Strangely enough, the "get it" link from quocomputer.com is a mailto to [email protected].
The home page at www.izdigital.com is a directory containing only a file named geforce.html wich will redirect you to an ebay page ... ???
What more proof does anyone need that this is a lone dilettante looking for publicity rather than a real business. I predict he won't even open his doors or if he does it will be for all of a few hours.
None of this is good for Apple. None of this is good for Apple's consumers or consumers in general.
There is one quick and easy way for Apple to eliminate all these troubles forever and that's to tie OS-X as an upgrade to specific machines and machine ID's. It's likely they will start moves in this direction with Snow Leopard in that we can expect to see more prominent wording on the package so as to get around the "German exception," as well as wording that labels OS-X more definitively as an upgrade for Apple branded machines only. Actually tying it to the specific machine comes right after that although it's so onerous they may hold off on that for a while.
Welcome to Apple's new world of Microsoft-esque product identification and verification. All because of a few lazy a-holes with more greed than common sense, and less brains than they have morals.
With Snow Leopard, these fake Mac makers are going to be exposed as offering seriously non-competitive performance. SL is hugely optimized for both multi processor *AND* GPU offload via implementing GPGPU OpenCL v1.0, which means that the upcoming retail shrink wrap OS X 10.6 is going to offer 'some' performance bump on generic Intel platforms, but massive bumps on the OEM loads installed on new Macs... ones factory tweaked for total system optimization. The performance difference of an Apple-built product shipped with OS 10.6 and some nominally hardware-equivalent third-party white box on which a retail OS 10.6 load has been installed will be palpable.
I don't doubt that one of the key justifications for the entire strategic direction of Snow Leopard was this very issue: clearly differentiating genuine Apple computers from hackintosh computers. With OS 10.6 the entire discussion of a so-called "Apple tax" will skid sideways, as it will become glaringly evident just what those few extra dollars buy for customers.
Brilliant move for Apple. Bad news for cheesy outfits like Quo and the others.
I'm a recently returned user to the Mac-fold. I built myself a "hackintosh" on some Shuttle hardware (small form factor) and LOVED it. Plenty of power, expandability, etc for my needs but in a nice small box. It was working beautifully until 10.5.7 killed it and rather than try to fix it I went out and bought a refurb 2008 Mac Pro.
Let me be clear about one thing: I did NOT want a Mac Pro sized box. I WANTED a headless but powerful machine, which is not offered by Apple except in the Mac Pro. If Apple had offered a box that's half the size of a Mac Pro (Shuttle sized) I'd have happily bought one brand new and never attempted the hackintosh project. Why did I want a small, powerful, headless machine? Because I have two 24" monitors from a 3rd party that I wanted to continue to use and I didn't want to have this monstrous Mac Pro on my desk. But if I wanted the Apple experience they forced me to buy something that was more than I wanted. People resent that sort of thing and many do not do what I did: suck it up and suffer the size and cost of the big box.
There is definitely a market out there for a mid-sized headless Mac - I know because I was one of them.
I'm a recently returned user to the Mac-fold. I built myself a "hackintosh" on some Shuttle hardware (small form factor) and LOVED it. Plenty of power, expandability, etc for my needs but in a nice small box. It was working beautifully until 10.5.7 killed it and rather than try to fix it I went out and bought a refurb 2008 Mac Pro.
Let me be clear about one thing: I did NOT want a Mac Pro sized box. I WANTED a headless but powerful machine, which is not offered by Apple except in the Mac Pro. If Apple had offered a box that's half the size of a Mac Pro (Shuttle sized) I'd have happily bought one brand new and never attempted the hackintosh project. Why did I want a small, powerful, headless machine? Because I have two 24" monitors from a 3rd party that I wanted to continue to use and I didn't want to have this monstrous Mac Pro on my desk. But if I wanted the Apple experience they forced me to buy something that was more than I wanted. People resent that sort of thing and many do not do what I did: suck it up and suffer the size and cost of the big box.
There is definitely a market out there for a mid-sized headless Mac - I know because I was one of them.
Just how powerful and expandable do you want this "small, powerful, headless mid-sized Mac" to be in relation to the Mac Pro?
The closer you get to the Mac Pro with this machine in terms of performance and expandability, the more you'll threaten Mac Pro sales. Unless of course, you don't think the Mac Pro should exist, or you think it should exist in a far more powerful form to more clearly differentiate it from the machine you want, price-wise (thus driving the Mac Pro's price even higher. Ouch!)
In fact, a small-form, reasonably powerful headless Mac . . . is a Macbook Pro, 15-inch or 17-inch. You can attach it to a nice, large display. Not sure about a second display, though. Plus you've got the advantage of portability. It can function either as a desktop or as a notebook. And it certainly isn't as expensive as a Mac Pro.
Apparently, hardly anyone is buying desktops anymore. Across the entire industry, notebook sales are far outpacing desktop sales. Why should Apple introduce another desktop into this market, and to address only a minority of this market to boot? They'll end up losing money on it.
To rise above 10% Apple would really need to unbundle, until then we can continue to look forward to overpriced software and repair/replacement costs while Apple keep rehashing old designs and making us pay more for their decline in quality.
Actually, the iPhone and iPod Touch run OS X - so by that data it's already over 10%.
Regardless of what the media has been harping on for a long time, and regardless of what system attackers have been saying about the "evil TPM protection" Apple uses, Apple is doing no TPM-related evil thing. In fact, Apple is doing no TPM-related cryptographic thing at all in Mac OS X. Yes, I know, there has been much talk of "TPM keys" and such, but there are no TPM keys that Apple is hiding somewhere.
More specifically, Apple simply does not use the TPM hardware. In Apple computer models that do contain a TPM, the hardware is available for use by the machine's owner. Of course, to use it you need a device driver, which Apple indeed doesn't provide.
Not only does Mac OS X not ship with a TPM driver; most Intel Macs (except for those from early 2006) do not even have a TPM chip.
Strangely enough, the "get it" link from quocomputer.com is a mailto to [email protected].
The home page at www.izdigital.com is a directory containing only a file named geforce.html wich will redirect you to an ebay page ... ???
I followed the links, yes indeed. Too funny. I laughed until I stopped.
According to CNET News (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10...47-1040_3-0-10), the site is "still being worked on." It looks slick. But for a June 1 opening, you'd think they'd have more than just a pretty home page with an email link that points to some "izdigital" domain.
Sigh. I tire of this kind of silliness. Surely, there is much more money to be made dealing in straight-up PC hardware on eBay, no? The investment of time and effort to create fake Macs, even if there's little overhead, just doesn't strike me as a profitable endeavor... ever. Apart from sheer deception toward walk-in customers, how would they convince anyone that they offer a superior product? That's like the kid at Radio Shack telling me that some Samsung phone "is better than the iPhone" because it has a removable battery. Of course.
That's fine and dandy but you seem to be missing Apple's stance. Apple doesn't want their IP in the hands of someone else; a company markedly less experienced and capable. This can lead to bad customer experiences.
I am sure this is Apple's emotional state, but that is a far cry from a legal justification. Apple SELLS their IP so that it can be in the "hands" of someone else... I don't see what relevance their opinions possess after the sale of the license has taken place.
I am sure this is Apple's emotional state, but that is a far cry from a legal justification. Apple SELLS their IP so that it can be in the "hands" of someone else... I don't see what relevance their opinions possess after the sale of the license has taken place.
The regulation of how Intellectual Property can be used is at the very heart of the whole concept of Intellectual Property law. IP is different from other kinds of property. You cant simply do wahtever the hell you want with it.
What I dont understand is the idea that Apple may just follow in the same line as others as being a monopoly. Why? Does Apple have no right to make their own hardware and tie it to their own software. Doesnt microdoft and sony do this with their game machines? technically also computers and have sold nearly 25 million each in 4 years.
What I dont understand is the idea that Apple may just follow in the same line as others as being a monopoly. Why? Does Apple have no right to make their own hardware and tie it to their own software. Doesnt microdoft and sony do this with their game machines? technically also computers and have sold nearly 25 million each in 4 years.
the argument that 'apple is a monopoly' is not valid to begin with. there are other computers to choose from if you don't want to play by apple's rules - they just don't run osx. just like with your console analogy - you don't have to buy an xbox, a wii also plays games, just not the same ones.
as others have mentioned, monopolies are not illegal and microsoft did not come under DOJ scrutiny for being one (which they aren't either). microsoft got in trouble for abusing its monopolistic position in the computer market by illegally crippling their competitors in certain fields (like keeping netscape's browser off machines by putting pressure on manufacturers).
I'm a recently returned user to the Mac-fold. I built myself a "hackintosh" on some Shuttle hardware (small form factor) and LOVED it. Plenty of power, expandability, etc for my needs but in a nice small box. It was working beautifully until 10.5.7 killed it and rather than try to fix it I went out and bought a refurb 2008 Mac Pro.
Let me be clear about one thing: I did NOT want a Mac Pro sized box. I WANTED a headless but powerful machine, which is not offered by Apple except in the Mac Pro. If Apple had offered a box that's half the size of a Mac Pro (Shuttle sized) I'd have happily bought one brand new and never attempted the hackintosh project. Why did I want a small, powerful, headless machine? Because I have two 24" monitors from a 3rd party that I wanted to continue to use and I didn't want to have this monstrous Mac Pro on my desk. But if I wanted the Apple experience they forced me to buy something that was more than I wanted. People resent that sort of thing and many do not do what I did: suck it up and suffer the size and cost of the big box.
There is definitely a market out there for a mid-sized headless Mac - I know because I was one of them.
IP is different from other kinds of property. You cant simply do wahtever the hell you want with it.
I don't think Apple has the right to interfere with other businesses owned by Americans, just for emotional reasons. Apple is the aggressor here. It is they who are depriving other people of their rights, IMO. Anyway, the courts will decide. Would I feel comfortable running a paid copy of Mac OS X as I please, sure I would feel totally comfortable doing that. It's like playing a Sony Pictures DVD on a Panasonic DVD player. If Sony doesn't like it, they always have an open invitation to suck it, forever.
I don't think Apple has the right to interfere with other businesses owned by Americans, just for emotional reasons. Apple is the aggressor here. It is they who are depriving other people of their rights, IMO. Anyway, the courts will decide. Would I feel comfortable running a paid copy of Mac OS X as I please, sure I would feel totally comfortable doing that. It's like playing a Sony Pictures DVD on a Panasonic DVD player. If Sony doesn't like it, they always have an open invitation to suck it, forever.
LOL, it's not emotional. It's Apple's rights under IP law. The same rights that others have regarding their own Intellectual Property.
To rise above 10% Apple would really need to unbundle, until then we can continue to look forward to overpriced software and repair/replacement costs while Apple keep rehashing old designs and making us pay more for their decline in quality.
ugh... here we go again: apple is dooooomed!
as a company, apple is in this game to make money. it seems they do, and there are even indications that they do it better than others right now (dell?)
customer satisfaction for apple's computers seems fairly high, so i'm doubtful of your 'decline in quality' argument. was quality higher back when macs where much more expensive than commodity wintel boxes? if so, i wonder if there is a correlation.
nobody's 'making you pay'. you have a choice to embrace alternatives in several other operating systems.
I don't think Apple has the right to interfere with other businesses owned by Americans, just for emotional reasons. Apple is the aggressor here. It is they who are depriving other people of their rights, IMO. Anyway, the courts will decide. Would I feel comfortable running a paid copy of Mac OS X as I please, sure I would feel totally comfortable doing that. It's like playing a Sony Pictures DVD on a Panasonic DVD player. If Sony doesn't like it, they always have an open invitation to suck it, forever.
i'm curious what you do for a living.
anybody that is working in a field where the end product can be easily copied (writers, photographers, film makers for example) would understand that your argument is complete nonsense.
according to your analogy panasonic should have the right to release a sony picture on panasonic dvd after having bought a copy of it on betamax.
i'm also curious if you think apple should have the right to interfere with businesses NOT owned by americans. if you do, you might consider pulling your head out of the american media bubble for a second and discover that 'globalization' does not mean what you think it means...
Comments
Strangely enough, the "get it" link from quocomputer.com is a mailto to [email protected].
The home page at www.izdigital.com is a directory containing only a file named geforce.html wich will redirect you to an ebay page ... ???
What more proof does anyone need that this is a lone dilettante looking for publicity rather than a real business. I predict he won't even open his doors or if he does it will be for all of a few hours.
None of this is good for Apple. None of this is good for Apple's consumers or consumers in general.
There is one quick and easy way for Apple to eliminate all these troubles forever and that's to tie OS-X as an upgrade to specific machines and machine ID's. It's likely they will start moves in this direction with Snow Leopard in that we can expect to see more prominent wording on the package so as to get around the "German exception," as well as wording that labels OS-X more definitively as an upgrade for Apple branded machines only. Actually tying it to the specific machine comes right after that although it's so onerous they may hold off on that for a while.
Welcome to Apple's new world of Microsoft-esque product identification and verification. All because of a few lazy a-holes with more greed than common sense, and less brains than they have morals.
I don't doubt that one of the key justifications for the entire strategic direction of Snow Leopard was this very issue: clearly differentiating genuine Apple computers from hackintosh computers. With OS 10.6 the entire discussion of a so-called "Apple tax" will skid sideways, as it will become glaringly evident just what those few extra dollars buy for customers.
Brilliant move for Apple. Bad news for cheesy outfits like Quo and the others.
Let me be clear about one thing: I did NOT want a Mac Pro sized box. I WANTED a headless but powerful machine, which is not offered by Apple except in the Mac Pro. If Apple had offered a box that's half the size of a Mac Pro (Shuttle sized) I'd have happily bought one brand new and never attempted the hackintosh project. Why did I want a small, powerful, headless machine? Because I have two 24" monitors from a 3rd party that I wanted to continue to use and I didn't want to have this monstrous Mac Pro on my desk. But if I wanted the Apple experience they forced me to buy something that was more than I wanted. People resent that sort of thing and many do not do what I did: suck it up and suffer the size and cost of the big box.
There is definitely a market out there for a mid-sized headless Mac - I know because I was one of them.
I'm a recently returned user to the Mac-fold. I built myself a "hackintosh" on some Shuttle hardware (small form factor) and LOVED it. Plenty of power, expandability, etc for my needs but in a nice small box. It was working beautifully until 10.5.7 killed it and rather than try to fix it I went out and bought a refurb 2008 Mac Pro.
Let me be clear about one thing: I did NOT want a Mac Pro sized box. I WANTED a headless but powerful machine, which is not offered by Apple except in the Mac Pro. If Apple had offered a box that's half the size of a Mac Pro (Shuttle sized) I'd have happily bought one brand new and never attempted the hackintosh project. Why did I want a small, powerful, headless machine? Because I have two 24" monitors from a 3rd party that I wanted to continue to use and I didn't want to have this monstrous Mac Pro on my desk. But if I wanted the Apple experience they forced me to buy something that was more than I wanted. People resent that sort of thing and many do not do what I did: suck it up and suffer the size and cost of the big box.
There is definitely a market out there for a mid-sized headless Mac - I know because I was one of them.
Just how powerful and expandable do you want this "small, powerful, headless mid-sized Mac" to be in relation to the Mac Pro?
The closer you get to the Mac Pro with this machine in terms of performance and expandability, the more you'll threaten Mac Pro sales. Unless of course, you don't think the Mac Pro should exist, or you think it should exist in a far more powerful form to more clearly differentiate it from the machine you want, price-wise (thus driving the Mac Pro's price even higher. Ouch!)
In fact, a small-form, reasonably powerful headless Mac . . . is a Macbook Pro, 15-inch or 17-inch. You can attach it to a nice, large display. Not sure about a second display, though. Plus you've got the advantage of portability. It can function either as a desktop or as a notebook. And it certainly isn't as expensive as a Mac Pro.
Apparently, hardly anyone is buying desktops anymore. Across the entire industry, notebook sales are far outpacing desktop sales. Why should Apple introduce another desktop into this market, and to address only a minority of this market to boot? They'll end up losing money on it.
Sorry, where are you getting this from? Apple's Stock Market shares may be on the up but only because of the iPhone.
Keep an eye on OS net share http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-m...e.aspx?qprid=9 - OS X has never passed 10% and is on a slow decline, because it is locked into hardware that only seems to be rising in price.
To rise above 10% Apple would really need to unbundle, until then we can continue to look forward to overpriced software and repair/replacement costs while Apple keep rehashing old designs and making us pay more for their decline in quality.
Actually, the iPhone and iPod Touch run OS X - so by that data it's already over 10%.
Macs have a TPM chip that the OS checks for and if it's not found, it goes into a loop and won't boot.
Wrong.
http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/
Regardless of what the media has been harping on for a long time, and regardless of what system attackers have been saying about the "evil TPM protection" Apple uses, Apple is doing no TPM-related evil thing. In fact, Apple is doing no TPM-related cryptographic thing at all in Mac OS X. Yes, I know, there has been much talk of "TPM keys" and such, but there are no TPM keys that Apple is hiding somewhere.
More specifically, Apple simply does not use the TPM hardware. In Apple computer models that do contain a TPM, the hardware is available for use by the machine's owner. Of course, to use it you need a device driver, which Apple indeed doesn't provide.
Not only does Mac OS X not ship with a TPM driver; most Intel Macs (except for those from early 2006) do not even have a TPM chip.
Strangely enough, the "get it" link from quocomputer.com is a mailto to [email protected].
The home page at www.izdigital.com is a directory containing only a file named geforce.html wich will redirect you to an ebay page ... ???
I followed the links, yes indeed. Too funny. I laughed until I stopped.
According to CNET News (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10...47-1040_3-0-10), the site is "still being worked on." It looks slick. But for a June 1 opening, you'd think they'd have more than just a pretty home page with an email link that points to some "izdigital" domain.
Sigh. I tire of this kind of silliness. Surely, there is much more money to be made dealing in straight-up PC hardware on eBay, no? The investment of time and effort to create fake Macs, even if there's little overhead, just doesn't strike me as a profitable endeavor... ever. Apart from sheer deception toward walk-in customers, how would they convince anyone that they offer a superior product? That's like the kid at Radio Shack telling me that some Samsung phone "is better than the iPhone" because it has a removable battery. Of course.
There is definitely a market out there for a mid-sized headless Mac - I know because I was one of them.
Yes and that's about the usual amount of market research that all you xMac guys do.
That's fine and dandy but you seem to be missing Apple's stance. Apple doesn't want their IP in the hands of someone else; a company markedly less experienced and capable. This can lead to bad customer experiences.
I am sure this is Apple's emotional state, but that is a far cry from a legal justification. Apple SELLS their IP so that it can be in the "hands" of someone else... I don't see what relevance their opinions possess after the sale of the license has taken place.
I am sure this is Apple's emotional state, but that is a far cry from a legal justification. Apple SELLS their IP so that it can be in the "hands" of someone else... I don't see what relevance their opinions possess after the sale of the license has taken place.
The regulation of how Intellectual Property can be used is at the very heart of the whole concept of Intellectual Property law. IP is different from other kinds of property. You cant simply do wahtever the hell you want with it.
Yes and that's about the usual amount of market research that all you xMac guys do.
Apple must make me happy, right this minute, or they're making a big mistake.
How's that for market research?
Apple must make me happy, right this minute, or they're making a big mistake.
How's that for market research?
LOL, well put.
Let me try . . .
"I want this. So everyone else must want it too."
What I dont understand is the idea that Apple may just follow in the same line as others as being a monopoly. Why? Does Apple have no right to make their own hardware and tie it to their own software. Doesnt microdoft and sony do this with their game machines? technically also computers and have sold nearly 25 million each in 4 years.
the argument that 'apple is a monopoly' is not valid to begin with. there are other computers to choose from if you don't want to play by apple's rules - they just don't run osx. just like with your console analogy - you don't have to buy an xbox, a wii also plays games, just not the same ones.
as others have mentioned, monopolies are not illegal and microsoft did not come under DOJ scrutiny for being one (which they aren't either). microsoft got in trouble for abusing its monopolistic position in the computer market by illegally crippling their competitors in certain fields (like keeping netscape's browser off machines by putting pressure on manufacturers).
that is illegal.
I'm a recently returned user to the Mac-fold. I built myself a "hackintosh" on some Shuttle hardware (small form factor) and LOVED it. Plenty of power, expandability, etc for my needs but in a nice small box. It was working beautifully until 10.5.7 killed it and rather than try to fix it I went out and bought a refurb 2008 Mac Pro.
Let me be clear about one thing: I did NOT want a Mac Pro sized box. I WANTED a headless but powerful machine, which is not offered by Apple except in the Mac Pro. If Apple had offered a box that's half the size of a Mac Pro (Shuttle sized) I'd have happily bought one brand new and never attempted the hackintosh project. Why did I want a small, powerful, headless machine? Because I have two 24" monitors from a 3rd party that I wanted to continue to use and I didn't want to have this monstrous Mac Pro on my desk. But if I wanted the Apple experience they forced me to buy something that was more than I wanted. People resent that sort of thing and many do not do what I did: suck it up and suffer the size and cost of the big box.
There is definitely a market out there for a mid-sized headless Mac - I know because I was one of them.
i want a pony!
IP is different from other kinds of property. You cant simply do wahtever the hell you want with it.
I don't think Apple has the right to interfere with other businesses owned by Americans, just for emotional reasons. Apple is the aggressor here. It is they who are depriving other people of their rights, IMO. Anyway, the courts will decide. Would I feel comfortable running a paid copy of Mac OS X as I please, sure I would feel totally comfortable doing that. It's like playing a Sony Pictures DVD on a Panasonic DVD player. If Sony doesn't like it, they always have an open invitation to suck it, forever.
I don't think Apple has the right to interfere with other businesses owned by Americans, just for emotional reasons. Apple is the aggressor here.
Well, they can make their own psystar-OS if they please lol.
I don't think Apple has the right to interfere with other businesses owned by Americans, just for emotional reasons. Apple is the aggressor here. It is they who are depriving other people of their rights, IMO. Anyway, the courts will decide. Would I feel comfortable running a paid copy of Mac OS X as I please, sure I would feel totally comfortable doing that. It's like playing a Sony Pictures DVD on a Panasonic DVD player. If Sony doesn't like it, they always have an open invitation to suck it, forever.
LOL, it's not emotional. It's Apple's rights under IP law. The same rights that others have regarding their own Intellectual Property.
Sorry, where are you getting this from? Apple's Stock Market shares may be on the up but only because of the iPhone.
Keep an eye on OS net share http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-m...e.aspx?qprid=9 - OS X has never passed 10% and is on a slow decline, because it is locked into hardware that only seems to be rising in price.
To rise above 10% Apple would really need to unbundle, until then we can continue to look forward to overpriced software and repair/replacement costs while Apple keep rehashing old designs and making us pay more for their decline in quality.
ugh... here we go again: apple is dooooomed!
as a company, apple is in this game to make money. it seems they do, and there are even indications that they do it better than others right now (dell?)
customer satisfaction for apple's computers seems fairly high, so i'm doubtful of your 'decline in quality' argument. was quality higher back when macs where much more expensive than commodity wintel boxes? if so, i wonder if there is a correlation.
nobody's 'making you pay'. you have a choice to embrace alternatives in several other operating systems.
I don't think Apple has the right to interfere with other businesses owned by Americans, just for emotional reasons. Apple is the aggressor here. It is they who are depriving other people of their rights, IMO. Anyway, the courts will decide. Would I feel comfortable running a paid copy of Mac OS X as I please, sure I would feel totally comfortable doing that. It's like playing a Sony Pictures DVD on a Panasonic DVD player. If Sony doesn't like it, they always have an open invitation to suck it, forever.
i'm curious what you do for a living.
anybody that is working in a field where the end product can be easily copied (writers, photographers, film makers for example) would understand that your argument is complete nonsense.
according to your analogy panasonic should have the right to release a sony picture on panasonic dvd after having bought a copy of it on betamax.
i'm also curious if you think apple should have the right to interfere with businesses NOT owned by americans. if you do, you might consider pulling your head out of the american media bubble for a second and discover that 'globalization' does not mean what you think it means...