanted. People resent that sort of thing and many do not do what I did: suck it up and suffer the size and cost of the big box.

There is definitely a market out there for a mid-sized headless Mac - I know because I was one of them.

Just how powerful and expandable do you want this "small, powerful, headless mid-sized Mac" to be in relation to the Mac Pro?

The closer you get to the Mac Pro with this machine in terms of performance and expandability, the more you'll threaten Mac Pro sales. Unless of course, you don't think the Mac Pro should exist, or you think it should exist in a far more powerful form to more clearly differentiate it from the machine you want, price-wise (thus driving the Mac Pro's price even higher. Ouch!)

In fact, a small-form, reasonably powerful headless Mac . . . is a Macbook Pro, 15-inch or 17-inch. You can attach it to a nice, large display. Not sure about a second display, though. Plus you've got the advantage of portability. It can function either as a desktop or as a notebook. And it certainly isn't as expensive as a Mac Pro.

Apparently, hardly anyone is buying desktops anymore. Across the entire industry, notebook sales are far outpacing desktop sales. Why should Apple introduce another desktop into this market, and to address only a minority of this market to boot? They'll end up losing money on it.

Actually, the iPhone and iPod Touch run OS X - so by that data it's already over 10%.

Wrong.

http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/


Not only does Mac OS X not ship with a TPM driver; most Intel Macs (except for those from early 2006) do not even have a TPM chip.

I followed the links, yes indeed. Too funny. I laughed until I stopped.

According to CNET News (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10...47-1040_3-0-10), the site is "still being worked on." It looks slick. But for a June 1 opening, you'd think they'd have more than just a pretty home page with an email link that points to some "izdigital" domain.

Sigh. I tire of this kind of silliness. Surely, there is much more money to be made dealing in straight-up PC hardware on eBay, no? The investment of time and effort to create fake Macs, even if there's little overhead, just doesn't strike me as a profitable endeavor... ever. Apart from sheer deception toward walk-in customers, how would they convince anyone that they offer a superior product? That's like the kid at Radio Shack telling me that some Samsung phone "is better than the iPhone" because it has a removable battery. Of course.

Yes and that's about the usual amount of market research that all you xMac guys do.

I am sure this is Apple's emotional state, but that is a far cry from a legal justification. Apple SELLS their IP so that it can be in the "hands" of someone else... I don't see what relevance their opinions possess after the sale of the license has taken place.

The regulation of how Intellectual Property can be used is at the very heart of the whole concept of Intellectual Property law. IP is different from other kinds of property. You cant simply do wahtever the hell you want with it.

What I dont understand is the idea that Apple may just follow in the same line as others as being a monopoly. Why? Does Apple have no right to make their own hardware and tie it to their own software. Doesnt microdoft and sony do this with their game machines? technically also computers and have sold nearly 25 million each in 4 years.

Apple must make me happy, right this minute, or they're making a big mistake.

How's that for market research?

LOL, well put.

Let me try . . .

"I want this. So everyone else must want it too."

the argument that 'apple is a monopoly' is not valid to begin with. there are other computers to choose from if you don't want to play by apple's rules - they just don't run osx. just like with your console analogy - you don't have to buy an xbox, a wii also plays games, just not the same ones.

as others have mentioned, monopolies are not illegal and microsoft did not come under DOJ scrutiny for being one (which they aren't either). microsoft got in trouble for abusing its monopolistic position in the computer market by illegally crippling their competitors in certain fields (like keeping netscape's browser off machines by putting pressure on manufacturers).

that is illegal.

i want a pony!

I don't think Apple has the right to interfere with other businesses owned by Americans, just for emotional reasons. Apple is the aggressor here. It is they who are depriving other people of their rights, IMO. Anyway, the courts will decide. Would I feel comfortable running a paid copy of Mac OS X as I please, sure I would feel totally comfortable doing that. It's like playing a Sony Pictures DVD on a Panasonic DVD player. If Sony doesn't like it, they always have an open invitation to suck it, forever.

Well, they can make their own psystar-OS if they please lol.

LOL, it's not emotional. It's Apple's rights under IP law. The same rights that others have regarding their own Intellectual Property.

ugh... here we go again: apple is dooooomed!

as a company, apple is in this game to make money. it seems they do, and there are even indications that they do it better than others right now (dell?)

customer satisfaction for apple's computers seems fairly high, so i'm doubtful of your 'decline in quality' argument. was quality higher back when macs where much more expensive than commodity wintel boxes? if so, i wonder if there is a correlation.

nobody's 'making you pay'. you have a choice to embrace alternatives in several other operating systems.