I suppose if Apple *really* wanted to make money, and shut down the cloners, the company could introduce its own USB dongle for EFI.
Box it, sell it as a bundle with Mac OS X for those interested. We'd know what the "Apple tax" for OS development is up front. It'd have a EULA saying the dongle would work *only* with that version of OS X. Kill the cloners' market, make it legal, collect "taxes" on it. It'd also be a way to make money off of software.
Of course, this would make Apple more like Microsoft... which is why I don't think it'll ever happen. Even so, I thought I'd throw this out to liven up the discussion on a Saturday afternoon.
There are hardware for sale that allows decrypting Cable, and Satellite signals and they're totally legal, pickup a Make magazine, or a Popular mechanics checkout the back pages.
That doesn't make them legal!
Quote:
My question to you would be, why doesn't Apple serve a cease and desist to Hackintosh and get it over with? Certainly if Psystar didn't have Hackintosh they would not be able to sell their system.
Who is Hackintosh? How much revenue does Hackintosh bring in?
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've owned and used nothing but Apple hardware since the late 70's, and i am squarely in the clone makers corner on this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrifle
...a midrange tower and I *swear* I won't buy a competitor's hardware. I *like* your hardware. I just want something I can upgrade that doesn't cost a bazillion dollars.
Exactly. It's not that I want hardware made by a third party, it's that those third parties are offering me the product I want, that Apple refuses to make. I won't use Windows if you paid me, but if I do want a mid priced real upgradeable desktop tower. If Apple won't make one, and somebody else offers one that will run OS X, that lost sale is Apple fault, not the clone makers.
Apple; make a proper consumer tower and the clone makers will have no market, full stop.
Wow, you are really clueless! Apple doesn't make a computer that fits the target market? Pull your head out of the sand! Apple has sold more Macs now more than ever in their history! People don't want a piece of shit cheap tower! They are selling iMacs and MacBooks like crazy. I think they found the market. Apple did a headless mini tower, it was called the Power Mac G4 and it was priced $1500 to $1800. It was very popular. Apple also made the Power Mac G4 Cube for $1799. You could upgrade the RAM, hard drive, video card, and optical drive...all the features that you claim you want in a headless Mac...Guess what? It was a failure! And it was at the price point that you claim is reasonable! If you want all the capability of swapping out parts, buy a Mac Pro, it is only $400 more than your $1800 price point.
No one is giving a look to the so-called clones because they are pieces of crap that no one would want in the first place. If you want a cheap computer, go back to using Windows on your cheap Dell or knock-off, because that is apparently what you want, a junk computer.
----
Response:
Wow, you really are an idiot. You probably masturbate to pictures of Steve Jobs. What an ignorant fanboy. I've been using Macs since the very first Mac in 1984, you moron. I've never owned a PC
The G4 wasn't a minitower, it was the previous generation of what is now the Mac Pro in the line up of the time. The cube was replaced by the mini in form. Think of how many more computers Apple could sell if they finally addressed the gigantic hole in their product line up. The price range I stated was $1500 to $1800, so we're talking about a difference of $500 to $800—if that isn't significant to you, then let me give you my address and you can send me that much in cash since you've deemed that amount of money meaningless, you won't miss it.
The computer I'm taking about is a mid-level machine aimed at pros—the iMac without the built-in monitor with innards accessible to the user. Why would one pay $2299 for huge, heavy, hobbled workstation? Why would one pay $500 dollars more for a 2.8 dual core tower than the iMac with the same processor and a monitor if there was something in between? Why would I pay more to get the specs I want without a monitor? That is truly stupid. No one said Apple should make a crappy computer. Do you consider the iMac crappy? All I'm saying is that Apple needs a machine with the same specs as the iMac without a built in monitor or the number of drive bays and mass of the Pro. There is no such beast in the Apple's lineup. I know you fanboys can't see this but the iMac is not a pro machine and the Tower is a top end workstation. It's a great workstation, but not every pro needs that much machine or wants that big a price tag. Pros users helped Apple become the company it is today. Apple is ignoring them in favor of consumers. Not that Apple shouldn't make a consumer machine, but they shouldn't ignore the true needs of Pros to do so. Apple offers pros the choice of a consumer model with no choice of monitor and limited access or a tricked out workstation but nothing in between. If you think the iMac and the MacPro fit every Pro's price range and needs than you're not too bright, fanboy. Jobs probably thinks a min-tower would take sales away from the Mac Pro and the iMac. It might for a few, but people who want an iMac will still buy an iMac and people who want a workstation class computer will still get the Mac Pro. Any sales of those machines lost to a headless minitower would still be sales to Apple. The number of people who don't want an all in-one (a computer merged with a monitor is not a good idea anyway) and those who don't want the price and size of a full-blown workstation would represent a large increase in sales. You, like Jobs, are the clueless one with head up a$$ if you can't see that Apple would sell a ton of mini-towers to Apple Pro users who don't need a workstation or a consumer machine aimed at sheep who are easily swayed by pretty shiny things and like to look at their own reflection while they use their computer. I bet Jobs holding a laser pen cat toy could keep himself and you entertained for hours getting you to chase a little red light on the wall
Wow, you are really clueless! Apple doesn't make a computer that fits the target market? Pull your head out of the sand! Apple has sold more Macs now more than ever in their history! People don't want a piece of shit cheap tower! They are selling iMacs and MacBooks like crazy. I think they found the market. Apple did a headless mini tower, it was called the Power Mac G4 and it was priced $1500 to $1800. It was very popular. Apple also made the Power Mac G4 Cube for $1799. You could upgrade the RAM, hard drive, video card, and optical drive...all the features that you claim you want in a headless Mac...Guess what? It was a failure! And it was at the price point that you claim is reasonable! If you want all the capability of swapping out parts, buy a Mac Pro, it is only $400 more than your $1800 price point.
No one is giving a look to the so-called clones because they are pieces of crap that no one would want in the first place. If you want a cheap computer, go back to using Windows on your cheap Dell or knock-off, because that is apparently what you want, a junk computer.
----
Response:
Wow, you really are an idiot. You probably masturbate to pictures of Steve Jobs. What an ignorant fanboy. I've been using Macs since the very first Mac in 1984, you moron. I've never owned a PC
The G4 wasn't a minitower, it was the previous generation of what is now the Mac Pro in the line up of the time. The cube was replaced by the mini in form. Think of how many more computers Apple could sell if they finally addressed the gigantic hole in their product line up. The price range I stated was $1500 to $1800, so we're talking about a difference of $500 to $800?if that isn't significant to you, then let me give you my address and you can send me that much in cash since you've deemed that amount of money meaningless, you won't miss it.
The computer I'm taking about is a mid-level machine aimed at pros?the iMac without the built-in monitor with innards accessible to the user. Why would one pay $2299 for huge, heavy, hobbled workstation? Why would one pay $500 dollars more for a 2.8 dual core tower than the iMac with the same processor and a monitor if there was something in between? Why would I pay more to get the specs I want without a monitor? That is truly stupid. No one said Apple should make a crappy computer. Do you consider the iMac crappy? All I'm saying is that Apple needs a machine with the same specs as the iMac without a built in monitor or the number of drive bays and mass of the Pro. There is no such beast in the Apple's lineup. I know you fanboys can't see this but the iMac is not a pro machine and the Tower is a top end workstation. It's a great workstation, but not every pro needs that much machine or wants that big a price tag. Pros users helped Apple become the company it is today. Apple is ignoring them in favor of consumers. Not that Apple shouldn't make a consumer machine, but they shouldn't ignore the true needs of Pros to do so. Apple offers pros the choice of a consumer model with no choice of monitor and limited access or a tricked out workstation but nothing in between. If you think the iMac and the MacPro fit every Pro's price range and needs than you're not too bright, fanboy. Jobs probably thinks a min-tower would take sales away from the Mac Pro and the iMac. It might for a few, but people who want an iMac will still buy an iMac and people who want a workstation class computer will still get the Mac Pro. Any sales of those machines lost to a headless minitower would still be sales to Apple. The number of people who don't want an all in-one (a computer merged with a monitor is not a good idea anyway) and those who don't want the price and size of a full-blown workstation would represent a large increase in sales. You, like Jobs, are the clueless one with head up a$$ if you can't see that Apple would sell a ton of mini-towers to Apple Pro users who don't need a workstation or a consumer machine aimed at sheep who are easily swayed by pretty shiny things and like to look at their own reflection while they use their computer. I bet Jobs holding a laser pen cat toy could keep himself and you entertained for hours getting you to chase a little red light on the wall
great post...
If Jobs doesn't know how to make a $500 computer that 'isn't a piece of junk' then he should look at the economic world in which he lives and shut his f**king mouth...... oh and find another job.
If Jobs doesn't know how to make a $500 computer that 'isn't a piece of junk' then he should look at the economic world in which he lives and shut his f**king mouth...... oh and find another job.
Apple can make cheaper Macs, but they choose not to get into that market. However, many Mac fans are waiting for a mid-tower, many would be mac-switchers are also waiting for a mid-tower.
Quote:
Jobs needs to get real..and understand that the Mac's growing marketshare is down to MS' missteps not anything he's done great.
If you watched the last keynote, you'd realize that Apple does realize that its success was partially due to the unpopularity of Vista.
Quote:
When MS improves...and they will then the momentum goes the other way. AT that point I'm sure Jobs will be more receptve to what the consumers want.
And at the same time he can be more socially and economically responsible.
Now wouldn't that make him happy\\?
While I do agree with Jobs that the cheap PC industry is not the industry for Apple, he should also realize that Apple's computer product line has a large gaping hole in it, and the xMac serves as a good part of that hole. In my opinion a Duo-Dock like device is another piece of the hole.
I don't own a Mac, and never will with the current lineup. I don't want an underpowered machine (Mac mini), I don't want to be stuck with the same monitor (iMac) and the Mac Pro is way too expensive and overpowered for my use. I'm the perfect example of a lost sale, and my only option to use OSX would be via the 'hackingtosh' method. So they've lost a hardware and software sale to me because they won't provide the product I want, even though I would quite like to buy it
Most of my peers in the 'creative/design' industry are moving to iMac's.
Sure my Mac Pro is hot, but it's overkill for 95% of what I do. Design, print, web, video.
I won't use any of the empty slots. I don't need a raid array. I'm not working on an Earth simulation.
Apple left the display in their mid-range computer because it was perfect timing for them to make money off the CRT to LCD transition. Besides, they couldn't compete in the display market. 4 years between a refresh anyone?
Besides, there are tones of mid-range Apple tower solutions out there in the $1000 - $1600 range... just go to craigslist or eBay.
there are others as SJ said, other probable big name players, seems it's a conspiracy to violate the law....why isn't RICO used, and take all the assets that allow this???
i guess there will always someone out there that will try to get apple on the cheap, it does put pressure on apple to lower price, but also puts more emphasis on the iphone as portable computer system, now how does syncing iphone play with these hackintoshs??? that's why gaming went to the standalone system, to reduce piracy. they do the same thing, except they call it a xbox, can another company make parts for consumers to create there own xbox, i don't think so, also the os is different, but same concept.
apple can make the ecosystem they have developed to not work with these hacks.
i feel that is one of the strengths of apple's ecosystem dependent approach.
so you have a hack, it will look like a hack, then other products of apple's won't play
so your iphone, mobleme, sync, ipod, and any other apple product....you will be in a desert.
maybe that's why they bought the chip company, they will put their own designs in the apple products
Most of my peers in the 'creative/design' industry are moving to iMac's.
Sure my Mac Pro is hot, but it's overkill for 95% of what I do. Design, print, web, video.
I won't use any of the empty slots. I don't need a raid array. I'm not working on an Earth simulation.
Apple left the display in their mid-range computer because it was perfect timing for them to make money off the CRT to LCD transition. Besides, they couldn't compete in the display market. 4 years between a refresh anyone?
Besides, there are tones of mid-range Apple tower solutions out there in the $1000 - $1600 range... just go to craigslist or eBay.
The iMac is designed for the consumer market, period. The first Mac was an all in one and (speculation on my part of course since I don't know Steve personally) Steve loves that form and wants it to always be in the product lineup. When he came back to Apple he brought back the design and it helped turn Apple's sales which were suffering. I believe the real thing that turned them around was simplifying their product lineup. At the time, Apple had gone hog wild in targeting the consumer market with too many configurations and experimented with selling machines in Sears. They had too many models with confusing names. Rather than having a machine aimed at reasonable demarkations of market segments (entry, mid, high-end) that could be configured with different memory and a few options of processor speeds with in each range, Apple had a different machine and name for different configurations but they were all far too similar. They had the Performa and Proforma lines (I think those were the names, but I could be remembering that wrong) each of those had several similar machines with number and letter names. The result was a confused customer base and stores like Sears stuck with a large inventory of machines, which in turn eventually ended up with Apple also stuck with a large inventory of machines that was difficult to manage and Apple suffered. When jobs came back, Apple simplified their lineup greatly and the iMac was how they did it. However, they went too far in trying to have the iMac pull double duty as the consumer model and the low-end Pro machine. It doesn't fit that role. It increased sales to consumers, but it is costing them sales to Pros and costing the number of switchers they could get. Apple, like many here, think that increased sales to consumers is evidence of how successful that approach has been instead of looking at the big picture and seeing how much more sales they could get if they added a true mid-level machine designed for pros.
The iMac was just the update to the original Mac and consumers see it as a convenience to buy one thing. The original iMac had a built in CRT, the switch to LCDs had nothing to do with the reasoning for an all in one. Many creative design people use iMacs because they don't have any other option. The difference in cost between the Pro tower and the iMac is huge when you multiply it by the number of computers in a department or if you are a self-employed freelancer to whom every penny matters. I've read posts about design departments that went the iMac route. One poster elsewhere said their design department loved the iMac when they first got them. A few months later the whole department grew to hate the reflective screen and really regretted the investment in all the iMacs and the head of the department decided the next time around, if the iMac was the only Apple computer at the price level that fit their department's budget, they will switch to PCs.
If you're saying that the solution for people who want a mid-level machine but not the iMac is to buy a used tower, that is a piss-poor solution. It may work for some, but I am not about to pay a grand and a half for a used computer from some stranger I don't know and don't know what kind of hell that machine has gone through. That solution just reiterates the fact that Apple is completely ignoring a large chunk of their customer base and losing sales buy not adressing that segment of the market.
EFi-X USA is not selling Mac Clones with the EFIX USB dongle installed as of their news release on 12/12/08. The original post that started this thread should be updated to reflect this information.
While I do agree with Jobs that the cheap PC industry is not the industry for Apple, he should also realize that Apple's computer product line has a large gaping hole in it, and the xMac serves as a good part of that hole. In my opinion a Duo-Dock like device is another piece of the hole.
Nods*. 2009 brings fresh hope, I guess?
As for the 'Clones'. They're infringing Apple's copyright and enabling users to break that copyright. It's a matter of time before they are brought to the sword. Court cases take ages.
I don't agree with everything in Apple's line up in as much as some things are missing eg mid-tower. But these parasites have contributed nothing to Apple's OS development or market and are out for a fast buck. Apple isn't the same as M$. They're different. You buy the whole widget and that's part of the agreement...or sod off and get a m$ product. I'm surprised Apple hasn't issues cease and desist letters or can't enforce them to stop. I guess that's what the court is for. I hope it gets sorted soon.
However, it's good 'bad' press in a way. Get's people talking Apple.
Apple have had the best 'free' press in the industry for the last ten years now...
I love MacOS X. Windows and Linux can't touch it. Heck, they try to mimic it to no avail.
But Apple the computer? Whatever.
$700 Canadian gets me a low end MacMini with NO DVD burner and a bare minimum of a computer.
You need about $1300 for a decent Mac.
On the other hand, $500 can buy me a refurbished PC with a couple GBs of RAM, decent memory, DVD Lightscribe burner and a lot of goodies. I'd sacrifice my beloved MacOS X but I'd get a lot of bang for my buck.
If Apple wants to stop the clones, make a consumer friendly computer.
C'mon, a decent $500 Canadian iMac with DVD burner can't be that hard.
As for quality. I'm happy in a Chevy instead of a Mercedes. A lot of people are. If Apple takes that attitude with its computers, the clones will die down.
Most of my peers in the 'creative/design' industry are moving to iMac's.
Sure my Mac Pro is hot, but it's overkill for 95% of what I do. Design, print, web, video.
I won't use any of the empty slots. I don't need a raid array. I'm not working on an Earth simulation.
Apple left the display in their mid-range computer because it was perfect timing for them to make money off the CRT to LCD transition. Besides, they couldn't compete in the display market. 4 years between a refresh anyone?
B.
The imac hardware is ok the lack of mate screen is not.
I don't own a Mac, and never will with the current lineup. I don't want an underpowered machine (Mac mini), I don't want to be stuck with the same monitor (iMac) and the Mac Pro is way too expensive and overpowered for my use. I'm the perfect example of a lost sale, and my only option to use OSX would be via the 'hackingtosh' method. So they've lost a hardware and software sale to me because they won't provide the product I want, even though I would quite like to buy it
I'm not sure if you would have ever bought an Apple product and, if you did, whether you'd enjoy it. This highlights a major current dilemma for Apple. They've made a few changes to align their products so Windows users can see the benefits and switch but what are the real consequences of switchers and do Apple want the custom from certain areas of the market?
This is a case in point; even though the poster admits to not/never having OSX and therefore doesn't really understand what it and it's software will do with those hardware resources they still believe they should have the right to configure/re-configure their systems. Given back-to-base upgrades are still feasible once you know what you're talking about the argument for a hackintosh is pretty weak.
One way of Apple ensuring a high degree of user satisfaction is to have a product range which doesn't entice those who are too far gone i.e. those who've been conditioned to believe they are capable of making certain decisions that they probably will never be able to.
Batting off criticisms from non (& never-will-be)-believers is one thing but when it comes from the ranks of it's own customer base and marketshare is on the line it becomes dangerous and could force Apple to compromise on values which are key to it's point of difference.
Pure bullshit, spread by fanbois over the years. If both the iMac and the dual MP are truly Apple's flagships and the best in the business, they (you) shouldn't be afraid of a dull tower with a single quad-core cpu. If it is the case, that means that both products have been poorly designed/priced, they can't withstand a little competition.
I agree with you for the most part, but the obvious issue here is, Apple wants you to pay a premium if are going to modify their machine. If they would have had a headless expandable mac or a low end MacPro available, I would have bought cheap and upgraded on my own terms. That is the last thing Apple wants.
I have no doubt everybody or nearly everybody on this website could assemble a mac with a butter knife, but when you start getting people (like my parents) trying to jam the wrong type of hard drive into a machine or the wrong kind of ram, incompatible video cards, etc., it jams up their tech support lines. This is why it's such a pain in the ass to swap the ram in a mac mini.
You create an all in one solution for the majority (not the hobbyists), the quantity of phone calls to tech support go down.
I don't think Apple is afraid of a dull tower, they just don't want unqualified people tinkering with their computers because any problems created by said tinkering will come back to bite Apple in the rear.
I (and many others) have been clamoring for a lower-cost Mac tower for... oh... only 15 years now.
C'mon, Steve. Don't blow your chance at market share (for the hundredth time)
Apple did have a $1500 G5 tower, less than five years ago. If you forgo one processor module, a real Mac Pro can be had for only a little more than the product in this story.
Market share isn't that important to them. Making a net profit is. The low end machines are often low margin ones too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Once Apple lays the final killing blow on Psystar, they'll go after all these copycats, either directly via the court system, or indirectly by making Leopard unusable on these clones.
Apple can litigate more than one case at a time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John the Geek
If there's anything in that Open Firmware that is Apple-specific, can't that be seen as circumventing Apple's copy protection? This smacks of DMCA violation. Like Playstation Mod chips.
From what I understand, DMCA covers circumvention of copy protection measures. Are DMCA concerns even in that lawsuit? I don't think Apple uses copy protection for the OS just yet. From what I hear, a computer with EFI firmware is all that's needed to install the OS. From what I see, where Psystar really got into trouble was modifying Apple's OS updates, which is copyright infringement, not a copy protection issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
Unfortunately Apple only wants your business if you settle for what they know is best for you.
I think it is more like they know what is best for them. Unfortunately, it's to the point that they don't want any overlap between products. Having a little more overlap is not bad, the part that is bad is having a dozen models with very little differentiation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago
living in the UK I don't know whats worse, talking to a Yank or an Indian.... honestly..
I think the point is about local support, not that all Apple support hails from the US. Don't you get local support? I've heard Apple has a call center in Ireland. I don't know about anywhere else. And you can bring the machine in if you are near an Apple store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones
Apple did not put HDCP (DRM) on the DisplayPort. HOLLYWOOD required it since Apple is now selling HD content..
It's Apple's product, they put it in. Whether they wanted to do that is a different matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDonG4
Obviously... but its called a sample. Statisticians never get data on the whole of a population, they take a sample size.
I think using forums would be called getting a biased sample - you're reading the loudest people, not a random sampling of everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco
Or Aperture. Or iWork. Or Final Cut Pro. Or Logic.
Depending on what you're talking about here. The original mention of FileMaker was bout the activation hassles, having to call in order to get the authorization code to get a program running. All the programs you mention do require serial numbers, but they don't phone home. It's definitely not like the current windows activation system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaynardJames
Then go buy a PC.
That's being unhelpful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Do you think maybe you can use a few more exclamation points? I'm not sure we completely get the strength of your convictions yet. You may also try to tone down your own insults, like stupid and dumbass. Jumping into a forum then calling people names and calling them "kid" without actually knowing their age is not a good way to build credibility.
That person earned ten days off for the personal insults.
Comments
I suppose if Apple *really* wanted to make money, and shut down the cloners, the company could introduce its own USB dongle for EFI.
Box it, sell it as a bundle with Mac OS X for those interested. We'd know what the "Apple tax" for OS development is up front. It'd have a EULA saying the dongle would work *only* with that version of OS X. Kill the cloners' market, make it legal, collect "taxes" on it. It'd also be a way to make money off of software.
Of course, this would make Apple more like Microsoft... which is why I don't think it'll ever happen. Even so, I thought I'd throw this out to liven up the discussion on a Saturday afternoon.
There are hardware for sale that allows decrypting Cable, and Satellite signals and they're totally legal, pickup a Make magazine, or a Popular mechanics checkout the back pages.
That doesn't make them legal!
My question to you would be, why doesn't Apple serve a cease and desist to Hackintosh and get it over with? Certainly if Psystar didn't have Hackintosh they would not be able to sell their system.
Who is Hackintosh? How much revenue does Hackintosh bring in?
As if "Ha-ha-ha-ha...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoran...is_non_excusat
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've owned and used nothing but Apple hardware since the late 70's, and i am squarely in the clone makers corner on this issue.
...a midrange tower and I *swear* I won't buy a competitor's hardware. I *like* your hardware. I just want something I can upgrade that doesn't cost a bazillion dollars.
Exactly. It's not that I want hardware made by a third party, it's that those third parties are offering me the product I want, that Apple refuses to make. I won't use Windows if you paid me, but if I do want a mid priced real upgradeable desktop tower. If Apple won't make one, and somebody else offers one that will run OS X, that lost sale is Apple fault, not the clone makers.
Apple; make a proper consumer tower and the clone makers will have no market, full stop.
Seems that in the end this is not happening:
efi-x-shuts-down-efi-x-usa-says-it-doesnt-support-mac-clones
If you read down through the comments in the article you will find a reply from a
salesperson at efi-x usa. In it he says they will still produce the machines on a
one-off request basis, but that the parent company had asked them to remove
the offer from their website and they complied. I don't think we have heard the
last of this yet.
Wow, you are really clueless! Apple doesn't make a computer that fits the target market? Pull your head out of the sand! Apple has sold more Macs now more than ever in their history! People don't want a piece of shit cheap tower! They are selling iMacs and MacBooks like crazy. I think they found the market. Apple did a headless mini tower, it was called the Power Mac G4 and it was priced $1500 to $1800. It was very popular. Apple also made the Power Mac G4 Cube for $1799. You could upgrade the RAM, hard drive, video card, and optical drive...all the features that you claim you want in a headless Mac...Guess what? It was a failure! And it was at the price point that you claim is reasonable! If you want all the capability of swapping out parts, buy a Mac Pro, it is only $400 more than your $1800 price point.
No one is giving a look to the so-called clones because they are pieces of crap that no one would want in the first place. If you want a cheap computer, go back to using Windows on your cheap Dell or knock-off, because that is apparently what you want, a junk computer.
----
Response:
Wow, you really are an idiot. You probably masturbate to pictures of Steve Jobs. What an ignorant fanboy. I've been using Macs since the very first Mac in 1984, you moron. I've never owned a PC
The G4 wasn't a minitower, it was the previous generation of what is now the Mac Pro in the line up of the time. The cube was replaced by the mini in form. Think of how many more computers Apple could sell if they finally addressed the gigantic hole in their product line up. The price range I stated was $1500 to $1800, so we're talking about a difference of $500 to $800—if that isn't significant to you, then let me give you my address and you can send me that much in cash since you've deemed that amount of money meaningless, you won't miss it.
The computer I'm taking about is a mid-level machine aimed at pros—the iMac without the built-in monitor with innards accessible to the user. Why would one pay $2299 for huge, heavy, hobbled workstation? Why would one pay $500 dollars more for a 2.8 dual core tower than the iMac with the same processor and a monitor if there was something in between? Why would I pay more to get the specs I want without a monitor? That is truly stupid. No one said Apple should make a crappy computer. Do you consider the iMac crappy? All I'm saying is that Apple needs a machine with the same specs as the iMac without a built in monitor or the number of drive bays and mass of the Pro. There is no such beast in the Apple's lineup. I know you fanboys can't see this but the iMac is not a pro machine and the Tower is a top end workstation. It's a great workstation, but not every pro needs that much machine or wants that big a price tag. Pros users helped Apple become the company it is today. Apple is ignoring them in favor of consumers. Not that Apple shouldn't make a consumer machine, but they shouldn't ignore the true needs of Pros to do so. Apple offers pros the choice of a consumer model with no choice of monitor and limited access or a tricked out workstation but nothing in between. If you think the iMac and the MacPro fit every Pro's price range and needs than you're not too bright, fanboy. Jobs probably thinks a min-tower would take sales away from the Mac Pro and the iMac. It might for a few, but people who want an iMac will still buy an iMac and people who want a workstation class computer will still get the Mac Pro. Any sales of those machines lost to a headless minitower would still be sales to Apple. The number of people who don't want an all in-one (a computer merged with a monitor is not a good idea anyway) and those who don't want the price and size of a full-blown workstation would represent a large increase in sales. You, like Jobs, are the clueless one with head up a$$ if you can't see that Apple would sell a ton of mini-towers to Apple Pro users who don't need a workstation or a consumer machine aimed at sheep who are easily swayed by pretty shiny things and like to look at their own reflection while they use their computer. I bet Jobs holding a laser pen cat toy could keep himself and you entertained for hours getting you to chase a little red light on the wall
hillstones wrote:
Wow, you are really clueless! Apple doesn't make a computer that fits the target market? Pull your head out of the sand! Apple has sold more Macs now more than ever in their history! People don't want a piece of shit cheap tower! They are selling iMacs and MacBooks like crazy. I think they found the market. Apple did a headless mini tower, it was called the Power Mac G4 and it was priced $1500 to $1800. It was very popular. Apple also made the Power Mac G4 Cube for $1799. You could upgrade the RAM, hard drive, video card, and optical drive...all the features that you claim you want in a headless Mac...Guess what? It was a failure! And it was at the price point that you claim is reasonable! If you want all the capability of swapping out parts, buy a Mac Pro, it is only $400 more than your $1800 price point.
No one is giving a look to the so-called clones because they are pieces of crap that no one would want in the first place. If you want a cheap computer, go back to using Windows on your cheap Dell or knock-off, because that is apparently what you want, a junk computer.
----
Response:
Wow, you really are an idiot. You probably masturbate to pictures of Steve Jobs. What an ignorant fanboy. I've been using Macs since the very first Mac in 1984, you moron. I've never owned a PC
The G4 wasn't a minitower, it was the previous generation of what is now the Mac Pro in the line up of the time. The cube was replaced by the mini in form. Think of how many more computers Apple could sell if they finally addressed the gigantic hole in their product line up. The price range I stated was $1500 to $1800, so we're talking about a difference of $500 to $800?if that isn't significant to you, then let me give you my address and you can send me that much in cash since you've deemed that amount of money meaningless, you won't miss it.
The computer I'm taking about is a mid-level machine aimed at pros?the iMac without the built-in monitor with innards accessible to the user. Why would one pay $2299 for huge, heavy, hobbled workstation? Why would one pay $500 dollars more for a 2.8 dual core tower than the iMac with the same processor and a monitor if there was something in between? Why would I pay more to get the specs I want without a monitor? That is truly stupid. No one said Apple should make a crappy computer. Do you consider the iMac crappy? All I'm saying is that Apple needs a machine with the same specs as the iMac without a built in monitor or the number of drive bays and mass of the Pro. There is no such beast in the Apple's lineup. I know you fanboys can't see this but the iMac is not a pro machine and the Tower is a top end workstation. It's a great workstation, but not every pro needs that much machine or wants that big a price tag. Pros users helped Apple become the company it is today. Apple is ignoring them in favor of consumers. Not that Apple shouldn't make a consumer machine, but they shouldn't ignore the true needs of Pros to do so. Apple offers pros the choice of a consumer model with no choice of monitor and limited access or a tricked out workstation but nothing in between. If you think the iMac and the MacPro fit every Pro's price range and needs than you're not too bright, fanboy. Jobs probably thinks a min-tower would take sales away from the Mac Pro and the iMac. It might for a few, but people who want an iMac will still buy an iMac and people who want a workstation class computer will still get the Mac Pro. Any sales of those machines lost to a headless minitower would still be sales to Apple. The number of people who don't want an all in-one (a computer merged with a monitor is not a good idea anyway) and those who don't want the price and size of a full-blown workstation would represent a large increase in sales. You, like Jobs, are the clueless one with head up a$$ if you can't see that Apple would sell a ton of mini-towers to Apple Pro users who don't need a workstation or a consumer machine aimed at sheep who are easily swayed by pretty shiny things and like to look at their own reflection while they use their computer. I bet Jobs holding a laser pen cat toy could keep himself and you entertained for hours getting you to chase a little red light on the wall
great post...
If Jobs doesn't know how to make a $500 computer that 'isn't a piece of junk' then he should look at the economic world in which he lives and shut his f**king mouth...... oh and find another job.
I'm in the UK and this PC at under $450...
http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/edi...paq-pc-tv-deal
is sufficient for the vast majority of users.
Jobs needs to get real..and understand that the Mac's growing marketshare is down to MS' missteps not anything he's done great.
When MS improves...and they will then the momentum goes the other way. AT that point I'm sure Jobs will be more receptve to what the consumers want.
And at the same time he can be more socially and economically responsible.
Now wouldn't that make him happy\\?
great post...
If Jobs doesn't know how to make a $500 computer that 'isn't a piece of junk' then he should look at the economic world in which he lives and shut his f**king mouth...... oh and find another job.
I'm in the UK and this PC at under $450...
http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/edi...paq-pc-tv-deal
is sufficient for the vast majority of users.
Apple can make cheaper Macs, but they choose not to get into that market. However, many Mac fans are waiting for a mid-tower, many would be mac-switchers are also waiting for a mid-tower.
Jobs needs to get real..and understand that the Mac's growing marketshare is down to MS' missteps not anything he's done great.
If you watched the last keynote, you'd realize that Apple does realize that its success was partially due to the unpopularity of Vista.
When MS improves...and they will then the momentum goes the other way. AT that point I'm sure Jobs will be more receptve to what the consumers want.
And at the same time he can be more socially and economically responsible.
Now wouldn't that make him happy\\?
While I do agree with Jobs that the cheap PC industry is not the industry for Apple, he should also realize that Apple's computer product line has a large gaping hole in it, and the xMac serves as a good part of that hole. In my opinion a Duo-Dock like device is another piece of the hole.
You had to type in a serial number when you updated OS X? Please pay attention before you scoff at legitimate concerns being raised.
if your major concern is really about OSX having serial numbers then i will scoff...
Apple is the KING of product activation
just look at all their programs (Apperture, Logic, Final Cut, etc...)
and then take a long hard look at their telephone (whooo that's a good example of smooth & rapid prod activation right there)
yes a product activation stage which takes what, 30 seconds max is truly worrying
especially when (if the apple experience continues to be true) it only needs to be entered once in a computer's lifetime
consider my scoffing starting.... now
Most of my peers in the 'creative/design' industry are moving to iMac's.
Sure my Mac Pro is hot, but it's overkill for 95% of what I do. Design, print, web, video.
I won't use any of the empty slots. I don't need a raid array. I'm not working on an Earth simulation.
Apple left the display in their mid-range computer because it was perfect timing for them to make money off the CRT to LCD transition. Besides, they couldn't compete in the display market. 4 years between a refresh anyone?
Besides, there are tones of mid-range Apple tower solutions out there in the $1000 - $1600 range... just go to craigslist or eBay.
i guess there will always someone out there that will try to get apple on the cheap, it does put pressure on apple to lower price, but also puts more emphasis on the iphone as portable computer system, now how does syncing iphone play with these hackintoshs??? that's why gaming went to the standalone system, to reduce piracy. they do the same thing, except they call it a xbox, can another company make parts for consumers to create there own xbox, i don't think so, also the os is different, but same concept.
apple can make the ecosystem they have developed to not work with these hacks.
i feel that is one of the strengths of apple's ecosystem dependent approach.
so you have a hack, it will look like a hack, then other products of apple's won't play
so your iphone, mobleme, sync, ipod, and any other apple product....you will be in a desert.
maybe that's why they bought the chip company, they will put their own designs in the apple products
The iMac is a mid-range computer you clowns.
Most of my peers in the 'creative/design' industry are moving to iMac's.
Sure my Mac Pro is hot, but it's overkill for 95% of what I do. Design, print, web, video.
I won't use any of the empty slots. I don't need a raid array. I'm not working on an Earth simulation.
Apple left the display in their mid-range computer because it was perfect timing for them to make money off the CRT to LCD transition. Besides, they couldn't compete in the display market. 4 years between a refresh anyone?
Besides, there are tones of mid-range Apple tower solutions out there in the $1000 - $1600 range... just go to craigslist or eBay.
The iMac is designed for the consumer market, period. The first Mac was an all in one and (speculation on my part of course since I don't know Steve personally) Steve loves that form and wants it to always be in the product lineup. When he came back to Apple he brought back the design and it helped turn Apple's sales which were suffering. I believe the real thing that turned them around was simplifying their product lineup. At the time, Apple had gone hog wild in targeting the consumer market with too many configurations and experimented with selling machines in Sears. They had too many models with confusing names. Rather than having a machine aimed at reasonable demarkations of market segments (entry, mid, high-end) that could be configured with different memory and a few options of processor speeds with in each range, Apple had a different machine and name for different configurations but they were all far too similar. They had the Performa and Proforma lines (I think those were the names, but I could be remembering that wrong) each of those had several similar machines with number and letter names. The result was a confused customer base and stores like Sears stuck with a large inventory of machines, which in turn eventually ended up with Apple also stuck with a large inventory of machines that was difficult to manage and Apple suffered. When jobs came back, Apple simplified their lineup greatly and the iMac was how they did it. However, they went too far in trying to have the iMac pull double duty as the consumer model and the low-end Pro machine. It doesn't fit that role. It increased sales to consumers, but it is costing them sales to Pros and costing the number of switchers they could get. Apple, like many here, think that increased sales to consumers is evidence of how successful that approach has been instead of looking at the big picture and seeing how much more sales they could get if they added a true mid-level machine designed for pros.
The iMac was just the update to the original Mac and consumers see it as a convenience to buy one thing. The original iMac had a built in CRT, the switch to LCDs had nothing to do with the reasoning for an all in one. Many creative design people use iMacs because they don't have any other option. The difference in cost between the Pro tower and the iMac is huge when you multiply it by the number of computers in a department or if you are a self-employed freelancer to whom every penny matters. I've read posts about design departments that went the iMac route. One poster elsewhere said their design department loved the iMac when they first got them. A few months later the whole department grew to hate the reflective screen and really regretted the investment in all the iMacs and the head of the department decided the next time around, if the iMac was the only Apple computer at the price level that fit their department's budget, they will switch to PCs.
If you're saying that the solution for people who want a mid-level machine but not the iMac is to buy a used tower, that is a piss-poor solution. It may work for some, but I am not about to pay a grand and a half for a used computer from some stranger I don't know and don't know what kind of hell that machine has gone through. That solution just reiterates the fact that Apple is completely ignoring a large chunk of their customer base and losing sales buy not adressing that segment of the market.
While I do agree with Jobs that the cheap PC industry is not the industry for Apple, he should also realize that Apple's computer product line has a large gaping hole in it, and the xMac serves as a good part of that hole. In my opinion a Duo-Dock like device is another piece of the hole.
Nods*. 2009 brings fresh hope, I guess?
As for the 'Clones'. They're infringing Apple's copyright and enabling users to break that copyright. It's a matter of time before they are brought to the sword. Court cases take ages.
I don't agree with everything in Apple's line up in as much as some things are missing eg mid-tower. But these parasites have contributed nothing to Apple's OS development or market and are out for a fast buck. Apple isn't the same as M$. They're different. You buy the whole widget and that's part of the agreement...or sod off and get a m$ product. I'm surprised Apple hasn't issues cease and desist letters or can't enforce them to stop. I guess that's what the court is for. I hope it gets sorted soon.
However, it's good 'bad' press in a way. Get's people talking Apple.
Apple have had the best 'free' press in the industry for the last ten years now...
Lemon Bon Bon.
But Apple the computer? Whatever.
$700 Canadian gets me a low end MacMini with NO DVD burner and a bare minimum of a computer.
You need about $1300 for a decent Mac.
On the other hand, $500 can buy me a refurbished PC with a couple GBs of RAM, decent memory, DVD Lightscribe burner and a lot of goodies. I'd sacrifice my beloved MacOS X but I'd get a lot of bang for my buck.
If Apple wants to stop the clones, make a consumer friendly computer.
C'mon, a decent $500 Canadian iMac with DVD burner can't be that hard.
As for quality. I'm happy in a Chevy instead of a Mercedes. A lot of people are. If Apple takes that attitude with its computers, the clones will die down.
My nickel,
Frank D.
The iMac is a mid-range computer you clowns.
Most of my peers in the 'creative/design' industry are moving to iMac's.
Sure my Mac Pro is hot, but it's overkill for 95% of what I do. Design, print, web, video.
I won't use any of the empty slots. I don't need a raid array. I'm not working on an Earth simulation.
Apple left the display in their mid-range computer because it was perfect timing for them to make money off the CRT to LCD transition. Besides, they couldn't compete in the display market. 4 years between a refresh anyone?
B.
The imac hardware is ok the lack of mate screen is not.
I don't own a Mac, and never will with the current lineup. I don't want an underpowered machine (Mac mini), I don't want to be stuck with the same monitor (iMac) and the Mac Pro is way too expensive and overpowered for my use. I'm the perfect example of a lost sale, and my only option to use OSX would be via the 'hackingtosh' method. So they've lost a hardware and software sale to me because they won't provide the product I want, even though I would quite like to buy it
I'm not sure if you would have ever bought an Apple product and, if you did, whether you'd enjoy it. This highlights a major current dilemma for Apple. They've made a few changes to align their products so Windows users can see the benefits and switch but what are the real consequences of switchers and do Apple want the custom from certain areas of the market?
This is a case in point; even though the poster admits to not/never having OSX and therefore doesn't really understand what it and it's software will do with those hardware resources they still believe they should have the right to configure/re-configure their systems. Given back-to-base upgrades are still feasible once you know what you're talking about the argument for a hackintosh is pretty weak.
One way of Apple ensuring a high degree of user satisfaction is to have a product range which doesn't entice those who are too far gone i.e. those who've been conditioned to believe they are capable of making certain decisions that they probably will never be able to.
Batting off criticisms from non (& never-will-be)-believers is one thing but when it comes from the ranks of it's own customer base and marketshare is on the line it becomes dangerous and could force Apple to compromise on values which are key to it's point of difference.
McD
Pure bullshit, spread by fanbois over the years. If both the iMac and the dual MP are truly Apple's flagships and the best in the business, they (you) shouldn't be afraid of a dull tower with a single quad-core cpu. If it is the case, that means that both products have been poorly designed/priced, they can't withstand a little competition.
I agree with you for the most part, but the obvious issue here is, Apple wants you to pay a premium if are going to modify their machine. If they would have had a headless expandable mac or a low end MacPro available, I would have bought cheap and upgraded on my own terms. That is the last thing Apple wants.
I have no doubt everybody or nearly everybody on this website could assemble a mac with a butter knife, but when you start getting people (like my parents) trying to jam the wrong type of hard drive into a machine or the wrong kind of ram, incompatible video cards, etc., it jams up their tech support lines. This is why it's such a pain in the ass to swap the ram in a mac mini.
You create an all in one solution for the majority (not the hobbyists), the quantity of phone calls to tech support go down.
I don't think Apple is afraid of a dull tower, they just don't want unqualified people tinkering with their computers because any problems created by said tinkering will come back to bite Apple in the rear.
I (and many others) have been clamoring for a lower-cost Mac tower for... oh... only 15 years now.
C'mon, Steve. Don't blow your chance at market share (for the hundredth time)
Apple did have a $1500 G5 tower, less than five years ago. If you forgo one processor module, a real Mac Pro can be had for only a little more than the product in this story.
Market share isn't that important to them. Making a net profit is. The low end machines are often low margin ones too.
Once Apple lays the final killing blow on Psystar, they'll go after all these copycats, either directly via the court system, or indirectly by making Leopard unusable on these clones.
Apple can litigate more than one case at a time.
If there's anything in that Open Firmware that is Apple-specific, can't that be seen as circumventing Apple's copy protection? This smacks of DMCA violation. Like Playstation Mod chips.
From what I understand, DMCA covers circumvention of copy protection measures. Are DMCA concerns even in that lawsuit? I don't think Apple uses copy protection for the OS just yet. From what I hear, a computer with EFI firmware is all that's needed to install the OS. From what I see, where Psystar really got into trouble was modifying Apple's OS updates, which is copyright infringement, not a copy protection issue.
Unfortunately Apple only wants your business if you settle for what they know is best for you.
I think it is more like they know what is best for them. Unfortunately, it's to the point that they don't want any overlap between products. Having a little more overlap is not bad, the part that is bad is having a dozen models with very little differentiation.
living in the UK I don't know whats worse, talking to a Yank or an Indian.... honestly..
I think the point is about local support, not that all Apple support hails from the US. Don't you get local support? I've heard Apple has a call center in Ireland. I don't know about anywhere else. And you can bring the machine in if you are near an Apple store.
Apple did not put HDCP (DRM) on the DisplayPort. HOLLYWOOD required it since Apple is now selling HD content..
It's Apple's product, they put it in. Whether they wanted to do that is a different matter.
Obviously... but its called a sample. Statisticians never get data on the whole of a population, they take a sample size.
I think using forums would be called getting a biased sample - you're reading the loudest people, not a random sampling of everyone.
Or Aperture. Or iWork. Or Final Cut Pro. Or Logic.
Depending on what you're talking about here. The original mention of FileMaker was bout the activation hassles, having to call in order to get the authorization code to get a program running. All the programs you mention do require serial numbers, but they don't phone home. It's definitely not like the current windows activation system.
Then go buy a PC.
That's being unhelpful.
Do you think maybe you can use a few more exclamation points? I'm not sure we completely get the strength of your convictions yet. You may also try to tone down your own insults, like stupid and dumbass. Jumping into a forum then calling people names and calling them "kid" without actually knowing their age is not a good way to build credibility.
That person earned ten days off for the personal insults.