Have we all forgotten our computing history? The whole reason Microsoft became so successful was that they specifically allowed their OS to be used on multiple types of computers. Previous to that, the OS and hardware were almost always locked together (e.g., the original Macintosh). Also, Psystar would be aiding and abetting software piracy if they specifically marketed a machine for the purposes of allowing a purchaser to buy/install a copy of OSX in violation of the EULA.
That's certainly a big reason for Microsoft's success--but we can't look at the history from the 70s-80s too literally as a guide for today:
a) That's not the only route to success: Apple has taken a different but also successful path. Instead of mass domination, design great products.
b) "Then" (dawn of personal computing, pre-Internet, heavily focussed on business) is not "now" (mature post-Internet market, extending far beyond business).
c) Apple is not Microsoft. Different strengths, different weaknesses, different markets entirely.
d) The Windows monopoly stemmed from the DOS monopoly in business, which predated the Mac. No such opportunity to take over the computing market exists today. (But handhelds may be another story!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
How do I eject a CD without an Apple keyboard? This is an issue that may come up from time-to-time when using your Open Computer with the OS X operating system. As you may know Apple keyboards have an eject button and that is what actually opens the drive tray. PC-based keyboards do not have this button. What PCs do have is an eject button on the drive trays, but Apple computers don't and consequently lock the drive and ignore this button like most Linux/BSD operating systems, requiring the drive to be unmounted first.
*
\t•\tPress and hold F-12
\t•\ttype the command 'drutil eject' in terminal
Can I run updates on my Open Computer? The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are safe. It's best to check the web for this information but when in doubt don't update it. You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update.
Will my software work? Psystar has tested our Open computers with standard OS X software. We have not found any software incompatibilities with the standard OS software but we cannot guarantee that any of the software on your computer will work in Leopard. In Windows everything should work just fine assuming you have the proper device drivers and in Ubuntu everything should, in theory, work fine but Linux applications often require dependencies and a bit of work on the user's part.
This has been widely written about many times over. If you compare the cost of a mac with specific components, to a PC from the major carriers with near the same specs, you will find the mac is a less expensive system...and in many ways better designed and built.
I'm aware of that, and I'm not talking about specific components. I'm talking about ANY 8-core system. At all. I can't find anything on Dell's site for less than $400 more than a Mac Pro, and it has worse specs than Apple's.
Yes, when you're looking at machines at half the spec or lower (quad core non-Xenon or less) PCs are very competitive. Mostly because Apple doesn't sell anything comparable in that market segment. That's, of course, where this Open Computer lands and why it's so interesting. It's exactly what a lot of Apple customers want and have been begging Apple to build.
SPEAKERS\tNo speakers (Speakers are required to hear audio from your system)\tedit
KEYBOARD\tDell USB Keyboard\tedit
MOUSE\tDell Optical USB Mouse\tedit
FLOPPY & MEDIA READER\tNo Floppy Drive or Media Reader Included
$1958 including Office
Mac Pro
Part Number: Z0EM
One 16x SuperDrive
One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core)
Apple Mighty Mouse
iWork '08 preinstalled
Apple Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X
4GB (4 x 1GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
Accessory kit
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)
\t
$3428 including iWork (75% more expensive than the Dell...)
Dell doesn't offer Xenon "Octo"-core systems, instead they have Core2 Extreme, which is the overclocked gaming equivalent. It would cost $600 to upgrade to it on the dell, $500 to upgrade on the Mac. Also, Apple charges more for memory upgrades, video card upgrades, hard drives and displays, and Dell offers BluRay, which Apple doesn't...
What kind of comparison is that? At least get the same processor in each. And there's no question that it's stupid to buy upgrades from apple (900 of your price is ram and hard drive upgrade) - compare using third party ram and drive upgrade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_M
I've just been on the Psystar site and that $400 doesn't even include OS X.
That will cost you an extra $155!
Where did you get 155? List price is $129 and many places have it cheaper. I'm sure Tiger is probably an option as well.
This has been widely written about many times over. If you compare the cost of a mac with specific components, to a PC from the major carriers with near the same specs, you will find the mac is a less expensive system...and in many ways better designed and built.
However when you go below $1000, you find there are many systems less expensive on the PC side. But you have to watch the specs, many times they are using AMD or Hypersonic processors or a lesser video card, which aren't a good point of comparison. If you compare a mac, and a pc, with x HD by brand y, xvideo card by brand y, Xram by brand y, usually the mac is cheaper. Why? I would have to guess that is the uplift for Windows licenses.
I simply don't buy a computer for less than $1,000. I've got an 8 year old G4 that has long since paid for itself 50 times over.
Right now, Apple has a monopoly on OS-X-running computers.
True, but that's like saying Honda has a monopoly on cars running vTec engines. Should GM be able to put vTec engines in their cars and sell them?
If Apple makes both, they are allowed to decide how their products are sold. They aren't exactly doing anything nefarious here.
The big issue here is that Apple is using hardware sales to subsidize OS development. If some company comes along and cannibalizes hardware sales, then Apple has a big problem. This is why they killed the clones back in the 90s - the clones were supposed to expand Mac market share, but instead they ate too much into Apple's sales and thus ate away money needed to develop the OS and the platform. When the cloners asked to pay more for the OS, they complained. Apple had to kill the clones then, and this is why they don't allow it now.
Monopolies are not illegal. Anti-competitive behavior in the market is illegal.
Many companies control software and hardware.. One example is gaming hardware i.e. Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo are similar to Apple in that they write proprietary OS's for the hardware they don't licence. So each has a monopoly for their platform in the gaming market, but it's not illegal.
They will need to make a distinction between the "Computer Market" and the "Mac Market". In the "computer market" Apple cannot be considered a monopoly. In the Mac market obviously they have a monopoly in the hardware, just like the Playstation has a hardware lock on the Playstation Market.
And since the Justice department hand slapped Microsoft wich was found egregious unlawful in multiple instances I think and an anti trust suit is a PR stunt.
Monopolies are not illegal. Anti-competitive behavior in the market is illegal.
Many companies control software and hardware.. One example is gaming hardware i.e. Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo are similar to Apple in that they write proprietary OS's for the hardware they don't licence. So each has a monopoly for their platform in the gaming market, but it's not illegal.
They will need to make a distinction between the "Computer Market" and the "Mac Market". In the "computer market" Apple cannot be considered a monopoly. In the Mac market obviously they have a monopoly in the hardware, just like the Playstation has a hardware lock on the Playstation Market.
And since the Justice department hand slapped Microsoft wich was found egregious unlawful in multiple instances I think and an anti trust suit is a PR stunt.
APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY. Nor Nintendo etc. If you don't like nintendo, you can buy an xbox or PS3. Nintendo would only have a monopoly if they were the only option for gaming boxes. And they're not. For purposes of "monopoly" you DO define the market as computers and not just macs, otherwise EVERY company would have a monopoly since they are the only company that makes their particular product, and that would be nonsensical.
This is good & everything but Psystar should just STFU and keep making $$$ while it last. Apple could put them out of business with a simple patch throw a software update & they know it, so STFU before apple starts imbedding all kinds of security into Leopard to check for real macs
This is good & everything but Psystar should just STFU and keep making $$$ while it last. Apple could put them out of business with a simple patch throw a software update & they know it, so STFU before apple starts imbedding all kinds of security into Leopard to check for real macs
Wouldn't apple be trying to do it already since people are doing their own hackintoshes?
While many of the issues raised in the replies to this post are all valid, perhaps the threshold issue on this subject is through what mechanism and how much is Psystar paying Apple for a licensing fee for OSX. Since Apple does not have an OEM program, the only (arguably) legal mechanism that Psystar has to legally acquire the OS, is to purchase retail versions. This coupled with the cost of components and packaging, is likely drive the Cost of Goods to at least $400, if not higher (that doesn't take into account other costs such as product design, testing, assembly, distribution, marketing, etc... (Of course, we can't forget Legal! ).
The other question raised is, who has the legal duty to support the customers of these systems? Even if Apple wanted to, there is no way that they can provide support without knowing the precise configurations of these systems and the specific components used.
This sounds more like a publicity stunt rather than a legitimate attempt to enter the OSX clone business.
Just my two cents....
(actually, given my hourly rate, that is my $46.
Well, there are so many posts to reply to here, but Ill do it to yours as you're near the end.
They are not paying Apple anything, because Apple has no licensing scheme for this as they don't license out the OS at all.
Otherwise, there are more problems. As Nagromme has pointed out, all Apple sells are upgrades, as the OS comes with the machine. They could easily argue that no retail version of the OS is licensed to anyone other than to the one who boght the original license with the original program, which means that only if you boght a Mac would you have license to use the "upgrade".
This is well established law. It can be used instead of the "Mac only" install that Apple specifies now, though that is legal as well.
I know that there are some in Europe who don't understand the legalities with this, even though European law SEEMS to say otherwise. It really only pertains to an OS that is sold as MS's is.
Apple's OS is an integral part of the hardware, though, that argument has been lessened with the switch to Intel, which allows Windows to be an equal partner.
Nevertheless, Even if Psystar doesn't sell the OS, they could be in legal trouble if they can be seen as encouraging others to violate the license. If they then profit off those violations, they could have a criminal case against them, depending on how many units they sell, and if it can be assumed that for each unit sold, a license violation occured.
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."
There is no competition in the Mac market and that is not illegal.
I remember buying a Mac clone. It was from Power Computing and the problems I had with compatibility almost drove me to buy a Windows machine. I did buy a real Mac directly Apple and I couldn't get over the difference in stability. All the driver and device issues vanished with having the real thing. So from my prospective, I think bringing back Mac clones is a bad idea.
I had the same experience.
Recommended a Power Computing clone for a friend and whenever she had problems with it, she was SOL. Add to that the fact that she never really got the 'just use it' experience you get from an actual Mac, and it was a waste of money. Cheap things are usually worth what you paid for them.
(Parenthetically, my friend became my wife, so I suppose it wasn't that big of a catastrophe.)
These guys are out of their minds. Apple has always marketed an operating system paired with hardware. Just because you can purchase that operating system separately from the hardware doesn't change this fact.
It's like saying Research in Motion or PALM have to make their Blackberry/PALM OSs available for use with other devices. Or that the XBox or Playstation OSs have to be made compatible for other systems.
These companies have always sold a "whole package", with benefits in both hardware and software. The only way to get the incredible software is to get the hardware as well. There's not been a real distinction between the two. Apple sells OSX to Mac users who want to upgrade their systems, but don't verify that you actually own the system before allowing you to buy. However, they DO stipulate that is the requirement in the terms of use. Do we really want Apple to start verifying ownership of a Mac system before you can buy the OS?
As much as I want Mac prices to drop or for there to be viable competition, I hope Apple kicks these guys' in their collective asses (then turns them around to kick them in their balls). If these guys are intent on infringing on Apple's copyrights and violating intellectual property laws, then they deserve to lose more than their nuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
"What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?," he said. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"
Personally, and I know this is such a lovely topic around here, I think that anything that has a better GPU is worth it and I say Hurrah, Hurrah for the OSX86 and companies like this.
? Pro users DO not make up the base, its all iPods and iPhone users.
? Mac Pro's and Macbook Pro's hardly move off the shelves in the apple stores compared to iMacs, Macbooks, Minis and especially iPhones.
? For a few hundred, you can build a great machines, buy a dual DVI nvidia card and have a machine the romps a Mac Pro for a fraction of the cost.
? Apple charges $600 for 4 GB of RAM, you can buy RAM at New Egg for $104 dollars and most memory will have a lifetime warranty so no worries should it fail in a year or so.
The whole notion that Apple is still on its high horse with graphic cards drives me nuts - they still think the PROS will flock to the cheap-o systems if they released a cheap machine with a $50 graphic card. So what if they do? They are such a small portion of the market. Personally, I don't think its a matter of "if" but a matter of "when" as Apple needs to get a grip.
While the machine is probably ugly, I think you're better of building your own machine for much cheaper.
Here is a link for a HACK for less than $800 and with the exception of one benchmark, it beats the Mac Pro -
And to think as an Apple user I pat them on the back -
I think there is a group of us, PRO PC until Apple went X86 (as Steve used to FUDGE all the numbers), that are POST X86 Apple users, and those of us who are, are also savvy to INTEL say vs AMD and know what cost a GPU or MEMORY is, and how (APPLE) Intel used to operate until AMD came along with their first 1.0 GHZ Athlon. I think competition and seeing better machines cheaper may someday force Apple to wake up and release a overall decent machine thats not crippled in any department.
Right now, if you want to play any game at all that uses 3D, you have to get an iMac, however, if you want a laptop, you have NO CHOICE but to purchase a Macbook Pro.
It had better specs than a real Apple at the time, but software conflicts drove me insane.
.
Well, that's kinda the point.
Everyone seems to think that any rube with a soldering iron and a disk burner (you there Bill Gates?) can put together a seamless computing experience.
Comments
Have we all forgotten our computing history? The whole reason Microsoft became so successful was that they specifically allowed their OS to be used on multiple types of computers. Previous to that, the OS and hardware were almost always locked together (e.g., the original Macintosh). Also, Psystar would be aiding and abetting software piracy if they specifically marketed a machine for the purposes of allowing a purchaser to buy/install a copy of OSX in violation of the EULA.
That's certainly a big reason for Microsoft's success--but we can't look at the history from the 70s-80s too literally as a guide for today:
a) That's not the only route to success: Apple has taken a different but also successful path. Instead of mass domination, design great products.
b) "Then" (dawn of personal computing, pre-Internet, heavily focussed on business) is not "now" (mature post-Internet market, extending far beyond business).
c) Apple is not Microsoft. Different strengths, different weaknesses, different markets entirely.
d) The Windows monopoly stemmed from the DOS monopoly in business, which predated the Mac. No such opportunity to take over the computing market exists today. (But handhelds may be another story!)
How do I eject a CD without an Apple keyboard? This is an issue that may come up from time-to-time when using your Open Computer with the OS X operating system. As you may know Apple keyboards have an eject button and that is what actually opens the drive tray. PC-based keyboards do not have this button. What PCs do have is an eject button on the drive trays, but Apple computers don't and consequently lock the drive and ignore this button like most Linux/BSD operating systems, requiring the drive to be unmounted first.
*
\t•\tPress and hold F-12
\t•\ttype the command 'drutil eject' in terminal
Can I run updates on my Open Computer? The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are safe. It's best to check the web for this information but when in doubt don't update it. You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update.
Will my software work? Psystar has tested our Open computers with standard OS X software. We have not found any software incompatibilities with the standard OS software but we cannot guarantee that any of the software on your computer will work in Leopard. In Windows everything should work just fine assuming you have the proper device drivers and in Ubuntu everything should, in theory, work fine but Linux applications often require dependencies and a bit of work on the user's part.
Ouch!
This has been widely written about many times over. If you compare the cost of a mac with specific components, to a PC from the major carriers with near the same specs, you will find the mac is a less expensive system...and in many ways better designed and built.
I'm aware of that, and I'm not talking about specific components. I'm talking about ANY 8-core system. At all. I can't find anything on Dell's site for less than $400 more than a Mac Pro, and it has worse specs than Apple's.
Yes, when you're looking at machines at half the spec or lower (quad core non-Xenon or less) PCs are very competitive. Mostly because Apple doesn't sell anything comparable in that market segment. That's, of course, where this Open Computer lands and why it's so interesting. It's exactly what a lot of Apple customers want and have been begging Apple to build.
DELL:
PROCESSOR\tIntel® Core?2 Q6700 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache,2.66Hz,1066FSB)\tedit
OPERATING SYSTEM\tGenuine Windows Vista® Home Premium with Digital Cable Support\tedit
MEMORY\t4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 4 DIMMs\tedit
HARD DRIVE\t1TB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 32MB Cache\tedit
OPTICAL DRIVE\tSingle Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability\tedit
MONITORS\tNo Monitor\tedit
VIDEO CARD\tnVidia GeForce 8800 GT 512MB\tedit
SOUND CARD\tIntegrated 7.1 Channel Audio\tedit
SPEAKERS\tNo speakers (Speakers are required to hear audio from your system)\tedit
KEYBOARD\tDell USB Keyboard\tedit
MOUSE\tDell Optical USB Mouse\tedit
FLOPPY & MEDIA READER\tNo Floppy Drive or Media Reader Included
$1958 including Office
Mac Pro
Part Number: Z0EM
One 16x SuperDrive
One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core)
Apple Mighty Mouse
iWork '08 preinstalled
Apple Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X
4GB (4 x 1GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
Accessory kit
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)
\t
$3428 including iWork (75% more expensive than the Dell...)
Dell doesn't offer Xenon "Octo"-core systems, instead they have Core2 Extreme, which is the overclocked gaming equivalent. It would cost $600 to upgrade to it on the dell, $500 to upgrade on the Mac. Also, Apple charges more for memory upgrades, video card upgrades, hard drives and displays, and Dell offers BluRay, which Apple doesn't...
What kind of comparison is that? At least get the same processor in each. And there's no question that it's stupid to buy upgrades from apple (900 of your price is ram and hard drive upgrade) - compare using third party ram and drive upgrade.
I've just been on the Psystar site and that $400 doesn't even include OS X.
That will cost you an extra $155!
Where did you get 155? List price is $129 and many places have it cheaper. I'm sure Tiger is probably an option as well.
This has been widely written about many times over. If you compare the cost of a mac with specific components, to a PC from the major carriers with near the same specs, you will find the mac is a less expensive system...and in many ways better designed and built.
However when you go below $1000, you find there are many systems less expensive on the PC side. But you have to watch the specs, many times they are using AMD or Hypersonic processors or a lesser video card, which aren't a good point of comparison. If you compare a mac, and a pc, with x HD by brand y, xvideo card by brand y, Xram by brand y, usually the mac is cheaper. Why? I would have to guess that is the uplift for Windows licenses.
I simply don't buy a computer for less than $1,000. I've got an 8 year old G4 that has long since paid for itself 50 times over.
Right now, Apple has a monopoly on OS-X-running computers.
True, but that's like saying Honda has a monopoly on cars running vTec engines. Should GM be able to put vTec engines in their cars and sell them?
If Apple makes both, they are allowed to decide how their products are sold. They aren't exactly doing anything nefarious here.
The big issue here is that Apple is using hardware sales to subsidize OS development. If some company comes along and cannibalizes hardware sales, then Apple has a big problem. This is why they killed the clones back in the 90s - the clones were supposed to expand Mac market share, but instead they ate too much into Apple's sales and thus ate away money needed to develop the OS and the platform. When the cloners asked to pay more for the OS, they complained. Apple had to kill the clones then, and this is why they don't allow it now.
Specially the kids putting their money together to get a Mac and then see this opportunity, they jump and get hurt. I don't like kids getting hurt.
Whew... I'm so glad someone's thinking about the children.
Many companies control software and hardware.. One example is gaming hardware i.e. Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo are similar to Apple in that they write proprietary OS's for the hardware they don't licence. So each has a monopoly for their platform in the gaming market, but it's not illegal.
They will need to make a distinction between the "Computer Market" and the "Mac Market". In the "computer market" Apple cannot be considered a monopoly. In the Mac market obviously they have a monopoly in the hardware, just like the Playstation has a hardware lock on the Playstation Market.
And since the Justice department hand slapped Microsoft wich was found egregious unlawful in multiple instances I think and an anti trust suit is a PR stunt.
Monopolies are not illegal. Anti-competitive behavior in the market is illegal.
Many companies control software and hardware.. One example is gaming hardware i.e. Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo are similar to Apple in that they write proprietary OS's for the hardware they don't licence. So each has a monopoly for their platform in the gaming market, but it's not illegal.
They will need to make a distinction between the "Computer Market" and the "Mac Market". In the "computer market" Apple cannot be considered a monopoly. In the Mac market obviously they have a monopoly in the hardware, just like the Playstation has a hardware lock on the Playstation Market.
And since the Justice department hand slapped Microsoft wich was found egregious unlawful in multiple instances I think and an anti trust suit is a PR stunt.
APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY. Nor Nintendo etc. If you don't like nintendo, you can buy an xbox or PS3. Nintendo would only have a monopoly if they were the only option for gaming boxes. And they're not. For purposes of "monopoly" you DO define the market as computers and not just macs, otherwise EVERY company would have a monopoly since they are the only company that makes their particular product, and that would be nonsensical.
Seriously, read a basic definition of the term.
This is good & everything but Psystar should just STFU and keep making $$$ while it last. Apple could put them out of business with a simple patch throw a software update & they know it, so STFU before apple starts imbedding all kinds of security into Leopard to check for real macs
Wouldn't apple be trying to do it already since people are doing their own hackintoshes?
While many of the issues raised in the replies to this post are all valid, perhaps the threshold issue on this subject is through what mechanism and how much is Psystar paying Apple for a licensing fee for OSX. Since Apple does not have an OEM program, the only (arguably) legal mechanism that Psystar has to legally acquire the OS, is to purchase retail versions. This coupled with the cost of components and packaging, is likely drive the Cost of Goods to at least $400, if not higher (that doesn't take into account other costs such as product design, testing, assembly, distribution, marketing, etc... (Of course, we can't forget Legal!
The other question raised is, who has the legal duty to support the customers of these systems? Even if Apple wanted to, there is no way that they can provide support without knowing the precise configurations of these systems and the specific components used.
This sounds more like a publicity stunt rather than a legitimate attempt to enter the OSX clone business.
Just my two cents....
(actually, given my hourly rate, that is my $46.
Well, there are so many posts to reply to here, but Ill do it to yours as you're near the end.
They are not paying Apple anything, because Apple has no licensing scheme for this as they don't license out the OS at all.
Otherwise, there are more problems. As Nagromme has pointed out, all Apple sells are upgrades, as the OS comes with the machine. They could easily argue that no retail version of the OS is licensed to anyone other than to the one who boght the original license with the original program, which means that only if you boght a Mac would you have license to use the "upgrade".
This is well established law. It can be used instead of the "Mac only" install that Apple specifies now, though that is legal as well.
I know that there are some in Europe who don't understand the legalities with this, even though European law SEEMS to say otherwise. It really only pertains to an OS that is sold as MS's is.
Apple's OS is an integral part of the hardware, though, that argument has been lessened with the switch to Intel, which allows Windows to be an equal partner.
Nevertheless, Even if Psystar doesn't sell the OS, they could be in legal trouble if they can be seen as encouraging others to violate the license. If they then profit off those violations, they could have a criminal case against them, depending on how many units they sell, and if it can be assumed that for each unit sold, a license violation occured.
APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY.
Apple has a monopoly in the Mac market. There is nothing wrong with that.
Monopoly
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."
There is no competition in the Mac market and that is not illegal.
I remember buying a Mac clone. It was from Power Computing and the problems I had with compatibility almost drove me to buy a Windows machine. I did buy a real Mac directly Apple and I couldn't get over the difference in stability. All the driver and device issues vanished with having the real thing. So from my prospective, I think bringing back Mac clones is a bad idea.
I had the same experience.
Recommended a Power Computing clone for a friend and whenever she had problems with it, she was SOL. Add to that the fact that she never really got the 'just use it' experience you get from an actual Mac, and it was a waste of money. Cheap things are usually worth what you paid for them.
(Parenthetically, my friend became my wife, so I suppose it wasn't that big of a catastrophe.)
It's like saying Research in Motion or PALM have to make their Blackberry/PALM OSs available for use with other devices. Or that the XBox or Playstation OSs have to be made compatible for other systems.
These companies have always sold a "whole package", with benefits in both hardware and software. The only way to get the incredible software is to get the hardware as well. There's not been a real distinction between the two. Apple sells OSX to Mac users who want to upgrade their systems, but don't verify that you actually own the system before allowing you to buy. However, they DO stipulate that is the requirement in the terms of use. Do we really want Apple to start verifying ownership of a Mac system before you can buy the OS?
As much as I want Mac prices to drop or for there to be viable competition, I hope Apple kicks these guys' in their collective asses (then turns them around to kick them in their balls). If these guys are intent on infringing on Apple's copyrights and violating intellectual property laws, then they deserve to lose more than their nuts.
"What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?," he said. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"
oh christ, here comes the onslaught of mac wannabe's.. well everyone.. i guess we've enjoyed our niche for long enough..
What do you mean 'here comes' (as in future tense)? What the hell do you think Windows is?
? Pro users DO not make up the base, its all iPods and iPhone users.
? Mac Pro's and Macbook Pro's hardly move off the shelves in the apple stores compared to iMacs, Macbooks, Minis and especially iPhones.
? For a few hundred, you can build a great machines, buy a dual DVI nvidia card and have a machine the romps a Mac Pro for a fraction of the cost.
? Apple charges $600 for 4 GB of RAM, you can buy RAM at New Egg for $104 dollars and most memory will have a lifetime warranty so no worries should it fail in a year or so.
The whole notion that Apple is still on its high horse with graphic cards drives me nuts - they still think the PROS will flock to the cheap-o systems if they released a cheap machine with a $50 graphic card. So what if they do? They are such a small portion of the market. Personally, I don't think its a matter of "if" but a matter of "when" as Apple needs to get a grip.
While the machine is probably ugly, I think you're better of building your own machine for much cheaper.
Here is a link for a HACK for less than $800 and with the exception of one benchmark, it beats the Mac Pro -
http://lifehacker.com/software/bench...rks-322866.php
And to think as an Apple user I pat them on the back -
I think there is a group of us, PRO PC until Apple went X86 (as Steve used to FUDGE all the numbers), that are POST X86 Apple users, and those of us who are, are also savvy to INTEL say vs AMD and know what cost a GPU or MEMORY is, and how (APPLE) Intel used to operate until AMD came along with their first 1.0 GHZ Athlon. I think competition and seeing better machines cheaper may someday force Apple to wake up and release a overall decent machine thats not crippled in any department.
Right now, if you want to play any game at all that uses 3D, you have to get an iMac, however, if you want a laptop, you have NO CHOICE but to purchase a Macbook Pro.
It had better specs than a real Apple at the time, but software conflicts drove me insane.
.
Well, that's kinda the point.
Everyone seems to think that any rube with a soldering iron and a disk burner (you there Bill Gates?) can put together a seamless computing experience.