C'mon, Steve. Don't blow your chance at market share (for the hundredth time)
I have wondered for a while now if Steve is even concerned about market share. Apple is doing quite well right now without being the number one computer seller and being number one could just lead to more problems, look at microsoft. The bigger your market share the bigger target you are for those who would like to harm you.
I have wondered for a while now if Steve is even concerned about market share. ...
I don't believe he nor anyone @ Apple is. Apple believes they make the best computers for whatever market they target. For consumers it's the iMac and to a degree the Mac mini.
Unfortunately, people don't like being told," we don't want your business". Apple isn't coming out and saying that, but their product matrix does. Right now Apple is expanding, primarily do to laptops, but then Apple comes out with the MacBook without firewire and people notice. Apple drops matte screens and people notice. How this affects sales we will have to wait and see.
Tell enough people we don't want your business and it could eventually affect sales, no?
errr don't we already have 'proprietary' firmware, product serial numbers and an activation sequence ?
if that's all you're worried about... \
Not in the OS. Look what a big PITA microsoft's activation garbage is in windows.
I don't use *any* software that "phones home" for activation, period. This means no Adobe CS3/4 - I will be using Photoshop CS2 for as long as I own hardware that it will run on; and if at some point that might eventually not be possible I suspect that the OSS stuff will be a reasonable (even if not great) option.
If Apple puts !#$@# activation into the OS then I will make the jump to ubuntu. End of story. And I've been a Mac user since 1984 and owner/developer since 1985. SteveJ likes things to be simple for the user, so I hope Apple can handle this by taking down the leeches, rather than burdening the users.
count me in and happy to be a dimwit. Apple sell ridiculously overpriced hardware and anything that can bring them down to a more sensible level is a good thing. Not as if nowadays that MAc hardware is even remotely better quality than an Dell or Tosh product.
Macs do break and do so more now than ever.
I'm sure you're not a dimwit though I am confused. How is making cheaper hardware going to improve that reliability? And what model are you proposing to recoup R&D costs? Drop the hardware price & increase the OS retail? I'm quite happy paying more for the kit and adding incremental OS upgrades at a comparatively low cost, with higher OS pricing that would be lost in a disastrous false economy.
I think we shouldn't fall foul of the same hardware hysteria that PC users suffer from when most of the Mac's benefits are not hardware related.
Apple should engage Papermaster ASAP, re-proprietarise the hardware keeping x86 cores available for those who need them (and those who believe they need them to realise that they don't) and get their integrated product model really working as Sun has. As of 10.5.6 OSX should QA the hardware it's running on and lock out the clones, like DRM this will have no disadvantage .
There is so much to say on this topic it would take the rest of the day. I've been a Mac user my whole life, I had a copy of Photoshop before I ever got a copy of Playboy. I am a life long devotee.
1) There is a huge audience that Apple is missing out on, its those wanting the xMac ever since the Blue and White Yosemite G3's were released. A Desktop with expandability but not a 70lb beast of a Mac Pro, that doesn't have a built-in display, and that isn't as underpowered as the Mini. Apple hasn't moved on this because they are worried about cannibalizing Mac Pro sales, fair enough. Its a balancing decision, do you lose out the customers who would consider buying a Mac because they don't need a Mac Pro, or do you sacrifice some Mac Pro sales for a new desktop model.
2) EFI-X is not in the same boat as Psystar, they will not have the same troubles. I believe EFI-X has already been tested and is working with 10.6. Apple would have to introduce some sort of hardware feature into new machines to circumvent this truly. If implemented in 10.7, it would disable all machines purchased as of now, which should be more than capable of running one more release past 10.6. Apple is already going to piss off enough people with not supporting PPC users in 10.6. Even if they did introduce a hardware work around, it would only be a matter of time before people figured out how it works and created something like the EFI-X to simulate it. Apple decided to essentially use all the same parts as the rest of computer manufacturers, processors, memory, hard drives, optical drives, graphics cards. With their need to be able to compete, they opened up the door to the likes of EFI-X.
3) PASemi is not going to result in Apple producing its own chips for Desktop and high-end laptops. Apple with PASemi would never be able to keep up with the rapid development that Intel has. The PASemi acquisition will result in chips that perform very well with low power consumption, most likely for future Tablets/Netbooks. Apple knows they can't ignore the Netbook market, and they will want to have the best performing and best looking one out there sometime next year.
4) The Apple Experience has been pretty solid for a long time. I'd say its been slipping very much in the last year or two. iPhones and iPods don't exactly count towards this experience anymore (as far as hardware reliability), they're made to function, not made to be rugged as most portable electronics. I've been very disappointed with the quality of hardware in the laptop lines for the last couple of years. My first Intel MacBook Pro had so many hardware failures in the first few months of owning it I was considering jumping ship. Apple fixed them all eventually though I had no laptop for far too many weeks. Then I bought another MacBook Pro after they updated to Penryn chips, I had so many display issues with glitched and garbled artifacts that I was about ready to never buy an Apple laptop again and just rely on my trusty 4 year old G5. I bought a unibody MacBook Pro a couple of weeks ago, and my girlfriend also bough a unibody MacBook. I think Apple finally hit the nail on the head with this iteration as they have both been absolutely amazing machines.
Indeed. And I find it disturbing how many people on AI and other mac forums support Psystar. Short sighted dimwits spoiling it for everyone else. Too many ex PC users on the platform nowadays is my honest opinion!
I don't think anybody supports Pystar in this whole mess, but a lot of us think they stand a shot on legal grounds.
Ultimately, Apple will have to cryptographically lock their OS to their hardware or go with a goofy authorization scheme like Microsoft. When you get big enough, you don't have many choices.
Personally, my pain is that I want OSX on hardware platforms that Apple doesn't have or won't develop. The Netbook is a solid example of this, and to a lesser extent the headless consumer device and tablet: If you need one of those form factors and want OSX, what do you do.
It will be interesting to see what long-term solutions Apple uses-- will they keep it in the Legal department, or move the problem over to Engineering.
...Apple is already going to piss off enough people with not supporting PPC users in 10.6. ...
Is this fact? If so I will be one of those people, not so much for my G4 laptop, kind of expected it, but for my 2.1 Ghz G5 iMac I will be upset, it's not even 2 years old for crying out loud.
Is this fact? If so I will be one of those people, not so much for my G4 laptop, kind of expected it, but for my 2.1 Ghz G5 iMac I will be upset, it's not even 2 years old for crying out loud.
This might be difficult being as Apple haven't been including a TPM chip on any Intel Macs since the original ones.
On the newer processors the separate TPM chip is not needed anymore, as the TPM chip is built into the main processor itself. See Intel LaGrande Technology...
And why do you think these companies think they can make money off Apple's success? Root cause analysis = they think that(and I quote bandalay),"It shows an underlying desire by a larger and larger segment of the population to have the Apple experience without paying for Apple hardware. The halo works."
Because they (clone makers) know that they are not and cannot provide the Apple experience but they use it anyway to sell their products. To get Apple experience you need Apple computer, Apple service and support, Apple Mac OS, Apple iLife, and not worrying about your computer being bricked. What they give you is only Mac OS.
It shows an underlying desire by a larger and larger segment of the population to have the Apple experience without paying for Apple hardware. The halo works.
Eventually Apple may choose to reel them in with cheaper hardware options, license hardware production to a third party (like HP) or (highly-unlikely) license the OS to other OEMs.
The commodity players out there only have Windows…and it's clearly becoming less and less desirable as their market gets more and more hyper competitive. Netbooks have eaten everyone's lunch in year one – what happens next year when things get more economically challenging?
All the balls really seem in Apple's court. Let's hope they capitalize on them.
Apple's answer will be to change the Product Matrix and hit that sweet spot.
There is so much to say on this topic it would take the rest of the day. I've been a Mac user my whole life, I had a copy of Photoshop before I ever got a copy of Playboy. I am a life long devotee.
1) There is a huge audience that Apple is missing out on, its those wanting the xMac ever since the Blue and White Yosemite G3's were released. A Desktop with expandability but not a 70lb beast of a Mac Pro, that doesn't have a built-in display, and that isn't as underpowered as the Mini. Apple hasn't moved on this because they are worried about cannibalizing Mac Pro sales, fair enough. Its a balancing decision, do you lose out the customers who would consider buying a Mac because they don't need a Mac Pro, or do you sacrifice some Mac Pro sales for a new desktop model.
Thank you! Many people have been voicing this huge gap in Apple's product line on these forums for years and yet, they've been continuously trashed by Apple fanbois. However, I do have to semi-disagree with you on one point here. An xMac may cut into the MacPro sales a little bit but the xMac will sell like a crazy monkey!
Quote:
2) EFI-X is not in the same boat as Psystar, they will not have the same troubles. I believe EFI-X has already been tested and is working with 10.6. Apple would have to introduce some sort of hardware feature into new machines to circumvent this truly. If implemented in 10.7, it would disable all machines purchased as of now, which should be more than capable of running one more release past 10.6. Apple is already going to piss off enough people with not supporting PPC users in 10.6. Even if they did introduce a hardware work around, it would only be a matter of time before people figured out how it works and created something like the EFI-X to simulate it. Apple decided to essentially use all the same parts as the rest of computer manufacturers, processors, memory, hard drives, optical drives, graphics cards. With their need to be able to compete, they opened up the door to the likes of EFI-X.
Agreed! And EFi-X is not illegal and cannot be fought in court; moreover, solutions like these were always available for plenty of various devices including Mac OS8. Yup, for those who don't know there were software and hardware hacks that ran Mac OS8 on a Intel box.
The only way Apple can put a serious dent in those markets, is by giving the rest of their customers what they need. People will pay few hundred dollars extra for some peace of mind and buy an xMac, but would not dish-out well over a thousand dollars for something they don't even need.
A typical Mac designer or web developer probably invested thousands of dollars into software during they past few years and cannot easily migrate to Windows when Apple doesn't provide the right hardware, so for many EFi-X makes sense.
Is this fact? If so I will be one of those people, not so much for my G4 laptop, kind of expected it, but for my 2.1 Ghz G5 iMac I will be upset, it's not even 2 years old for crying out loud.
The Intel iMac was released almost 3 years ago next month (Jan 2006). So your iMac G5 is at least that old even if you bought the last one.
Thank you! Many people have been voicing this huge gap in Apple's product line on these forums for years and yet, they've been continuously trashed by Apple fanbois. However, I do have to semi-disagree with you on one point here. An xMac may cut into the MacPro sales a little bit but the xMac will sell like a crazy monkey!
Agreed! And EFi-X is not illegal and cannot be fought in court; moreover, solutions like these were always available for plenty of various devices including Mac OS8. Yup, for those who don't know there were software and hardware hacks that ran Mac OS8 on a Intel box.
The only way Apple can put a serious dent in those markets, is by giving the rest of their customers what they need. People will pay few hundred dollars extra for some peace of mind and buy an xMac, but would not dish-out well over a thousand dollars for something they don't even need.
A typical Mac designer or web developer probably invested thousands of dollars into software during they past few years and cannot easily migrate to Windows when Apple doesn't provide the right hardware, so for many EFi-X makes sense.
What I was trying to say was that Apple's reasoning for not introducing the xMac was probably for that reason, but I proposed exactly what you said, its a balancing of those two scenarios. I would also think that xMac sales would be outstanding.
Agreed! And EFi-X is not illegal and cannot be fought in court;
Uh, pretty much anything can be fought in court. Hopefully most issues never actually get to court but are dropped or settled long before then.
I would argue that EFi-X might well be legally challenged by Apple and shutdown on grounds that their dongle assists people in the commission of a crime (copyright infringement).
Quote:
moreover, solutions like these were always available for plenty of various devices including Mac OS8. Yup, for those who don't know there were software and hardware hacks that ran Mac OS8 on a Intel box.
Of course you know that doesn't mean they were legal.
Thank you! Many people have been voicing this huge gap in Apple's product line on these forums for years and yet, they've been continuously trashed by Apple fanbois. However, I do have to semi-disagree with you on one point here. An xMac may cut into the MacPro sales a little bit but the xMac will sell like a crazy monkey!
Agreed! And EFi-X is not illegal and cannot be fought in court; moreover, solutions like these were always available for plenty of various devices including Mac OS8. Yup, for those who don't know there were software and hardware hacks that ran Mac OS8 on a Intel box.
I think you are mistaken that the EFi-X is not illegal and cannot be fought in court.
The device is used to circumvent a copyright, so the DMCA can be used to fight it, as that law forbids sales of devices designed to do that.
Quote:
The only way Apple can put a serious dent in those markets, is by giving the rest of their customers what they need. People will pay few hundred dollars extra for some peace of mind and buy an xMac, but would not dish-out well over a thousand dollars for something they don't even need.
But Apple has not sold such a machine yet, so Apple/Steve thinks that it does not need or want it. Seeing the growing market share of the Mac, even while the economy is slowing throughout the year, I think that Apple/Steve is correct. (Which does not mean that I personally wouldn't buy such a machine! I'll buy two of those if released!!...)
Quote:
A typical Mac designer or web developer probably invested thousands of dollars into software during they past few years and cannot easily migrate to Windows when Apple doesn't provide the right hardware, so for many EFi-X makes sense.
And what sort of machine would that be? That designer can now run Windows on an Intel Mac using BootCamp or something like VMWare/Parallels, so 'migrate to Windows' is no problem. If you mean 'migrate to a generic PC', that is not what you wrote...
Uh, pretty much anything can be fought in court. Hopefully most issues never actually get to court but are dropped or settled long before then.
I would argue that EFi-X might well be legally challenged by Apple and shutdown on grounds that their dongle assists people in the commission of a crime (copyright infringement).
Of course you know that doesn't mean they were legal.
Installing OS X on a non Apple machine isn't a copyright infringement to the OS. It might violate the EULA. However I'm feeling Apple might be pigeonholing themselves in for an antitrust opportunity.
Is this fact? If so I will be one of those people, not so much for my G4 laptop, kind of expected it, but for my 2.1 Ghz G5 iMac I will be upset, it's not even 2 years old for crying out loud.
I think you mean "not even 3 years old." The G5 iMacs were discontinued in January 2006.
I wouldn't bother being upset. Snow Leopard is not really looking like a big deal. It's focus seems to be removing legacy code. PowerPC is part of that. I suspect 10.5 will be active for quite some time yet.
The cloners are circling Apple's wagon. I don't believe Apple will be able to fend them all off and will eventually have to give in. They may be forced to give in.
The only way that Apple will be forced to give in is if the courts declare that they do not have the legal right to restrict use of the MacOS software to machines created by themselves.
Because so long as Apple has that right then they can at least attempt to declare any software or device that allows a machine not made by Apple to use the OS to be a violation of copyright under prohibitions created by the DMCA
Comments
C'mon, Steve. Don't blow your chance at market share (for the hundredth time)
I have wondered for a while now if Steve is even concerned about market share. Apple is doing quite well right now without being the number one computer seller and being number one could just lead to more problems, look at microsoft. The bigger your market share the bigger target you are for those who would like to harm you.
I have wondered for a while now if Steve is even concerned about market share. ...
I don't believe he nor anyone @ Apple is. Apple believes they make the best computers for whatever market they target. For consumers it's the iMac and to a degree the Mac mini.
Unfortunately, people don't like being told," we don't want your business". Apple isn't coming out and saying that, but their product matrix does. Right now Apple is expanding, primarily do to laptops, but then Apple comes out with the MacBook without firewire and people notice. Apple drops matte screens and people notice. How this affects sales we will have to wait and see.
Tell enough people we don't want your business and it could eventually affect sales, no?
errr don't we already have 'proprietary' firmware, product serial numbers and an activation sequence ?
if that's all you're worried about...
Not in the OS. Look what a big PITA microsoft's activation garbage is in windows.
I don't use *any* software that "phones home" for activation, period. This means no Adobe CS3/4 - I will be using Photoshop CS2 for as long as I own hardware that it will run on; and if at some point that might eventually not be possible I suspect that the OSS stuff will be a reasonable (even if not great) option.
If Apple puts !#$@# activation into the OS then I will make the jump to ubuntu. End of story. And I've been a Mac user since 1984 and owner/developer since 1985. SteveJ likes things to be simple for the user, so I hope Apple can handle this by taking down the leeches, rather than burdening the users.
count me in and happy to be a dimwit. Apple sell ridiculously overpriced hardware and anything that can bring them down to a more sensible level is a good thing. Not as if nowadays that MAc hardware is even remotely better quality than an Dell or Tosh product.
Macs do break and do so more now than ever.
I'm sure you're not a dimwit though I am confused. How is making cheaper hardware going to improve that reliability? And what model are you proposing to recoup R&D costs? Drop the hardware price & increase the OS retail? I'm quite happy paying more for the kit and adding incremental OS upgrades at a comparatively low cost, with higher OS pricing that would be lost in a disastrous false economy.
I think we shouldn't fall foul of the same hardware hysteria that PC users suffer from when most of the Mac's benefits are not hardware related.
Apple should engage Papermaster ASAP, re-proprietarise the hardware keeping x86 cores available for those who need them (and those who believe they need them to realise that they don't) and get their integrated product model really working as Sun has. As of 10.5.6 OSX should QA the hardware it's running on and lock out the clones, like DRM this will have no disadvantage .
McD
1) There is a huge audience that Apple is missing out on, its those wanting the xMac ever since the Blue and White Yosemite G3's were released. A Desktop with expandability but not a 70lb beast of a Mac Pro, that doesn't have a built-in display, and that isn't as underpowered as the Mini. Apple hasn't moved on this because they are worried about cannibalizing Mac Pro sales, fair enough. Its a balancing decision, do you lose out the customers who would consider buying a Mac because they don't need a Mac Pro, or do you sacrifice some Mac Pro sales for a new desktop model.
2) EFI-X is not in the same boat as Psystar, they will not have the same troubles. I believe EFI-X has already been tested and is working with 10.6. Apple would have to introduce some sort of hardware feature into new machines to circumvent this truly. If implemented in 10.7, it would disable all machines purchased as of now, which should be more than capable of running one more release past 10.6. Apple is already going to piss off enough people with not supporting PPC users in 10.6. Even if they did introduce a hardware work around, it would only be a matter of time before people figured out how it works and created something like the EFI-X to simulate it. Apple decided to essentially use all the same parts as the rest of computer manufacturers, processors, memory, hard drives, optical drives, graphics cards. With their need to be able to compete, they opened up the door to the likes of EFI-X.
3) PASemi is not going to result in Apple producing its own chips for Desktop and high-end laptops. Apple with PASemi would never be able to keep up with the rapid development that Intel has. The PASemi acquisition will result in chips that perform very well with low power consumption, most likely for future Tablets/Netbooks. Apple knows they can't ignore the Netbook market, and they will want to have the best performing and best looking one out there sometime next year.
4) The Apple Experience has been pretty solid for a long time. I'd say its been slipping very much in the last year or two. iPhones and iPods don't exactly count towards this experience anymore (as far as hardware reliability), they're made to function, not made to be rugged as most portable electronics. I've been very disappointed with the quality of hardware in the laptop lines for the last couple of years. My first Intel MacBook Pro had so many hardware failures in the first few months of owning it I was considering jumping ship. Apple fixed them all eventually though I had no laptop for far too many weeks. Then I bought another MacBook Pro after they updated to Penryn chips, I had so many display issues with glitched and garbled artifacts that I was about ready to never buy an Apple laptop again and just rely on my trusty 4 year old G5. I bought a unibody MacBook Pro a couple of weeks ago, and my girlfriend also bough a unibody MacBook. I think Apple finally hit the nail on the head with this iteration as they have both been absolutely amazing machines.
Indeed. And I find it disturbing how many people on AI and other mac forums support Psystar. Short sighted dimwits spoiling it for everyone else. Too many ex PC users on the platform nowadays is my honest opinion!
I don't think anybody supports Pystar in this whole mess, but a lot of us think they stand a shot on legal grounds.
Ultimately, Apple will have to cryptographically lock their OS to their hardware or go with a goofy authorization scheme like Microsoft. When you get big enough, you don't have many choices.
Personally, my pain is that I want OSX on hardware platforms that Apple doesn't have or won't develop. The Netbook is a solid example of this, and to a lesser extent the headless consumer device and tablet: If you need one of those form factors and want OSX, what do you do.
It will be interesting to see what long-term solutions Apple uses-- will they keep it in the Legal department, or move the problem over to Engineering.
...Apple is already going to piss off enough people with not supporting PPC users in 10.6. ...
Is this fact? If so I will be one of those people, not so much for my G4 laptop, kind of expected it, but for my 2.1 Ghz G5 iMac I will be upset, it's not even 2 years old for crying out loud.
Is this fact? If so I will be one of those people, not so much for my G4 laptop, kind of expected it, but for my 2.1 Ghz G5 iMac I will be upset, it's not even 2 years old for crying out loud.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=498339
If the developer preview requires an Intel processor, I would pretty much guess that the final release will too.
At least Apple isn't charging us to get support that is based in America rather India like Dell is doing.
living in the UK I don't know whats worse, talking to a Yank or an Indian.... honestly..
This might be difficult being as Apple haven't been including a TPM chip on any Intel Macs since the original ones.
On the newer processors the separate TPM chip is not needed anymore, as the TPM chip is built into the main processor itself. See Intel LaGrande Technology...
And why do you think these companies think they can make money off Apple's success? Root cause analysis = they think that(and I quote bandalay),"It shows an underlying desire by a larger and larger segment of the population to have the Apple experience without paying for Apple hardware. The halo works."
Because they (clone makers) know that they are not and cannot provide the Apple experience but they use it anyway to sell their products. To get Apple experience you need Apple computer, Apple service and support, Apple Mac OS, Apple iLife, and not worrying about your computer being bricked. What they give you is only Mac OS.
It shows an underlying desire by a larger and larger segment of the population to have the Apple experience without paying for Apple hardware. The halo works.
Eventually Apple may choose to reel them in with cheaper hardware options, license hardware production to a third party (like HP) or (highly-unlikely) license the OS to other OEMs.
The commodity players out there only have Windows…and it's clearly becoming less and less desirable as their market gets more and more hyper competitive. Netbooks have eaten everyone's lunch in year one – what happens next year when things get more economically challenging?
All the balls really seem in Apple's court. Let's hope they capitalize on them.
Apple's answer will be to change the Product Matrix and hit that sweet spot.
There is so much to say on this topic it would take the rest of the day. I've been a Mac user my whole life, I had a copy of Photoshop before I ever got a copy of Playboy. I am a life long devotee.
1) There is a huge audience that Apple is missing out on, its those wanting the xMac ever since the Blue and White Yosemite G3's were released. A Desktop with expandability but not a 70lb beast of a Mac Pro, that doesn't have a built-in display, and that isn't as underpowered as the Mini. Apple hasn't moved on this because they are worried about cannibalizing Mac Pro sales, fair enough. Its a balancing decision, do you lose out the customers who would consider buying a Mac because they don't need a Mac Pro, or do you sacrifice some Mac Pro sales for a new desktop model.
Thank you! Many people have been voicing this huge gap in Apple's product line on these forums for years and yet, they've been continuously trashed by Apple fanbois. However, I do have to semi-disagree with you on one point here. An xMac may cut into the MacPro sales a little bit but the xMac will sell like a crazy monkey!
2) EFI-X is not in the same boat as Psystar, they will not have the same troubles. I believe EFI-X has already been tested and is working with 10.6. Apple would have to introduce some sort of hardware feature into new machines to circumvent this truly. If implemented in 10.7, it would disable all machines purchased as of now, which should be more than capable of running one more release past 10.6. Apple is already going to piss off enough people with not supporting PPC users in 10.6. Even if they did introduce a hardware work around, it would only be a matter of time before people figured out how it works and created something like the EFI-X to simulate it. Apple decided to essentially use all the same parts as the rest of computer manufacturers, processors, memory, hard drives, optical drives, graphics cards. With their need to be able to compete, they opened up the door to the likes of EFI-X.
Agreed! And EFi-X is not illegal and cannot be fought in court; moreover, solutions like these were always available for plenty of various devices including Mac OS8. Yup, for those who don't know there were software and hardware hacks that ran Mac OS8 on a Intel box.
The only way Apple can put a serious dent in those markets, is by giving the rest of their customers what they need. People will pay few hundred dollars extra for some peace of mind and buy an xMac, but would not dish-out well over a thousand dollars for something they don't even need.
A typical Mac designer or web developer probably invested thousands of dollars into software during they past few years and cannot easily migrate to Windows when Apple doesn't provide the right hardware, so for many EFi-X makes sense.
Is this fact? If so I will be one of those people, not so much for my G4 laptop, kind of expected it, but for my 2.1 Ghz G5 iMac I will be upset, it's not even 2 years old for crying out loud.
The Intel iMac was released almost 3 years ago next month (Jan 2006). So your iMac G5 is at least that old even if you bought the last one.
Thank you! Many people have been voicing this huge gap in Apple's product line on these forums for years and yet, they've been continuously trashed by Apple fanbois. However, I do have to semi-disagree with you on one point here. An xMac may cut into the MacPro sales a little bit but the xMac will sell like a crazy monkey!
Agreed! And EFi-X is not illegal and cannot be fought in court; moreover, solutions like these were always available for plenty of various devices including Mac OS8. Yup, for those who don't know there were software and hardware hacks that ran Mac OS8 on a Intel box.
The only way Apple can put a serious dent in those markets, is by giving the rest of their customers what they need. People will pay few hundred dollars extra for some peace of mind and buy an xMac, but would not dish-out well over a thousand dollars for something they don't even need.
A typical Mac designer or web developer probably invested thousands of dollars into software during they past few years and cannot easily migrate to Windows when Apple doesn't provide the right hardware, so for many EFi-X makes sense.
What I was trying to say was that Apple's reasoning for not introducing the xMac was probably for that reason, but I proposed exactly what you said, its a balancing of those two scenarios. I would also think that xMac sales would be outstanding.
Agreed! And EFi-X is not illegal and cannot be fought in court;
Uh, pretty much anything can be fought in court. Hopefully most issues never actually get to court but are dropped or settled long before then.
I would argue that EFi-X might well be legally challenged by Apple and shutdown on grounds that their dongle assists people in the commission of a crime (copyright infringement).
moreover, solutions like these were always available for plenty of various devices including Mac OS8. Yup, for those who don't know there were software and hardware hacks that ran Mac OS8 on a Intel box.
Of course you know that doesn't mean they were legal.
Thank you! Many people have been voicing this huge gap in Apple's product line on these forums for years and yet, they've been continuously trashed by Apple fanbois. However, I do have to semi-disagree with you on one point here. An xMac may cut into the MacPro sales a little bit but the xMac will sell like a crazy monkey!
Agreed! And EFi-X is not illegal and cannot be fought in court; moreover, solutions like these were always available for plenty of various devices including Mac OS8. Yup, for those who don't know there were software and hardware hacks that ran Mac OS8 on a Intel box.
I think you are mistaken that the EFi-X is not illegal and cannot be fought in court.
The device is used to circumvent a copyright, so the DMCA can be used to fight it, as that law forbids sales of devices designed to do that.
The only way Apple can put a serious dent in those markets, is by giving the rest of their customers what they need. People will pay few hundred dollars extra for some peace of mind and buy an xMac, but would not dish-out well over a thousand dollars for something they don't even need.
But Apple has not sold such a machine yet, so Apple/Steve thinks that it does not need or want it. Seeing the growing market share of the Mac, even while the economy is slowing throughout the year, I think that Apple/Steve is correct. (Which does not mean that I personally wouldn't buy such a machine! I'll buy two of those if released!!...)
A typical Mac designer or web developer probably invested thousands of dollars into software during they past few years and cannot easily migrate to Windows when Apple doesn't provide the right hardware, so for many EFi-X makes sense.
And what sort of machine would that be? That designer can now run Windows on an Intel Mac using BootCamp or something like VMWare/Parallels, so 'migrate to Windows' is no problem. If you mean 'migrate to a generic PC', that is not what you wrote...
Uh, pretty much anything can be fought in court. Hopefully most issues never actually get to court but are dropped or settled long before then.
I would argue that EFi-X might well be legally challenged by Apple and shutdown on grounds that their dongle assists people in the commission of a crime (copyright infringement).
Of course you know that doesn't mean they were legal.
Installing OS X on a non Apple machine isn't a copyright infringement to the OS. It might violate the EULA. However I'm feeling Apple might be pigeonholing themselves in for an antitrust opportunity.
Is this fact? If so I will be one of those people, not so much for my G4 laptop, kind of expected it, but for my 2.1 Ghz G5 iMac I will be upset, it's not even 2 years old for crying out loud.
I think you mean "not even 3 years old." The G5 iMacs were discontinued in January 2006.
I wouldn't bother being upset. Snow Leopard is not really looking like a big deal. It's focus seems to be removing legacy code. PowerPC is part of that. I suspect 10.5 will be active for quite some time yet.
The cloners are circling Apple's wagon. I don't believe Apple will be able to fend them all off and will eventually have to give in. They may be forced to give in.
The only way that Apple will be forced to give in is if the courts declare that they do not have the legal right to restrict use of the MacOS software to machines created by themselves.
Because so long as Apple has that right then they can at least attempt to declare any software or device that allows a machine not made by Apple to use the OS to be a violation of copyright under prohibitions created by the DMCA