Hey, Psystar has just updated their site, and they now have an "OpenPro" option that starts at $999. Check these specs out:
Memory: 8GB DDR2 RAM (+ $225.00)
Processor: Core2Quad/2.6GHz (+ $400.00)
Hard Drive: 1 TB 7200RPM SATA (+ $150.00)
Video Card: GeForce 8600GT 512MB
Case: Silver
Installed OS: OS X 10.5 Leopard (+ $155.00)
All in a very nice silver case with firewire, and high-end cooling system
for a total of $1929.
Configuring a MacPro with the same options runs the total to $4399, so the OpenPro costs just 44% of what a Mac would.
Perhaps more interesting is that you can also have the computer pre - installed with Linux (for free) or Windows XP or Vista!
I know there's been tons of disagreement on this thread, but at least Psystar has shown us just how cheap Apple computers COULD be, if Apple didn't lock us into buying their hardware and paying for their advertising, product placement and 5th Avenue flagship stores...
I hope tons of people buy from Psystar and forces Apple to lower prices and give more options for Desktop computers. Now all we need is a company to make an altered iPod exterior to accommodate a user-replaceable battery!
Actually Ink that's not very logical. Pointing out that Apple's Mac sales (without your desired system) are ACTUALLY growing much much faster than the rest of the PC market (with a hundred different versions of your miditower) has a bit more weight than just saying "I want one, so everyone else wants one too".
I've argued against using market share as a popularity metric in computers for a very long time and I'm not about to change that because Apple is finally gaining some ground. Market share is simply the percentage of a given market total sales revenue that one company takes in a given period of time. The computing market has taken a downward turn lately and Apple, historically, tends to move units more consistently even during market downturns. Therefore, I think you can see how much Apple's recent "gains" have been exaggerated. I don't deny that Apple is getting more popular, but if there are less people buying, it's easier for a company to have larger slice of the pie, relatively speaking. It doesn't mean Apple has doubled or tripled their sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Oh Ink! Why is it always about you? Psytar is on the map because they are offering a non-Apple Mac. Period. Do you think that they would just be ignored if they were offering a $500 MacBook clone? Sigh.
I try to avoid pointing out the obvious, but you either need it pointed out or are simply refusing to acknowledge it, perhaps realizing that it simply blows your argument away. Here's a fact: the tower computer is the single biggest selling type of computer on the market. Period. I think this mid-range Mac clone has generated a lot of interest because it's something Apple, bizarrely enough, lacks. They don't lack laptops so I think a $500 MacBook clone would generate interest, but not the kind of buzz we're seeing here.
So, Mr Joe Public hears about this from a friend and orders one of these thinking that its a cheap way into getting a Mac. Apple release a point update and you download it (because your not so mac savvy) and it screws your install. He calls Apple (well, he has a Leopard License with his computer) and they laugh their ass off at him down the phone. He then calls Psystar who will probably have been shut down by Apple by then. He is now the proud owner of an expensive PC.
Agree completely on all points. I GLADLY pay a bit of a premium to have the Apple experience. Hardware and Software both.
Comments like the above really make me laugh sometimes.
I was a PC user for years and of course had issues from time to time, usually driver issues and conflicts with windows. The best PC i ever owned however is the one I built myself, this had no warranty or support but lasted me years - of course easy to upgrade and swap graphics cards, memory and processors etc.. Buying a tower with no warranty does not mean an inferior product.
I started my Mac life three years ago when I bought a MacMini to act as my media server for my home theatre set-up (the only reason why I went Apple was form factor and lack of noise). Last year I bought an Apple TV, Airport Extreme, 2x Airport Express's a Mac Book and a Mac Book Pro.
In the last year I have suffered more wireless related issues than I ever have, constantly dropping connections, My Airport Express just stopped working, dead. My wives Mac Book crashes sometimes and has to be rebooted and she spent quite a while after the leopard upgrade not being able to type!! - Apple why release software that you have not tested on all hardware?
But best of all is my Mac Book Pro, It overheats far too much and freezes, only a reboot gets it working. My delete key no longer works (hardware issue as external keyboard works). And sometimes it crashes when I unplug the power cord. Forget the standard issues such as the warped lid that means it does not close properly (this is not a fault according to Apple) and the nice silver plastic wrist rest that rubs off with time.
Don't get me wrong, I doubt I will go back, I love using OSX and the Mac's do look great but please please please stop going on about this "it just works" rubbish and this "Apple experience". This may well have been the case 5 years ago (and I believe it was) but it certainly is not the case today. Now that Apple are a toy company instead of a computer company I think this will always be the case.
I am not saying they are worse than any other PC manufacturer but the way people talk on here they are some kind of computer god! Just not the case I am afraid.
I know there's been tons of disagreement on this thread, but at least Psystar has shown us just how cheap Apple computers COULD be, if Apple didn't lock us into buying their hardware and paying for their advertising, product placement and 5th Avenue flagship stores...
You dont understand, Apple is a HARDWARE company, the sell softwares also but they originated as a hardware company.
Seriously, would you think Apple could survive if they are selling Leopard right now at the price you are paying for? If Apple never sell hardwares, Leopard would be like Vista (with different packages and stuffs).
For you info, a user posted that Psycrap uses cheap materials for its casing. Yeah, the whole world know that Apple is overpricing their hardwares but part of the income they get from their hardwares goes to the development of OS X.
Seriously, people need to understand about they are paying premium for Mac because its to develop the next OS X R&D.
FYI, Google for hackintosh and you will find that Psystar is evil by selling other peoples work!. And they are to the public by giving false info. You cant really expand or upgrade your hackintosh unless there are drivers or (.kext) developed for it.
That's like saying Honda has a monopoly on Accords.
No, it is not. Accords are not unique enough of a line to be considered a separate market on their own. But, even if they were, would you accept an edict from Honda saying you could not buy a Honda engine and stick it in your Kia? Sure, there is a thriving after market for Honda owners. And if Honda tried to block sales of third party parts on their cars through some sort of EULA, that would not stand up in court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Yes, it's called a market segment of which the Macintosh belongs...and Windows still holds what? 90+% share?
And MS has what percent within the overall, worldwide computer market, including mainframes, PDAs, Smart phones, embedded systems etc. Clearly, if you take a segment of this overall market, let's say desktop PC's, they are the monopoly player.
And within the Macintosh ecosystem, which is clearly a distinct and separate segment within the overall PC market, Apple owns the entire market.
Additional:
Actually, just saw a quote from a guy at Psystar
"What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"
I get the feeling that apple would have produced a tower form factor by now if they wanted to. There must be a specific reason why they haven't.
Maybe they are afraid that people would only ever buy the cheapest mac that was user modifiable. I know that I probably would even though I really like the neatness and minimal design of the current iMac.
Maybe they are trying the make computing more about what happens on the screen and less about what happens inside the case.
Steve makes alot of good calls. It would be hard to think this is simply something he has not considered.
the answer is simple, Apple simply not interested in the market you are describing. If its big big enough and Apple has the resource, why wouldnt they do it? I dont think they are that stupid to ignore a "large market" if they think its a large market.
QFT.
iMac is cheaper and comes with a display.
Vast majority of customers do not care about "upgrades."
Vast majority do not want to futz with cables.
Vast majority do not even know what a video card IS.
The "$999 xMac" wouldn't sell as it does not come with a display.
The "$1500 xMac" wouldn't sell as the iMac is cheaper and DOES come with a display.
Put them side-by-side in the Apple Stores and the customer will buy the iMac the vast majority of the time. A big heavy tower, connecting cables, increased footprint, and no display far outweigh the "advantage" of "upgrading the video card" to the customer.
Market share is simply the percentage of a given market total sales revenue that one company takes in a given period of time. The computing market has taken a downward turn lately and Apple, historically, tends to move units more consistently even during market downturns.
I have never mentioned market share. I am simply talking about sales... and the growth in sales. The computing market has NOT taken a downturn recently. Sales GROWTH has slowed.
The PC market has been growing for 30 years! I see no evidence of any previous downturn nor any of Apple sales remaining consistent during a ... 'downturn'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp
Therefore, I think you can see how much Apple's recent "gains" have been exaggerated. I don't deny that Apple is getting more popular, but if there are less people buying, it's easier for a company to have larger slice of the pie, relatively speaking.
Nobody is exaggerating anything. There are not "less people buying". The whole pie is still getting LARGER. There is nothing "easier" in obtaining a larger slice.
Wow! I understand why you don't like bringing market share into the conversation. You don't seem to understand the basics behind it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp
It doesn't mean Apple has doubled or tripled their sales.
Actually that is exactly what it does mean. Apple sales have increased by 122% in the last three years. For comparison... the PC has grown around 46%
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp
I think this mid-range Mac clone has generated a lot of interest because it's something Apple, bizarrely enough, lacks.
A quick scan of the tech web tells me that the main topics of conversation are that this is an un-sanctioned clone and the possible legal implications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp
I try to avoid pointing out the obvious, but you either need it pointed out or are simply refusing to acknowledge it, perhaps realizing that it simply blows your argument away. Here's a fact: the tower computer is the single biggest selling type of computer on the market. Period.
I feel that what you are pointing out is far from obvious. In the USA and the other mature PC markets laptops are expected to outsell desktops sometime this year. Look Ink let's get one thing straight .... I agree with you ..... in the sense that between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro there is a a big gap for a desktop Mac... without a screen. However I agree with "ros3ntan" that Apple has decided not to fill that void for business reasons and not through some glaring omission on their part.
I am pretty sure that the guys at Apple have access to a whole lot more industry figures than anyone here has. My guess is that, even though there is a market for your midi- tower, it is smaller than you think and (despite an overall growth in PC sales) is the one area that really is getting smaller.
Many people (business, education and consumers) are choosing laptops over desktops.
Apple has the tower 'workstation' market covered
The millions of midi-towers sitting in corporate cubicles is a market that Apple doesn't play in.
The iMac AIO is selling well.
So well that HP, Dell, Gateway and Sony sell similar systems.
The Mac Mini covers the low end user. (ie with less requirements than you)
If Apple built and sold the computer that you want how much would that cannibalise it's other systems?
Back to the pies! You are wrong. The whole PC pie is getting larger.... however the midi-tower slice of the pie is not.... in fact most of the evidence points to it shrinking.
Vast majority of customers do not care about "upgrades."
Vast majority do not want to futz with cables.
Vast majority do not even know what a video card IS.
The "$999 xMac" wouldn't sell as it does not come with a display.
The "$1500 xMac" wouldn't sell as the iMac is cheaper and DOES come with a display.
Put them side-by-side in the Apple Stores and the customer will buy the iMac the vast majority of the time. A big heavy tower, connecting cables, increased footprint, and no display far outweigh the "advantage" of "upgrading the video card" to the customer.
You got that right, besides the average consumer wont buy an Apple if it has too many wires (MacPro not included because its not your average consumer kind of machine)
I get the feeling that apple would have produced a tower form factor by now if they wanted to. There must be a specific reason why they haven't.
Maybe they are afraid that people would only ever buy the cheapest mac that was user modifiable. I know that I probably would even though I really like the neatness and minimal design of the current iMac.
Maybe they are trying the make computing more about what happens on the screen and less about what happens inside the case.
Steve makes alot of good calls. It would be hard to think this is simply something he has not considered.
If I was to guess, it would be because it would eat into the heavy margins on the iMac and MacPro. You are right, many people would go for a system with the features/power of the iMac with the form of a tower. But, if you don't have the choice, you will go with what fits next best. I don't need another monitor, so an iMac is not for me for now. I think the mini is way to under featured and underpowered for my needs. And the MacPro...well, I don't want to sell a kidney to buy one, so I won't. Where does that leave me? I have my MBP and won't need a new system too soon, but if I was looking for a desktop, I would probably end up with the iMac. I wouldn't like that it isn't really upgradable and that I would not be able to choose the monitor on my own, but it would be the best fit if I want a desktop Mac.
Part of the reason Steve was able to turn Apple around was by limiting choice of systems. While they have eased up on this and introduced models to fit new niches, they have not and probably will not risk eating into the iMac and MacPro sale by adding a unit that fits between the two lines. This is a good decision on the one hand, as it keeps sales high on those two lines, but it is a bad decision as far as giving customers options.
Didn't any of you (except Benton) bother to check just who "Psystar" is?
Being from the area, I instantly recognized that this address is smack dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood in Kendall, complete with swimming pool in his backyard. There is not a commercial piece of property with a mile.
Indeed, the company was just incorporated in July of 2007, does not even have an FEI number, has never filed a corporate report with the State of Florida-- this really looks like a top notch corporate operation, doesn't it?
You all send in your money and let us know how things work out, okay?
Hey-- but he only charges $45.00 for one hour of on-site computer service: what a deal.....
But remember, if it looks like a duck, has web feet, walks like a duck, and quacks-- it probably is a duck! I believe that this is exactly what it looks like... be sure to look yourself before getting all excited.
The days of a guy in his garage making mainstream computers is long gone people!
Have to agree with this one. Looking up that address on google maps leads you to a residential area with swimming pools. It is possible they are planning on making a quick profit before Apple sends them a legal order to stop. Leaving the unsupported buyers to fend for themselves on maintenance and compatibility issues.
No, it is not. Accords are not unique enough of a line to be considered a separate market on their own. But, even if they were, would you accept an edict from Honda saying you could not buy a Honda engine and stick it in your Kia?
It IS their engine. If the contract says "you can buy this engine but you aren't allowed to stick in a Kia" then you either don't buy the engine or don't stick it in a Kia.
Quote:
And MS has what percent within the overall, worldwide computer market, including mainframes, PDAs, Smart phones, embedded systems etc. Clearly, if you take a segment of this overall market, let's say desktop PC's, they are the monopoly player.
And within the Macintosh ecosystem, which is clearly a distinct and separate segment within the overall PC market, Apple owns the entire market.
So HP had a "monopoly" on HPUX or IBM had a monopoly on AIX or maybe they, like Apple, belong to the Unix market? OSX is a Unix with a world class desktop UI. None of these companies had a monopoly lock on Unix and they used to regularly lock their OS to their hardware and control their "ecosystem".
No. While Apple might be a monopoly with iPods they don't with Macs.
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...
Yes, Blizzard sued to enforce their EULA at least twice. EULAs are enforcable and they have been court tested in major juristiction and found to be valid contracts. There are limits though and some caveats on how they are to be presented, etc.
So you bought an extended replacement warranty and used it. I suppose such things don't exist on other PCs? As much as I like OS X, it's hardly perfect. Especially Leopard, which many consider to be an awful upgrade that has caused an enormous number of problems. It hasn't been called Apple's version of Vista for nothing.
Since 10.5.1 I never had a single crash on my 18 months old iMac. Leopard is not perfect, but its the best out there. My iMac was repaired at an Authorized Apple Service Provider, so I didn't have to ship it anywhere. The technician called me and said that the LB need to be replaced and that the part need at least 3 weeks to arrive. I really needed to use my computer for my research so he suggested I call Apple and they can help. I called Apple care and explained that I need my computer ASAP. Three days later the technician called and said that my iMac is ready, the whole thing took less than a week. Try to do that with a Dell or HP.
It IS their engine. If the contract says "you can buy this engine but you aren't allowed to stick in a Kia" then you either don't buy the engine or don't stick it in a Kia.
I am pretty sure there are laws, many of them special to the auto industry, that disallow this sort of practice.
Around the time of the early 1900's, books and recordings had their versions of EULAs, which were nullified by law.
It IS their engine. If the contract says "you can buy this engine but you aren't allowed to stick in a Kia" then you either don't buy the engine or don't stick it in a Kia.
No, it is my engine, once I purchase it. I am sorry, but I have to take issue when someone tells me what I can do with my own property. Especially a business. Maybe that is just me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
No. While Apple might be a monopoly with iPods they don't with Macs.
You know of another company that sells Macs or MacOSX compatible hardware? By definition, they are a monopoly within the mac market. This does not make them an illegal monopoly, and that is an important distinction. What might make them an illegal monopoly, is if they used their monopoly to protect their market share and prevent competition. This what their prohibiting OSX on other hardware could be interpreted as.
No, it is my engine, once I purchase it. I am sorry, but I have to take issue when someone tells me what I can do with my own property. Especially a business. Maybe that is just me.
You know of another company that sells Macs or MacOSX compatible hardware? By definition, they are a monopoly within the mac market. This does not make them an illegal monopoly, and that is an important distinction. What might make them an illegal monopoly, is if they used their monopoly to protect their market share and prevent competition. This what their prohibiting OSX on other hardware could be interpreted as.
It is not your property because when you go to use the software for the first time you have to agree to the terms (remember that little button?) of use. By clicking, Apple has you in a contract of their wording.
The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are not non-safe. It's best to check on InsanelyMac 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.
It is not your property because when you go to use the software for the first time you have to agree to the terms (remember that little button?) of use. By clicking, Apple has you in a contract of their wording.
Agreed. The question is whether Apple using this software EULA to stifle competitors on their hardware is legal. They are a monopoly on Mac compatible hardware and on the OS. Are they using their monopoly position on the OS to unfairly prevent competition to their hardware? I am not in anyway saying that they are. Just trying to explain why a company that is prevented from selling hardware that is OSX compatible might have a case to argue.
Comments
Memory: 8GB DDR2 RAM (+ $225.00)
Processor: Core2Quad/2.6GHz (+ $400.00)
Hard Drive: 1 TB 7200RPM SATA (+ $150.00)
Video Card: GeForce 8600GT 512MB
Case: Silver
Installed OS: OS X 10.5 Leopard (+ $155.00)
All in a very nice silver case with firewire, and high-end cooling system
for a total of $1929.
Configuring a MacPro with the same options runs the total to $4399, so the OpenPro costs just 44% of what a Mac would.
Perhaps more interesting is that you can also have the computer pre - installed with Linux (for free) or Windows XP or Vista!
I know there's been tons of disagreement on this thread, but at least Psystar has shown us just how cheap Apple computers COULD be, if Apple didn't lock us into buying their hardware and paying for their advertising, product placement and 5th Avenue flagship stores...
I hope tons of people buy from Psystar and forces Apple to lower prices and give more options for Desktop computers. Now all we need is a company to make an altered iPod exterior to accommodate a user-replaceable battery!
Actually Ink that's not very logical. Pointing out that Apple's Mac sales (without your desired system) are ACTUALLY growing much much faster than the rest of the PC market (with a hundred different versions of your miditower) has a bit more weight than just saying "I want one, so everyone else wants one too".
I've argued against using market share as a popularity metric in computers for a very long time and I'm not about to change that because Apple is finally gaining some ground. Market share is simply the percentage of a given market total sales revenue that one company takes in a given period of time. The computing market has taken a downward turn lately and Apple, historically, tends to move units more consistently even during market downturns. Therefore, I think you can see how much Apple's recent "gains" have been exaggerated. I don't deny that Apple is getting more popular, but if there are less people buying, it's easier for a company to have larger slice of the pie, relatively speaking. It doesn't mean Apple has doubled or tripled their sales.
Oh Ink! Why is it always about you? Psytar is on the map because they are offering a non-Apple Mac. Period. Do you think that they would just be ignored if they were offering a $500 MacBook clone? Sigh.
I try to avoid pointing out the obvious, but you either need it pointed out or are simply refusing to acknowledge it, perhaps realizing that it simply blows your argument away. Here's a fact: the tower computer is the single biggest selling type of computer on the market. Period. I think this mid-range Mac clone has generated a lot of interest because it's something Apple, bizarrely enough, lacks. They don't lack laptops so I think a $500 MacBook clone would generate interest, but not the kind of buzz we're seeing here.
Agree completely on all points. I GLADLY pay a bit of a premium to have the Apple experience. Hardware and Software both.
Comments like the above really make me laugh sometimes.
I was a PC user for years and of course had issues from time to time, usually driver issues and conflicts with windows. The best PC i ever owned however is the one I built myself, this had no warranty or support but lasted me years - of course easy to upgrade and swap graphics cards, memory and processors etc.. Buying a tower with no warranty does not mean an inferior product.
I started my Mac life three years ago when I bought a MacMini to act as my media server for my home theatre set-up (the only reason why I went Apple was form factor and lack of noise). Last year I bought an Apple TV, Airport Extreme, 2x Airport Express's a Mac Book and a Mac Book Pro.
In the last year I have suffered more wireless related issues than I ever have, constantly dropping connections, My Airport Express just stopped working, dead. My wives Mac Book crashes sometimes and has to be rebooted and she spent quite a while after the leopard upgrade not being able to type!! - Apple why release software that you have not tested on all hardware?
But best of all is my Mac Book Pro, It overheats far too much and freezes, only a reboot gets it working. My delete key no longer works (hardware issue as external keyboard works). And sometimes it crashes when I unplug the power cord. Forget the standard issues such as the warped lid that means it does not close properly (this is not a fault according to Apple) and the nice silver plastic wrist rest that rubs off with time.
Don't get me wrong, I doubt I will go back, I love using OSX and the Mac's do look great but please please please stop going on about this "it just works" rubbish and this "Apple experience". This may well have been the case 5 years ago (and I believe it was) but it certainly is not the case today. Now that Apple are a toy company instead of a computer company I think this will always be the case.
I am not saying they are worse than any other PC manufacturer but the way people talk on here they are some kind of computer god! Just not the case I am afraid.
I know there's been tons of disagreement on this thread, but at least Psystar has shown us just how cheap Apple computers COULD be, if Apple didn't lock us into buying their hardware and paying for their advertising, product placement and 5th Avenue flagship stores...
You dont understand, Apple is a HARDWARE company, the sell softwares also but they originated as a hardware company.
Seriously, would you think Apple could survive if they are selling Leopard right now at the price you are paying for? If Apple never sell hardwares, Leopard would be like Vista (with different packages and stuffs).
For you info, a user posted that Psycrap uses cheap materials for its casing. Yeah, the whole world know that Apple is overpricing their hardwares but part of the income they get from their hardwares goes to the development of OS X.
Seriously, people need to understand about they are paying premium for Mac because its to develop the next OS X R&D.
FYI, Google for hackintosh and you will find that Psystar is evil by selling other peoples work!. And they are to the public by giving false info. You cant really expand or upgrade your hackintosh unless there are drivers or (.kext) developed for it.
That's like saying Honda has a monopoly on Accords.
No, it is not. Accords are not unique enough of a line to be considered a separate market on their own. But, even if they were, would you accept an edict from Honda saying you could not buy a Honda engine and stick it in your Kia? Sure, there is a thriving after market for Honda owners. And if Honda tried to block sales of third party parts on their cars through some sort of EULA, that would not stand up in court.
Yes, it's called a market segment of which the Macintosh belongs...and Windows still holds what? 90+% share?
And MS has what percent within the overall, worldwide computer market, including mainframes, PDAs, Smart phones, embedded systems etc. Clearly, if you take a segment of this overall market, let's say desktop PC's, they are the monopoly player.
And within the Macintosh ecosystem, which is clearly a distinct and separate segment within the overall PC market, Apple owns the entire market.
Additional:
Actually, just saw a quote from a guy at Psystar
"What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"
I get the feeling that apple would have produced a tower form factor by now if they wanted to. There must be a specific reason why they haven't.
Maybe they are afraid that people would only ever buy the cheapest mac that was user modifiable. I know that I probably would even though I really like the neatness and minimal design of the current iMac.
Maybe they are trying the make computing more about what happens on the screen and less about what happens inside the case.
Steve makes alot of good calls. It would be hard to think this is simply something he has not considered.
the answer is simple, Apple simply not interested in the market you are describing. If its big big enough and Apple has the resource, why wouldnt they do it? I dont think they are that stupid to ignore a "large market" if they think its a large market.
QFT.
iMac is cheaper and comes with a display.
Vast majority of customers do not care about "upgrades."
Vast majority do not want to futz with cables.
Vast majority do not even know what a video card IS.
The "$999 xMac" wouldn't sell as it does not come with a display.
The "$1500 xMac" wouldn't sell as the iMac is cheaper and DOES come with a display.
Put them side-by-side in the Apple Stores and the customer will buy the iMac the vast majority of the time. A big heavy tower, connecting cables, increased footprint, and no display far outweigh the "advantage" of "upgrading the video card" to the customer.
Market share is simply the percentage of a given market total sales revenue that one company takes in a given period of time. The computing market has taken a downward turn lately and Apple, historically, tends to move units more consistently even during market downturns.
I have never mentioned market share. I am simply talking about sales... and the growth in sales. The computing market has NOT taken a downturn recently. Sales GROWTH has slowed.
The PC market has been growing for 30 years! I see no evidence of any previous downturn nor any of Apple sales remaining consistent during a ... 'downturn'.
Therefore, I think you can see how much Apple's recent "gains" have been exaggerated. I don't deny that Apple is getting more popular, but if there are less people buying, it's easier for a company to have larger slice of the pie, relatively speaking.
Nobody is exaggerating anything. There are not "less people buying". The whole pie is still getting LARGER. There is nothing "easier" in obtaining a larger slice.
Wow! I understand why you don't like bringing market share into the conversation. You don't seem to understand the basics behind it.
It doesn't mean Apple has doubled or tripled their sales.
Actually that is exactly what it does mean. Apple sales have increased by 122% in the last three years. For comparison... the PC has grown around 46%
I think this mid-range Mac clone has generated a lot of interest because it's something Apple, bizarrely enough, lacks.
A quick scan of the tech web tells me that the main topics of conversation are that this is an un-sanctioned clone and the possible legal implications.
I try to avoid pointing out the obvious, but you either need it pointed out or are simply refusing to acknowledge it, perhaps realizing that it simply blows your argument away. Here's a fact: the tower computer is the single biggest selling type of computer on the market. Period.
I feel that what you are pointing out is far from obvious. In the USA and the other mature PC markets laptops are expected to outsell desktops sometime this year. Look Ink let's get one thing straight .... I agree with you ..... in the sense that between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro there is a a big gap for a desktop Mac... without a screen. However I agree with "ros3ntan" that Apple has decided not to fill that void for business reasons and not through some glaring omission on their part.
I am pretty sure that the guys at Apple have access to a whole lot more industry figures than anyone here has. My guess is that, even though there is a market for your midi- tower, it is smaller than you think and (despite an overall growth in PC sales) is the one area that really is getting smaller.
Many people (business, education and consumers) are choosing laptops over desktops.
Apple has the tower 'workstation' market covered
The millions of midi-towers sitting in corporate cubicles is a market that Apple doesn't play in.
The iMac AIO is selling well.
So well that HP, Dell, Gateway and Sony sell similar systems.
The Mac Mini covers the low end user. (ie with less requirements than you)
If Apple built and sold the computer that you want how much would that cannibalise it's other systems?
Back to the pies! You are wrong. The whole PC pie is getting larger.... however the midi-tower slice of the pie is not.... in fact most of the evidence points to it shrinking.
This is making me rather hungry!
iMac is cheaper and comes with a display.
Vast majority of customers do not care about "upgrades."
Vast majority do not want to futz with cables.
Vast majority do not even know what a video card IS.
The "$999 xMac" wouldn't sell as it does not come with a display.
The "$1500 xMac" wouldn't sell as the iMac is cheaper and DOES come with a display.
Put them side-by-side in the Apple Stores and the customer will buy the iMac the vast majority of the time. A big heavy tower, connecting cables, increased footprint, and no display far outweigh the "advantage" of "upgrading the video card" to the customer.
You got that right, besides the average consumer wont buy an Apple if it has too many wires (MacPro not included because its not your average consumer kind of machine)
I don't know.
I get the feeling that apple would have produced a tower form factor by now if they wanted to. There must be a specific reason why they haven't.
Maybe they are afraid that people would only ever buy the cheapest mac that was user modifiable. I know that I probably would even though I really like the neatness and minimal design of the current iMac.
Maybe they are trying the make computing more about what happens on the screen and less about what happens inside the case.
Steve makes alot of good calls. It would be hard to think this is simply something he has not considered.
If I was to guess, it would be because it would eat into the heavy margins on the iMac and MacPro. You are right, many people would go for a system with the features/power of the iMac with the form of a tower. But, if you don't have the choice, you will go with what fits next best. I don't need another monitor, so an iMac is not for me for now. I think the mini is way to under featured and underpowered for my needs. And the MacPro...well, I don't want to sell a kidney to buy one, so I won't. Where does that leave me? I have my MBP and won't need a new system too soon, but if I was looking for a desktop, I would probably end up with the iMac. I wouldn't like that it isn't really upgradable and that I would not be able to choose the monitor on my own, but it would be the best fit if I want a desktop Mac.
Part of the reason Steve was able to turn Apple around was by limiting choice of systems. While they have eased up on this and introduced models to fit new niches, they have not and probably will not risk eating into the iMac and MacPro sale by adding a unit that fits between the two lines. This is a good decision on the one hand, as it keeps sales high on those two lines, but it is a bad decision as far as giving customers options.
Didn't any of you (except Benton) bother to check just who "Psystar" is?
Being from the area, I instantly recognized that this address is smack dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood in Kendall, complete with swimming pool in his backyard. There is not a commercial piece of property with a mile.
Indeed, the company was just incorporated in July of 2007, does not even have an FEI number, has never filed a corporate report with the State of Florida-- this really looks like a top notch corporate operation, doesn't it?
You all send in your money and let us know how things work out, okay?
Hey-- but he only charges $45.00 for one hour of on-site computer service: what a deal.....
But remember, if it looks like a duck, has web feet, walks like a duck, and quacks-- it probably is a duck! I believe that this is exactly what it looks like... be sure to look yourself before getting all excited.
The days of a guy in his garage making mainstream computers is long gone people!
Have to agree with this one. Looking up that address on google maps leads you to a residential area with swimming pools. It is possible they are planning on making a quick profit before Apple sends them a legal order to stop. Leaving the unsupported buyers to fend for themselves on maintenance and compatibility issues.
No, it is not. Accords are not unique enough of a line to be considered a separate market on their own. But, even if they were, would you accept an edict from Honda saying you could not buy a Honda engine and stick it in your Kia?
It IS their engine. If the contract says "you can buy this engine but you aren't allowed to stick in a Kia" then you either don't buy the engine or don't stick it in a Kia.
And MS has what percent within the overall, worldwide computer market, including mainframes, PDAs, Smart phones, embedded systems etc. Clearly, if you take a segment of this overall market, let's say desktop PC's, they are the monopoly player.
And within the Macintosh ecosystem, which is clearly a distinct and separate segment within the overall PC market, Apple owns the entire market.
So HP had a "monopoly" on HPUX or IBM had a monopoly on AIX or maybe they, like Apple, belong to the Unix market? OSX is a Unix with a world class desktop UI. None of these companies had a monopoly lock on Unix and they used to regularly lock their OS to their hardware and control their "ecosystem".
No. While Apple might be a monopoly with iPods they don't with Macs.
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...
Yes, Blizzard sued to enforce their EULA at least twice. EULAs are enforcable and they have been court tested in major juristiction and found to be valid contracts. There are limits though and some caveats on how they are to be presented, etc.
Originally Posted by Kolchak
So you bought an extended replacement warranty and used it. I suppose such things don't exist on other PCs? As much as I like OS X, it's hardly perfect. Especially Leopard, which many consider to be an awful upgrade that has caused an enormous number of problems. It hasn't been called Apple's version of Vista for nothing.
Since 10.5.1 I never had a single crash on my 18 months old iMac. Leopard is not perfect, but its the best out there. My iMac was repaired at an Authorized Apple Service Provider, so I didn't have to ship it anywhere. The technician called me and said that the LB need to be replaced and that the part need at least 3 weeks to arrive. I really needed to use my computer for my research so he suggested I call Apple and they can help. I called Apple care and explained that I need my computer ASAP. Three days later the technician called and said that my iMac is ready, the whole thing took less than a week. Try to do that with a Dell or HP.
It IS their engine. If the contract says "you can buy this engine but you aren't allowed to stick in a Kia" then you either don't buy the engine or don't stick it in a Kia.
I am pretty sure there are laws, many of them special to the auto industry, that disallow this sort of practice.
Around the time of the early 1900's, books and recordings had their versions of EULAs, which were nullified by law.
It IS their engine. If the contract says "you can buy this engine but you aren't allowed to stick in a Kia" then you either don't buy the engine or don't stick it in a Kia.
No, it is my engine, once I purchase it. I am sorry, but I have to take issue when someone tells me what I can do with my own property. Especially a business. Maybe that is just me.
No. While Apple might be a monopoly with iPods they don't with Macs.
You know of another company that sells Macs or MacOSX compatible hardware? By definition, they are a monopoly within the mac market. This does not make them an illegal monopoly, and that is an important distinction. What might make them an illegal monopoly, is if they used their monopoly to protect their market share and prevent competition. This what their prohibiting OSX on other hardware could be interpreted as.
No, it is my engine, once I purchase it. I am sorry, but I have to take issue when someone tells me what I can do with my own property. Especially a business. Maybe that is just me.
You know of another company that sells Macs or MacOSX compatible hardware? By definition, they are a monopoly within the mac market. This does not make them an illegal monopoly, and that is an important distinction. What might make them an illegal monopoly, is if they used their monopoly to protect their market share and prevent competition. This what their prohibiting OSX on other hardware could be interpreted as.
It is not your property because when you go to use the software for the first time you have to agree to the terms (remember that little button?) of use. By clicking, Apple has you in a contract of their wording.
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 not non-safe. It's best to check on InsanelyMac 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.
Um, no thanks.
It is not your property because when you go to use the software for the first time you have to agree to the terms (remember that little button?) of use. By clicking, Apple has you in a contract of their wording.
Agreed. The question is whether Apple using this software EULA to stifle competitors on their hardware is legal. They are a monopoly on Mac compatible hardware and on the OS. Are they using their monopoly position on the OS to unfairly prevent competition to their hardware? I am not in anyway saying that they are. Just trying to explain why a company that is prevented from selling hardware that is OSX compatible might have a case to argue.