This Miami company is going to need pockets as deep as the Mariana Trench if they think they will EVER bring one machine to market running OS X. If anyone truly believes that purchasing a copy of Leopard (with its "onerous" EULA) gives him the right to do with it whatever he pleases, let him run, not walk, to the nearest coterie of attorneys specializing in copyright law. I realize that most of the posters on this site and others like it want (demand?) a cost + 1% tower from Apple with a 10 year full-replacement warranty, free OS software upgrades for life, open-srouce productivity suites, and the like . . . but it just ain't gonna happen.
bsenka, buying something you absolutely loathe is the mark of an unsettled mind. PC makers can--and should--provide you with all that you need and more. Why not support DELL, GATEWAY, HP, ACER, ALIENWARE, et al., and be happy about it, rather than sleeping with what has very clearly become your enemy?
Apple and its products are truly not for you; but then again, neither is a Lexus or a Benz. PC/XP is more your style. Enjoy the savings, live long, and prosper.
Very much agree. For whatever reason, individuals have a false-sense of entitlement of wanting anything of value for next to nothing. They can complain about OSX being too expensive a price-point for entry. Well you know what? Too bad! A lot of things out there in the world are too expensive for me. If I can't afford it, I don't buy it.
Apple machines work well because everything is designed to work well together. OSX in the wild would have the same problems as the windows environment. Unstable software components wreaking havoc and ruining the user-experience. Apple does not want to be in the business of supporting someone elses' hardware. If a regular user buys this guy's OSX-Clone to save a few bucks and it doesn't work right, they are going to blame Apple. But there are users out there that display a "screw-you" attitude.
This manufacturer will most likely get a major licking from Apple's legal department and be thrown out of business.
I will be buying my first Apple computer sometime this year. There is no way I would ever consider buying some chop-shop PC with a hacked OSX just to save a few bucks. And to refuse to deny Apple revenue for their machines simply because of your twisted sense to "Stick it to Jobs" or Apple-is-evil mentality just makes no sense.
Why is Apple being teated different than any other closed-system company? If you can break a product (i.e. Toaster, PC, whatever) and get it to work for you, more power to you. If you do it illegally and expect it to work exactly the way the manufacturer of said product designed it, then you only have your own ignorance to blame for it.
You got that right .
Anyway, what would you feel if Apple offer a mid range desktop computer that is not upgradeable? Would you still want it? Its obvious that Apple will never release a fully upgradeable computer cause they must then invest in hardwares support. Apple could sell Leopard OS without having packages like MSoft because they sell both Hardware and Software. Would you want Apple to bundle features like Vista? Maybe OS X Leopard Home Premium, Leopard Business, Leopard Ultimate? I sure dont.
Anyway from my opinion, this method of making people buy their product while in truth you can do exactly the same thing on your own 3 years old PC is bad. the Hackintosh community never sell their solution for running OS X on normal PC, all the .kext are offered free and what Psystar is doing is bad. There are actually a pretty detailed guide for installing Hackintosh and there are great support for your problems in the forum.
I have read the person statement in the website some poster give but from my opinion its just a poor excuse, its clearly they want to make money from giving false advertising because any PC regardless its a Dell XPS, HP, Acer or whatever can run Mac OS X in their PC. Psystar is just cheating the public to make easy money.
What would you feel if something you offered for free and someone took it and named it theirs?.
That may be true, however, one company cannot distribute another companies product without its permission. Amongst other legal theories, that is a blatant violation of Trademark law. Consequently, this company could never legally distribute OSX without Apple's permission.
Arguably, the company could sell a Mac capable clone under a Fair-use theory. I, however, think that is sketchy at best. A key component to any Fair-use argument is not interfering with the copyright holder's key market. Here, Apple's product is being reversed engineered to interfere with Apple's market.
This company will not stay in business very long. If Apple's letters don't scare the company, I suspect Apple will be in court before the end of the month.
Tha
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass
The End-User license agreement is just that - an agreement with the "End User", not the manufacturer or necessarily the installer. The only person who can violate is whoever buys it. Apple would have to take the company to court to get lists of purchasers, and then sue the individual users, which would be difficult and time consuming.
Does anyone know of any instances of a company actually suing for breach of EULA? I know that all of the recent piracy lawsuits have involved copyright law exclusively and not breach of EULA...
This company will not stay in business very long. If Apple's letters don't scare the company, I suspect Apple will be in court before the end of the month.
My previous link indicates that they are taking Apple to court over antitrust violations with the EULA.
Why? iMac sales were a huge contributor to the product mix last quarter and appear to be strong again this quarter.
The logical error in the thinking behind your post and piot's is that it assumes Apple wouldn't have done as well or better without the iMac. We have no way of knowing that so pointing to Apple's sales and saying that sticking with the all-in-one iMac design was a winning approach is kind of meaningless.
The fact that Psystar put themselves on the map overnight by offering a Mac mid-range tower speaks volumes, as far as I'm concerned. Who heard of these guys two days ago?
There is an important distinction to be made here. I think an end user can legally buy a copy of OSX and install it on a PC. That is non commercial use, and just because an end user license prohibits such use, it doesn't mean the restriction is legally enforceable. Companies can put anything they want in an end user agreement. This doesn't mean a court will enforce it. Fair use would allow a user to modify the OS to use on another product provided the use isn't commerical in nature.
However, a company cannot benefit commercially from hacking Apple's copyrighted software. The end user license has nothing to do with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinitaBoy
This Miami company is going to need pockets as deep as the Mariana Trench if they think they will EVER bring one machine to market running OS X. If anyone truly believes that purchasing a copy of Leopard (with its "onerous" EULA) gives him the right to do with it whatever he pleases, let him run, not walk, to the nearest coterie of attorneys specializing in copyright law. I realize that most of the posters on this site and others like it want (demand?) a cost + 1% tower from Apple with a 10 year full-replacement warranty, free OS software upgrades for life, open-srouce productivity suites, and the like . . . but it just ain't gonna happen.
bsenka, buying something you absolutely loathe is the mark of an unsettled mind. PC makers can--and should--provide you with all that you need and more. Why not support DELL, GATEWAY, HP, ACER, ALIENWARE, et al., and be happy about it, rather than sleeping with what has very clearly become your enemy?
Apple and its products are truly not for you; but then again, neither is a Lexus or a Benz. PC/XP is more your style. Enjoy the savings, live long, and prosper.
Anyway, what would you feel if Apple offer a mid range desktop computer that is not upgradeable? Would you still want it?
I would, if it were reasonably priced. My concern isn't the ability to upgrade, but rather the ability to avoid buying the iMac's demonstrably lousy display (to which Apple offers no build-to-order alternatives) as well as not wasting my money on that box of leftovers from 2006 called the Mac Mini. Repackage the iMac's components in a headless tower for $1000 and I'm there.
What you and others appear to miss is the fact that there are *many* reasons people want a mid-range tower, not just one.
The problem with this line of thought is it forgets Apple writes software to sell hardware. It is a hardware company first. All it's software initiative are designed to sell hardware, including iTunes. For the most part, Microsoft writes software to sell software. If a company allows Leopard to run on generic boxes, it is undermining Apple's core business of selling hardware. It legally cannot do that.
Just because people have a need for something, doesn't mean the company who owns the rights to the property you want to utilize in another way has the obligation to provide what you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco
The main point of your little speech seems to be that people who purchase this clone will expect Apple to support it. Even though no one on this thread -- or on any of the other boards I've read today on the subject-- has stated this expectation. I think it's a fair to make the assumption that anyone who would purchase a clone would be aware that they can't turn to Apple for support.,
Your secondary point is that people who would choose to purchase a clone would be doing so out of spite (or because they're cheap), rather than to fill their need for a mid-range, expandable desktop. Again, you seem to be addressing comments/people that don't exist.
In short, you talk a lot for someone who "will be buying my first Apple computer sometime this year".
I personally know three people IRL who were interested in buying Macs but went back to a Windows PC when they found out that the most affordable tower was not really affordable at all and didn't even come with a display. The iMac filled a need in its day, but it's time for Apple to let the all-in-one concept die.
I agree, but the iMac does have a beautiful display (aimed towards you other post) so hopefully Apple will make some new (cheaper) cinema displays (20", 24", 30", 36") with high-quality iSight camera and mic, with an optional matte or glossy display.
If they made a $400 mid-range tower (just like the OpenMac -- now know as Open Computer -- or even better then the OpenMac) with a great design (not super mini-ized and filled with laptop parts - with the aluminum case), I would buy one IMMEDIATELY. Not only that, it would be my first Mac.
Too bad Apple isn't a monopoly and these people are idiots. IANAL of course but they are still idiots.
Apple could certainly be considered a monopoly.
"A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service"
By any definition, Apple has a monopoly within the Macintosh market. Meaning, they have 100% control over the hardware and software. Are they a monopoly within the over all PC market? No, but then MS is not considered a monopoly with the entire computer industtry is you broaden the definition of the market enough. MS considered a monopoly in the computer market if you narrow it down to just PC's. Apple is a monopoly position within the Macintosh ecosystem/market.
This has been a good thing for end users, in many respects. Tight integration is a result of their absolute control. Are they an illegal monopoly? Probably not. But, enforcing their monopoly position through their EULA could certainly bring anti-trust interest. Banning installation of their software on a competitor's systems is certainly, only done to protect their monopoly position on their hardware.
That may be true, however, one company cannot distribute another companies product without its permission. Amongst other legal theories, that is a blatant violation of Trademark law. Consequently, this company could never legally distribute OSX without Apple's permission.
If that were true, eBay wouldn't be nearly as good as it is, now, would it?
"A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service"
By any definition, Apple has a monopoly within the Macintosh market.
That's like saying Honda has a monopoly on Accords.
Quote:
Are they a monopoly within the over all PC market? No, but then MS is not considered a monopoly with the entire computer industtry is you broaden the definition of the market enough.
Yes, it's called a market segment of which the Macintosh belongs...and Windows still holds what? 90+% share?
Quote:
This has been a good thing for end users, in many respects. Tight integration is a result of their absolute control. Are they an illegal monopoly? Probably not. But, enforcing their monopoly position through their EULA could certainly bring anti-trust interest. Banning installation of their software on a competitor's systems is certainly, only done to protect their monopoly position on their hardware.
The only place Apple needs to worry about a monopoly position is iTunes and iPods.
Even Microsoft is allowed to restrict the use of Windows in certain ways. For example, the restriction on using the Vista Home on VMs until they finally changed thier minds. Probably because Vista isn't selling well anyways and letting folks run it on a Mac if they wanted was better than nothing.
But clearly it was to restrict running Vista Home from inside competitor OS's (Linux and OSX) hosting VMs.
Where do you get the idea that I, as a consumer, must support Apple? If they don't have a product I want, then maybe a competitor should be allowed to step in to provide it.
The OpenMac looks pretty damn good to me. Then again, I think the iMac and its Las Vegas glossy display sucks and the Mini is a freakin' overpriced box of circa-2006 leftovers. I've been using Macs for 15+ years and Apple, for the first time since I've been using Macs, has nothing that fits my needs and budget. And Apple apparently cannot hear the numerous calls from both consumers and high profile tech commentators for them to release a mid-range tower.
Somewhere along the way, it appears that Apple lost their passion for making decent computers and are too infatuated with selling music and making cell phones. Look at the buyer's guide on MacRumors and explain why Apple is taking almost a year between updates on the iMac and the Mac Mini now? It wasn't like that three years ago. We could count on regular price drops or spec bumps every 4-5 months. But now Apple is showing a surprising lack of interest in their consumer machines.
So you think I should support Apple? How about if Apple gets with the program and gets out of this 1998 all-in-one mentality and start making the products that people really want?
If you don't like what Apple has to offer, then go somewhere else. No other OSX options? Well, that is just too bad! Apple has every right to safeguard their systems to prevent chop-shops like these guys from diluting and tarnishing OSX. Apple having complete control over hardware and software is why they work so well. What part of that equation do you not understand? You are in such a ridiculously low minority of people who think that the iMac hardware is inferior. You're just more vocal. They may not use the most current components out there but they definitely work more in harmony with the OS than Windows. Stick with Windows or Linux. It's obvious that OSX is not for you. If Apple does not come out with a low-end Mac Pro, then they don't. Move on with your life.
If you don't like what Apple has to offer, then go somewhere else. No other OSX options? Well, that is just too bad! Apple has every right to safeguard their systems to prevent chop-shops like these guys from diluting and tarnishing OSX. Apple having complete control over hardware and software is why they work so well. What part of that equation do you not understand? You are in such a ridiculously low minority of people who think that the iMac hardware is inferior. You're just more vocal. They may not use the most current components out there but they definitely work more in harmony with the OS than Windows. Stick with Windows or Linux. It's obvious that OSX is not for you. If Apple does not come out with a low-end Mac Pro, then they don't. Move on with your life.
I'm sorry, did you get lost on your way to the MacRumors forums?
The main point of your little speech seems to be that people who purchase this clone will expect Apple to support it. Even though no one on this thread -- or on any of the other boards I've read today on the subject-- has stated this expectation. I think it's a fair to make the assumption that anyone who would purchase a clone would be aware that they can't turn to Apple for support.,
Your secondary point is that people who would choose to purchase a clone would be doing so out of spite (or because they're cheap), rather than to fill their need for a mid-range, expandable desktop. Again, you seem to be addressing comments/people that don't exist.
In short, you talk a lot for someone who "will be buying my first Apple computer sometime this year".
Yes, I will buy my own personal Apple "sometime this year". It's not just talk since I work in corporate environment administering both PC's and Macs. My corporate workstation is a Mac Pro. Mac's are slowly replacing our windows machines because we have pretty much had it with the instabilities of Windows. Apple's OSX has been hugely successful for our users and requires virtually no assistance from us outside of very small training issues when coming from a Windows environment. VMWare Fusion and Windows XP works quite well when we need those specific apps that are only available for Windows. The integration between hardware and software was a huge selling point for us and management. We don't care that they don't use the most absolute-current technology because Apple makes certain (and certifies) that all the components will work as advertised. That is what makes Apple so good. Crapware companies trying to hitch a ride on Apple's success by producing a lousy product deserves the legal kicking they are going to receive.
I haven't purchased my own personal Mac yet only because I'm waiting for the June announcement. My old home computer is finally showing its age and after using Macs for many years at work, I'm a true believer in their machines.
Comments
This manufacturer will most likely get a major licking from Apple's legal department and be thrown out of business.
The thing is, Apple does not even have to win in court. Their pockets are so much
deeper than this little company that they can probably force bankruptcy by just
dragging things out for a while.
The iMac filled a need in its day, but it's time for Apple to let the all-in-one concept die.
Why? iMac sales were a huge contributor to the product mix last quarter and appear to be strong again this quarter.
bsenka, buying something you absolutely loathe is the mark of an unsettled mind. PC makers can--and should--provide you with all that you need and more. Why not support DELL, GATEWAY, HP, ACER, ALIENWARE, et al., and be happy about it, rather than sleeping with what has very clearly become your enemy?
Apple and its products are truly not for you; but then again, neither is a Lexus or a Benz. PC/XP is more your style. Enjoy the savings, live long, and prosper.
Very much agree. For whatever reason, individuals have a false-sense of entitlement of wanting anything of value for next to nothing. They can complain about OSX being too expensive a price-point for entry. Well you know what? Too bad! A lot of things out there in the world are too expensive for me. If I can't afford it, I don't buy it.
Apple machines work well because everything is designed to work well together. OSX in the wild would have the same problems as the windows environment. Unstable software components wreaking havoc and ruining the user-experience. Apple does not want to be in the business of supporting someone elses' hardware. If a regular user buys this guy's OSX-Clone to save a few bucks and it doesn't work right, they are going to blame Apple. But there are users out there that display a "screw-you" attitude.
This manufacturer will most likely get a major licking from Apple's legal department and be thrown out of business.
I will be buying my first Apple computer sometime this year. There is no way I would ever consider buying some chop-shop PC with a hacked OSX just to save a few bucks. And to refuse to deny Apple revenue for their machines simply because of your twisted sense to "Stick it to Jobs" or Apple-is-evil mentality just makes no sense.
Why is Apple being teated different than any other closed-system company? If you can break a product (i.e. Toaster, PC, whatever) and get it to work for you, more power to you. If you do it illegally and expect it to work exactly the way the manufacturer of said product designed it, then you only have your own ignorance to blame for it.
You got that right
Anyway, what would you feel if Apple offer a mid range desktop computer that is not upgradeable? Would you still want it? Its obvious that Apple will never release a fully upgradeable computer cause they must then invest in hardwares support. Apple could sell Leopard OS without having packages like MSoft because they sell both Hardware and Software. Would you want Apple to bundle features like Vista? Maybe OS X Leopard Home Premium, Leopard Business, Leopard Ultimate? I sure dont.
Anyway from my opinion, this method of making people buy their product while in truth you can do exactly the same thing on your own 3 years old PC is bad. the Hackintosh community never sell their solution for running OS X on normal PC, all the .kext are offered free and what Psystar is doing is bad. There are actually a pretty detailed guide for installing Hackintosh and there are great support for your problems in the forum.
I have read the person statement in the website some poster give but from my opinion its just a poor excuse, its clearly they want to make money from giving false advertising because any PC regardless its a Dell XPS, HP, Acer or whatever can run Mac OS X in their PC. Psystar is just cheating the public to make easy money.
What would you feel if something you offered for free and someone took it and named it theirs?.
Arguably, the company could sell a Mac capable clone under a Fair-use theory. I, however, think that is sketchy at best. A key component to any Fair-use argument is not interfering with the copyright holder's key market. Here, Apple's product is being reversed engineered to interfere with Apple's market.
This company will not stay in business very long. If Apple's letters don't scare the company, I suspect Apple will be in court before the end of the month.
Tha
The End-User license agreement is just that - an agreement with the "End User", not the manufacturer or necessarily the installer. The only person who can violate is whoever buys it. Apple would have to take the company to court to get lists of purchasers, and then sue the individual users, which would be difficult and time consuming.
Does anyone know of any instances of a company actually suing for breach of EULA? I know that all of the recent piracy lawsuits have involved copyright law exclusively and not breach of EULA...
This company will not stay in business very long. If Apple's letters don't scare the company, I suspect Apple will be in court before the end of the month.
My previous link indicates that they are taking Apple to court over antitrust violations with the EULA.
Why? iMac sales were a huge contributor to the product mix last quarter and appear to be strong again this quarter.
The logical error in the thinking behind your post and piot's is that it assumes Apple wouldn't have done as well or better without the iMac. We have no way of knowing that so pointing to Apple's sales and saying that sticking with the all-in-one iMac design was a winning approach is kind of meaningless.
The fact that Psystar put themselves on the map overnight by offering a Mac mid-range tower speaks volumes, as far as I'm concerned. Who heard of these guys two days ago?
However, a company cannot benefit commercially from hacking Apple's copyrighted software. The end user license has nothing to do with this.
This Miami company is going to need pockets as deep as the Mariana Trench if they think they will EVER bring one machine to market running OS X. If anyone truly believes that purchasing a copy of Leopard (with its "onerous" EULA) gives him the right to do with it whatever he pleases, let him run, not walk, to the nearest coterie of attorneys specializing in copyright law. I realize that most of the posters on this site and others like it want (demand?) a cost + 1% tower from Apple with a 10 year full-replacement warranty, free OS software upgrades for life, open-srouce productivity suites, and the like . . . but it just ain't gonna happen.
bsenka, buying something you absolutely loathe is the mark of an unsettled mind. PC makers can--and should--provide you with all that you need and more. Why not support DELL, GATEWAY, HP, ACER, ALIENWARE, et al., and be happy about it, rather than sleeping with what has very clearly become your enemy?
Apple and its products are truly not for you; but then again, neither is a Lexus or a Benz. PC/XP is more your style. Enjoy the savings, live long, and prosper.
Anyway, what would you feel if Apple offer a mid range desktop computer that is not upgradeable? Would you still want it?
I would, if it were reasonably priced. My concern isn't the ability to upgrade, but rather the ability to avoid buying the iMac's demonstrably lousy display (to which Apple offers no build-to-order alternatives) as well as not wasting my money on that box of leftovers from 2006 called the Mac Mini. Repackage the iMac's components in a headless tower for $1000 and I'm there.
What you and others appear to miss is the fact that there are *many* reasons people want a mid-range tower, not just one.
My previous link indicates that they are taking Apple to court over antitrust violations with the EULA.
Too bad Apple isn't a monopoly and these people are idiots. IANAL of course but they are still idiots.
Just because people have a need for something, doesn't mean the company who owns the rights to the property you want to utilize in another way has the obligation to provide what you want.
The main point of your little speech seems to be that people who purchase this clone will expect Apple to support it. Even though no one on this thread -- or on any of the other boards I've read today on the subject-- has stated this expectation. I think it's a fair to make the assumption that anyone who would purchase a clone would be aware that they can't turn to Apple for support.,
Your secondary point is that people who would choose to purchase a clone would be doing so out of spite (or because they're cheap), rather than to fill their need for a mid-range, expandable desktop. Again, you seem to be addressing comments/people that don't exist.
In short, you talk a lot for someone who "will be buying my first Apple computer sometime this year".
I personally know three people IRL who were interested in buying Macs but went back to a Windows PC when they found out that the most affordable tower was not really affordable at all and didn't even come with a display. The iMac filled a need in its day, but it's time for Apple to let the all-in-one concept die.
I agree, but the iMac does have a beautiful display (aimed towards you other post) so hopefully Apple will make some new (cheaper) cinema displays (20", 24", 30", 36") with high-quality iSight camera and mic, with an optional matte or glossy display.
If they made a $400 mid-range tower (just like the OpenMac -- now know as Open Computer -- or even better then the OpenMac) with a great design (not super mini-ized and filled with laptop parts - with the aluminum case), I would buy one IMMEDIATELY. Not only that, it would be my first Mac.
Too bad Apple isn't a monopoly and these people are idiots. IANAL of course but they are still idiots.
Apple could certainly be considered a monopoly.
"A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service"
By any definition, Apple has a monopoly within the Macintosh market. Meaning, they have 100% control over the hardware and software. Are they a monopoly within the over all PC market? No, but then MS is not considered a monopoly with the entire computer industtry is you broaden the definition of the market enough. MS considered a monopoly in the computer market if you narrow it down to just PC's. Apple is a monopoly position within the Macintosh ecosystem/market.
This has been a good thing for end users, in many respects. Tight integration is a result of their absolute control. Are they an illegal monopoly? Probably not. But, enforcing their monopoly position through their EULA could certainly bring anti-trust interest. Banning installation of their software on a competitor's systems is certainly, only done to protect their monopoly position on their hardware.
That may be true, however, one company cannot distribute another companies product without its permission. Amongst other legal theories, that is a blatant violation of Trademark law. Consequently, this company could never legally distribute OSX without Apple's permission.
If that were true, eBay wouldn't be nearly as good as it is, now, would it?
Apple could certainly be considered a monopoly.
"A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service"
By any definition, Apple has a monopoly within the Macintosh market.
That's like saying Honda has a monopoly on Accords.
Are they a monopoly within the over all PC market? No, but then MS is not considered a monopoly with the entire computer industtry is you broaden the definition of the market enough.
Yes, it's called a market segment of which the Macintosh belongs...and Windows still holds what? 90+% share?
This has been a good thing for end users, in many respects. Tight integration is a result of their absolute control. Are they an illegal monopoly? Probably not. But, enforcing their monopoly position through their EULA could certainly bring anti-trust interest. Banning installation of their software on a competitor's systems is certainly, only done to protect their monopoly position on their hardware.
The only place Apple needs to worry about a monopoly position is iTunes and iPods.
Even Microsoft is allowed to restrict the use of Windows in certain ways. For example, the restriction on using the Vista Home on VMs until they finally changed thier minds. Probably because Vista isn't selling well anyways and letting folks run it on a Mac if they wanted was better than nothing.
But clearly it was to restrict running Vista Home from inside competitor OS's (Linux and OSX) hosting VMs.
Are you 12 years old? Where did you learn about law - the schoolyard?
Is that where you learned namecalling?
Where do you get the idea that I, as a consumer, must support Apple? If they don't have a product I want, then maybe a competitor should be allowed to step in to provide it.
The OpenMac looks pretty damn good to me. Then again, I think the iMac and its Las Vegas glossy display sucks and the Mini is a freakin' overpriced box of circa-2006 leftovers. I've been using Macs for 15+ years and Apple, for the first time since I've been using Macs, has nothing that fits my needs and budget. And Apple apparently cannot hear the numerous calls from both consumers and high profile tech commentators for them to release a mid-range tower.
Somewhere along the way, it appears that Apple lost their passion for making decent computers and are too infatuated with selling music and making cell phones. Look at the buyer's guide on MacRumors and explain why Apple is taking almost a year between updates on the iMac and the Mac Mini now? It wasn't like that three years ago. We could count on regular price drops or spec bumps every 4-5 months. But now Apple is showing a surprising lack of interest in their consumer machines.
So you think I should support Apple? How about if Apple gets with the program and gets out of this 1998 all-in-one mentality and start making the products that people really want?
If you don't like what Apple has to offer, then go somewhere else. No other OSX options? Well, that is just too bad! Apple has every right to safeguard their systems to prevent chop-shops like these guys from diluting and tarnishing OSX. Apple having complete control over hardware and software is why they work so well. What part of that equation do you not understand? You are in such a ridiculously low minority of people who think that the iMac hardware is inferior. You're just more vocal. They may not use the most current components out there but they definitely work more in harmony with the OS than Windows. Stick with Windows or Linux. It's obvious that OSX is not for you. If Apple does not come out with a low-end Mac Pro, then they don't. Move on with your life.
If you don't like what Apple has to offer, then go somewhere else. No other OSX options? Well, that is just too bad! Apple has every right to safeguard their systems to prevent chop-shops like these guys from diluting and tarnishing OSX. Apple having complete control over hardware and software is why they work so well. What part of that equation do you not understand? You are in such a ridiculously low minority of people who think that the iMac hardware is inferior. You're just more vocal. They may not use the most current components out there but they definitely work more in harmony with the OS than Windows. Stick with Windows or Linux. It's obvious that OSX is not for you. If Apple does not come out with a low-end Mac Pro, then they don't. Move on with your life.
I'm sorry, did you get lost on your way to the MacRumors forums?
Are you 12 years old? Where did you learn about law - the schoolyard?
Is that where you learned namecalling?
ohh hahaha
I kind of agree... fighting is totally useless, and childish, and will get us nowhere.
The main point of your little speech seems to be that people who purchase this clone will expect Apple to support it. Even though no one on this thread -- or on any of the other boards I've read today on the subject-- has stated this expectation. I think it's a fair to make the assumption that anyone who would purchase a clone would be aware that they can't turn to Apple for support.,
Your secondary point is that people who would choose to purchase a clone would be doing so out of spite (or because they're cheap), rather than to fill their need for a mid-range, expandable desktop. Again, you seem to be addressing comments/people that don't exist.
In short, you talk a lot for someone who "will be buying my first Apple computer sometime this year".
Yes, I will buy my own personal Apple "sometime this year". It's not just talk since I work in corporate environment administering both PC's and Macs. My corporate workstation is a Mac Pro. Mac's are slowly replacing our windows machines because we have pretty much had it with the instabilities of Windows. Apple's OSX has been hugely successful for our users and requires virtually no assistance from us outside of very small training issues when coming from a Windows environment. VMWare Fusion and Windows XP works quite well when we need those specific apps that are only available for Windows. The integration between hardware and software was a huge selling point for us and management. We don't care that they don't use the most absolute-current technology because Apple makes certain (and certifies) that all the components will work as advertised. That is what makes Apple so good. Crapware companies trying to hitch a ride on Apple's success by producing a lousy product deserves the legal kicking they are going to receive.
I haven't purchased my own personal Mac yet only because I'm waiting for the June announcement. My old home computer is finally showing its age and after using Macs for many years at work, I'm a true believer in their machines.