"Just because they price high doesn't mean another company should be allowed to break copyright laws. "
Well...what in the hell do you think is driving folks to seek an "alternative" machine to run OSX on in the first place? Could it be Apple's price-gouging perhaps????
The more Apple tries to maximize it's profit margins on their hardware, the more there will be hackers, cloners, EFI dongle companies etc...
"Don't be silly." you say?
Silly is paying $1000 more than it's actually work because it comes embalmed in aluminum and sports a piece of fruit with a bite out of it logo. The bite is coming to be symbolized more and more as a "premium Apple bite out of our wallets".
Psystar is just the beginning. This OSX closed loop crappola is about to be busted wide open.
You can take your EULA and......
My next Mac is going to be a state-of-the-art PC that will run OSX faster and cheaper than any
Wow you are really clueless aren't you? Driving folks to buy an alternative to a Mac? Pull your head out of your ass! Apple has had record sales in Macs, and competitors can't sell anything these days. Just proves how clueless you really are. If you don't like Apple's business, why did you buy a Mac in the first place? Buy your cheap PC and run Windows. No one forced you to buy the Mac.
By the way, in your previous post, you can't quote EBAY as the fair market price for a CPU. Dumbass!
they aren't taking anything..they are buying it!!!...jeez.
And by buying it they have the right to hack the program and re-sell it?
Using that logic, and using a previous example I made on this thread, I could buy a game exclusive to Sony PS3, hack it and convert it to Nintendo Wii format and then sell it and... not expect Sony to call their lawyers?
they aren't taking anything..they are buying it!!!...jeez.
You don't read the fine print, do you? The retail copy of Leopard they give you is a worthless disc. You cannot re-install Leopard on the Psystar computer. So just because they bought a copy, doesn't allow them to steal the intellectual rights from Apple, hack it, and install it on their own PC. If you need to reinstall Leopard, you have to fill out a form with Psystar in order to get their specially-hacked CD that will allow you to reinstall Leopard.
Here is the best part...this is the release you must sign to get the restore CD:
"By completing and returning this form via Fax or Postal Mail I state that I am satisfied with my product, my 7-day return period is over, I would like any restore media related to my product delivered to me immediately, and I do not intend to dispute the purchase of my Open Computing product."
You have to declare your purchase date, purchase price, credit card number, shipping tracking number, and computer serial number in order to get the disc. Now I wonder why Psystar would require the customer to release all their rights in order to restore the software? Hmmm, maybe it is because what they are doing is ILLEGAL?
Now with that restriction, who the hell would want to buy one of their piece of shit computers? Except for maybe the bonehead that thinks Apple is price gouging their customers.
WRONG!. Dell has not released a desktop Workstation on the Nehalem platform as of yet. Only Apple has with the Mac Pro line. The one you sited that is "within $100 of Mac Pro" comes with the previous Penryn Xeon chips still retail for $750 or more each. Dell is NOT charging 2.5K for a Workstation with a $350 single processor, and a $60.00 rebranded Nvidia 8500GT video card. there would be a revolt if they did.
When Dell announces it's own Nehalem platform Workstation later this month, it will most likely offer much higher end processor variants (@ higher clocks) for around the same cost as the new Mac Pro's (providing a better performance-to-value ratio than Apple's), or a lower priced entry level option equivalent to Apple's 2.66GHz SP, for less than 2K . Dell, as well as other high-end Workstation maker, will be forced to reflect the actual hardware costs for the simple fact that in PC-Land, anyone can go and build for themselves the very same spec'ed out Xeon Workstations for about half the cost of Apple's entry-level pricing of $2500 (Nehalem processors included).
Apple was the first to show it's hand in it's Xeon Nehelem pricing structure. Watch for the rest of the PC pack to take full advantage of Apple's arrogant and exclusive OSX "Tax" by seriously undercutting them by at least 30-50%.
Your post still did not answer my question. You still did not show me "similar" system from Dell. Dell must be offering similar Xeon processor with the same specs. Since you know so much about computers maybe you can configure one better than me and enlighten us with solid example.
Wow you are really clueless aren't you? Driving folks to buy an alternative to a Mac? Pull your head out of your ass! Apple has had record sales in Macs, and competitors can't sell anything these days. Just proves how clueless you really are. If you don't like Apple's business, why did you buy a Mac in the first place? Buy your cheap PC and run Windows. No one forced you to buy the Mac.
By the way, in your previous post, you can't quote EBAY as the fair market price for a CPU. Dumbass!
You idiot (dumbass in my speak)! I only used eBay because it accurately reflected what the cost
of the Xeon 2.8 Quad is still going for right now.
Notice that the last price listing is for the W3520 2.66GHz Quad Core SP - going for the princely sum of $278 per processor. Apple plops the cheapest Nehalem Xeon processor available, along with a rebranded, $60 9500GT graphics card, and then cripples the whole contraption by limiting it to 8 gigs of ram in only three DIMM slots and calls it a "Workstation" for 2.5K. Ya right!..Can you say: bend over?
Go Psystar! ( I really don't care if they win or lose - but I know just appearing to root them on really pisses some of you old Apple Apologist farts to no end. That's worth all of the "dumbass" insults ten fold).
Notice that the last price listing is for the W3520 2.66GHz Quad Core SP - going for the princely sum of $278 per processor. Apple plops the cheapest Nehalem Xeon processor available into a 2.5K machine, along with a rebranded, $60 9500GT graphics card, and then cripples the whole thing by limiting it to 8 gigs of ram. Can you say: bend over?
If that is the CPU Apple is using then I don't I see how the cost can be justified when the other options are priced much better with their relative CPUs. Because of this, I'd wager that the CPU being used in the entry-level machine is not what you think it is.
When you consider that the higher-priced, BTO models will sell less units, that Apple has priced the Mac Pro very competitively compared to Dell selling a very similarly configured workstation (not a it's more than enough machine for most people) and that the gross profit would be a huge jump over the other models and Apple's usual business model, you have to ask yourself what is wrong with this picture. The simple answer is that you do not have the correct data. While you may have the right data, we just don't know at this point. That is the point that many of us are trying to state. Not that you are wrong in your calculations, but that you are wrong to make them absolute at this time.
Quote:
Go Psystar! ( I really don't care if they win or lose - but I know just appearing to root them on really pisses some of you old Apple Apologist farts to no end. That's worth all of the insults "dumbass" ten fold).
You were called clueless, which is technically a personal attack, albeit a tame one, but you have upped the ante with the repeated dumbass and apologist omments. Disagreeing won't get you banded, but repeated personal attacks will.
PS: Thanks for using the board's markup. I appreciate it.
If that is the CPU Apple is using then I don't I see how the cost can be justified when the other options are priced much better with their relative CPUs. Because of this, I'd wager that the CPU being used in the entry-level machine is not what you think it is.
When you consider that the higher-priced, BTO models will sell less units, that Apple has priced the Mac Pro very competitively compared to Dell selling a very similarly configured workstation (not a it's more than enough machine for most people) and that the gross profit would be a huge jump over the other models and Apple's usual business model, you have to ask yourself what is wrong with this picture. The simple answer is that you do not have the correct data. While you may have the right data, we just don't know at this point. That is the point that many of us are trying to state. Not that you are wrong in your calculations, but that you are wrong to make them absolute at this time.
You were called clueless, which is technically a personal attack, albeit a tame one, but you have upped the ante with the repeated dumbass and apologist comments. Disagreeing won't get you banded, but repeated personal attacks will.
PS: Thanks for using the board's markup. I appreciate it.
I can assure you that the Intel Xeon 2.66GHz Quad-Core that Apple is using in the $2499 Mac Pro IS the Intel Xeon W3520 processor - since there are only 3 clock speed options for the SP Nehelem variants (a 2.66, 2.93, and a 3.20GHZ ) . There is no "secret", or "special" (more expensive) Mac only W3500 series processor available. Just the same three SP processor options that everyone else will be using. And yes, they are going for $278 each (maybe even less for Apple). I know that this is hard to accept this pricing reality at face value - because how could Apple pay so little for what is usually THE most valuable part of any high-end "Workstation" and not pass some of the reduced hardware cost on to their consumers (remembering the SP option in the 2008 Mac Pro's that went for just a little over $2300) - especially in this very difficult economy?
And even worse hardware value to actual hardware cost is offered at the 2nd, $3299 level, with Apple only springing for 2x 2.66 Quad-Cores that are priced at $373 per processor - for a grand total of $756 - right about what it cost them for just a single 2.8GHz Harpertown processor (2 of which were included in the 2008 "entry-level" Mac Pro's).
These have to be some of the highest profit margins (mark-ups) that the Mac Pro line has ever seen. Maybe Apple figures that they can bleed more $$$ from the well-healed "Pro", and "Prosumer" market, before they too finally feel the financial squeeze and cry uncle! Whatever their reasoning, quite a few of have caught on to this new "Apple tax", and are beginning to question the real "value" of these new Mac Pro's - soon to be directly juxtaposed (price and performance wise) to their PC counterpart.
I'm not against anyone making a profit, but lately Apple has been going in the absolutely wrong direction regarding their hardware and how they are pricing it - like dropping the low end Macbook for a $1399 entry-level model (selling off older Macbook stocks @ $1099 notwithstanding). All this "extreme" pricing will end up doing is increasing the chances of more Psystar like companies (new ones will most likely take a different, non-direct approach like EFI-X) to challenge Apple in OSX compatible hardware. Psystar is just the "canary in the coal mine" for Apple here. Apple will not be able to continue to have OSX consumers invest thousands $$$ in the Mac software platform, and then take advantage of that investment by increasing their profit margins on the "closed loop" hardware that is necessary to run that software. I, like many, many others I know, would willingly pay 2,3 even 4 times the current price for a truly liberated, Retail OSX that can run on any machine with an Intel processor. I will naturally assume all the risks and associated problems that may come from this and not expect Apple to provide any kind of follow-up support for using OSX on non-apple hardware. Just let us pay the full retail cost for a stand-alone copy OSX (say $499, which should more than cover the R&D cost to developers). And if Apple ends up selling the best hardware to run it on, then people will buy it willingly - without being artificially forced to. If not, then we could still have the hardware op-out option by buying a full Retail version of OSX and installing it on a non-Apple machine.
And yes, you are correct that I should refrain from personal attacks, or name calling. It doesn't do anything to further my position - other than making me feel a little better striking back. Humor would go a much longer way I think...
With the recently announced, Nehelem Mac Pro's, Apple has just re-enforced the growing demand for a more economical, third party desktop hardware solution that can run OSX - Apple's EULA be damned.
Charging $2499 for an entry level Mac Pro that has only a single socket 2.66GHz Nehalem Xeon processor (retailing for around $350), is the ultimate in hubris from Apple in these harsh economic times.
The New 4-core, entry level 2.66GHz Mac Pro has about $1200-1400 in hardware cost total - a mark-up of anywhere from 80-100% by Apple. The same is true with the New 8-Core Mac Pro that is going for $3299.
It sports (2), low level, 2.26 Xeon processors - that retail for around $350 each ($700 for both). The mark-up for these machines is well over 100%.
At least my 2008, entry level, 8-core 2.8GHz Penryn Mac Pro had (2) $750 ($1500) chips when it was released at $2799 - a far better value in hardware cost.
Apple, and all of you die hard Appleholics can scream bloody murder at pip-squeek upstarts like Psystar till you turn blue in the face. As long as Apple insists on increasing it's profit margins, and price gouging for generic (PC) hardware that is readily and affordably available on the open market, then the we are going to see more and more challengers to Apple's Hardware monopoly - both personally and publicly - regardless of Apple's pathologically litigious behavior.
And don't give me that old " If you don't like what Apple is charging - then don't but it" crap. In reality - most of us are locked into OSX as an operating system - simply because of the fact that we have already invested thousands of $$$ in OSX compatible software throughout the years. Apple knows and is exploiting this to the hilt - that is why they have become even more aggressive in applying their "Apple Tax" on all of their new OSX hardware. But the Mac natives are getting mighty restless in these fragile economic days.
If you AppleTologist are up in arms over the heathen Psystar, and it's "crappy" Mac clones, you had better buckle up - cause it's gonna be a very, very bumpy ride for ya'll in the coming months. EFI-X Here we come!!!
Does this line ever get old to you? Apple is a registered hardware company that makes an OS in order to better entice people to buy its hardware because the hardware is where its profits come from. Microsoft makes software which it then syphons out to the various vendors because the software is where its money comes from.
You can act all day long as if a copyright holder has no rights to dictate the usage of its product, but you will fail every time (even in Europe). And what kind of argument is it that you bought software and somehow that's Apple's fault? The company didn't force your hand, you did it freely knowing that Apple hardware cost more than other hardware. You also did it fully aware of the type of hardware systems Apple would be offering and still made the purchase.
We all nag at you because you're quite possibly the most ignorant person who posts here. Were it simply your distaste for Apple, that would be one thing, but you completely and utterly ignore several factors in your posts. For instance, when PC vendors use Vista, it's because Microsoft is ceding a percentage of profit to them in order to do so. They didn't in any way, shape, or form, have to spend money to research and develop and operating system, they simply threw together some hardware and charged a little profit on it because it sells in mass and they therefore have no need for higher margins and then got a little cut from Microsoft for each unit on top of that.
By the nature of being a premium brand, your margins have to be higher because your unit sales will be lower. I swear to g-d, even a basic economics class will explain that function of supply and demand to you. Apple makes the Mac Mini precisely for the kind of people who need a headless Mac, but not in the range of a Mac Pro and I can assure you from working in retail throughout college that 95% of the people on this earth will never ever need a Pro anyway. It's a business class workstation meant to be used in conjunction with a server anyway.
To use your words, you can go blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is, there are equivalent programs littered throughout both Windows and Linux and you had every right to chose one of those options. See, that's the thing about life, you have personal choice, which you can employ at any time. When you bought a Mac, you knew there was an EULA which you agreed to buy purchasing the that Mac Pro and agreeing to the license upon boot up. If you didn't agree with those terms, you should have bought neither hardware or software and the only person you have to blame for that is yourself.
A company with top rated customer service and satisfaction resultant from tying it hardware together does not have to meet your needs simply because you want a one part solution to be divided into two. I am so tired of people like you who have no appreciation for what you get when you buy a Mac, it's not just about the hardware or the software or the service: it's the whole package together.
If I wanted to put up with the bs Windows users do, I'd wait for Windows 7, not buy a Mac. If you want a multi-vendor solution that is your answer. Stop trying to ruin a good experience for everyone else because that's all your doing: using Apple as an expression of your selfish nature.
I can assure you that the Intel Xeon 2.66GHz Quad-Core that Apple is using in the $2499 Mac Pro IS the Intel Xeon W3520 processor - since there are only 3 clock speed options for the SP Nehelem variants (a 2.66, 2.93, and a 3.20GHZ ) . There is no "secret", or "special" (more expensive) Mac only W3500 series processor available. Just the same three SP processor options that everyone else will be using. And yes, they are going for $278 each (maybe even less for Apple). I know that this is hard to accept this pricing reality at face value - because how could Apple pay so little for what is usually THE most valuable part of any high-end "Workstation" and not pass some of the reduced hardware cost on to their consumers (remembering the SP option in the 2008 Mac Pro's that went for just a little over $2300) - especially in this very difficult economy?
And even worse value of hardware is offered at the 2nd, $3299 level, with Apple only springing for 2x 2.66 Quad-Cores that are priced at $373 per processor - for a grand total of $756 - right about what it cost them for just a single 2.8GHz Harpertown processor (2 of which were included in the 2008 "entry-level" Mac Pro's).
These have to be some of the highest profit margins (mark-ups) that the Mac Pro line has ever seen. Maybe Apple figures that they can bleed more $$$ from the well-healed "Pro", and "Prosumer" market, before they too finally feel the financial squeeze and cry uncle! Whatever their reasoning, quite a few of have caught on to this new "Apple tax", and are beginning to question the real "value" of these new Mac Pro's - soon to be directly juxtaposed (price and performance wise) to their PC counterpart.
I'm not against anyone making a profit, but lately Apple has been going in the absolutely wrong direction regarding their hardware and how they are pricing it - like dropping the low end Macbook for a $1399 entry-level model (selling off older Macbook stocks @ $1099 notwithstanding). All this "extreme" pricing will end up doing is increasing the chances of more Psystar like companies (new ones will most likely take a different, non-direct approach like EFI-X) to challenge Apple in OSX compatible hardware. Psystar is just the "canary in the coal mine" for Apple here. Apple will not be able to continue to have OSX consumers invest thousands $$$ in the Mac software platform, and then take advantage of that investment by increasing their profit margins on the "closed loop" hardware that is necessary to run that software. I, like many, many others I know, would willingly pay 2,3 even 4 times the current price for a truly liberated, Retail OSX that can run on any machine with an Intel processor. I will naturally assume all the risks and associated problems that may come from this and not expect Apple to provide any kind of follow-up support for using OSX on non-apple hardware. Just let us pay the full retail cost for a stand-alone copy OSX (say $499, which should more than cover the R&D cost to developers). And if Apple ends up selling the best hardware to run it on, then people will buy it willingly - without being artificially forced to. If not, then we could still have the hardware op-out option by buying a full Retail version of OSX and installing it on a non-Apple machine.
And yes, you are correct that I should refrain from personal attacks, or name calling. It doesn't do anything to further my position - other than making me feel a little better striking back. Humor would go a much longer way I think...
Here's the problem: the average consumer is not like you and would expect the follow up support. After all, that's part of what you expect when you purchase any kind of item. Were Dell, for instance, to start selling OS X rigs and one has trouble, their response is going to be to call Apple and when Apple says "I'm sorry, you bought this on non-Apple hardware," they're going to get sued and lose because that precedent for service was squashed legally a long time ago. If you sell it on something, you also have to back it up with service.
Also, people are inanely cheap even in a good economy. If Apple's profits are eroded from third party sales on netbooks and cheapo lap-tops, which it then also has to provide service to (which will suffer given they will not know what hardware it's on to quickly pin-point the issue), then it has to compete across vendors the same way Microsoft does, then there's really no difference between the two systems any longer other than design and security and people will then choose Windows because they're more familiar with it.
I can understand you being a little annoyed with price, but what you want is an untenable situation both from a consumer and legal standpoint. And it's terrible from a business standpoint too, just look at how many people Microsoft just laid off.
Does this line ever get old to you? Apple is a registered hardware company that makes an OS in order to better entice people to buy its hardware because the hardware is where its profits come from. Microsoft makes software which it then syphons out to the various vendors because the software is where its money comes from.
You can act all day long as if a copyright holder has no rights to dictate the usage of its product, but you will fail every time (even in Europe). And what kind of argument is it that you bought software and somehow that's Apple's fault? The company didn't force your hand, you did it freely knowing that Apple hardware cost more than other hardware. You also did it fully aware of the type of hardware systems Apple would be offering and still made the purchase.
We all nag at you because you're quite possibly the most ignorant person who posts here. Were it simply your distaste for Apple, that would be one thing, but you completely and utterly ignore several factors in your posts. For instance, when PC vendors use Vista, it's because Microsoft is ceding a percentage of profit to them in order to do so. They didn't in any way, shape, or form, have to spend money to research and develop and operating system, they simply threw together some hardware and charged a little profit on it because it sells in mass and they therefore have no need for higher margins and then got a little cut from Microsoft for each unit on top of that.
By the nature of being a premium brand, your margins have to be higher because your unit sales will be lower. I swear to g-d, even a basic economics class will explain that function of supply and demand to you. Apple makes the Mac Mini precisely for the kind of people who need a headless Mac, but not in the range of a Mac Pro and I can assure you from working in retail throughout college that 95% of the people on this earth will never ever need a Pro anyway. It's a business class workstation meant to be used in conjunction with a server anyway.
To use your words, you can go blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is, there are equivalent programs littered throughout both Windows and Linux and you had every right to chose one of those options. See, that's the thing about life, you have personal choice, which you can employ at any time. When you bought a Mac, you knew there was an EULA which you agreed to buy purchasing the that Mac Pro and agreeing to the license upon boot up. If you didn't agree with those terms, you should have bought neither hardware or software and the only person you have to blame for that is yourself.
A company with top rated customer service and satisfaction resultant from tying it hardware together does not have to meet your needs simply because you want a one part solution to be divided into two. I am so tired of people like you who have no appreciation for what you get when you buy a Mac, it's not just about the hardware or the software or the service: it's the whole package together.
If I wanted to put up with the bs Windows users do, I'd wait for Windows 7, not buy a Mac. If you want a multi-vendor solution that is your answer. Stop trying to ruin a good experience for everyone else because that's all your doing: using Apple as an expression of your selfish nature.
On go on now! I'm not ruining "a good experience for everybody". You closed loopers think that everyone should think exactly like you do regarding all things Apple. Guess what....they don't!
And if you don't like what I, or any other that you disagree with are saying, then just move on.
Otherwise, buck-up there. You beloved Apple will be just fine for the time being, and easily can withstand my "selfish nature".
On go on now! I'm not ruining "a good experience for everybody". You closed loopers think that everyone should think exactly like you do regarding all things Apple. Guess what....they don't!
And if you don't like what I, or any other that you disagree with are saying, then just move on.
Otherwise, buck-up there. You beloved Apple will be just fine for the time being, and easily can withstand my "selfish nature".
Go Psystar!..Sorry, I just can't help myself....
My point is that you, the minority, have no right to try to force your will on the majority. I'm exceptionally tired of that kind of religious ethos finding its way into business politics.
And I'm not saying you have no right to disagree with me. What I'm saying is that your cheerleading for a company that, no matter what legal precedent you use, is doing nothing more than ripping off another company's IP while steadfastly refusing to admit there are any benefits to the relationship of hardware, software, & service that we all enjoy so much.
I'm also alot more offended by your poor understanding of the law than your distaste for Apple. You complain about price and offer up unrealistic solutions and then ignore the full body of american, japanese, and european copyright law to make your responses.
I don't care whether you like Apple or not because that has no effect on my life, but when basically make a legal argument that amounts to reverse socialism, I take issue because that does affect me.
Here's the problem: the average consumer is not like you and would expect the follow up support. After all, that's part of what you expect when you purchase any kind of item. Were Dell, for instance, to start selling OS X rigs and one has trouble, their response is going to be to call Apple and when Apple says "I'm sorry, you bought this on non-Apple hardware," they're going to get sued and lose because that precedent for service was squashed legally a long time ago. If you sell it on something, you also have to back it up with service.
Also, people are inanely cheap even in a good economy. If Apple's profits are eroded from third party sales on netbooks and cheapo lap-tops, which it then also has to provide service to (which will suffer given they will not know what hardware it's on to quickly pin-point the issue), then it has to compete across vendors the same way Microsoft does, then there's really no difference between the two systems any longer other than design and security and people will then choose Windows because they're more familiar with it.
I can understand you being a little annoyed with price, but what you want is an untenable situation both from a consumer and legal standpoint. And it's terrible from a business standpoint too, just look at how many people Microsoft just laid off.
Not if Apple were to sell OSX as a full Retail ONLY, Standalone OS, that IS NOT licensed to, or bundled with any particular machine or company, and if they specifically put a disclaimer on this Retail OSX that if it is installed on any non-Apple computers, no follow-up support would be forthcoming. Support would only be provided (as now) to Apple machines ONLY. No legal liabilities would then apply to Apple if this was the case.
And Yes, you are right about people wanting something for practically nothing, but what I'm saying here is that it doesn't have to be all or nothing - either Apple controls every last bit anything Apple, from the OS and applications, to all Apple hardware, to media and content distribution, or just lets everyone in to directly compete willy nilly - without retaining key protections to Apple's business model.
I don't see how opening up and allowing a Retail, Standalone version of OSX ( sold at a hefty price and with support restrictions) would hurt Apple in the slightest. In fact, I believe it would end up boosting Apple's marketshare - both in software, and in hardware ( though it might effect Apple initially until it's hardware pricing comes somewhat into line with current market realities).
In the end, companies like Psystar ( if you could even call it an actual company) only increase pricing pressures on Apple to be more competitive in offering the best machine at the best value/quality-to-performance ratio.
If Apple choses not to seriously heed these pressures, and instead takes further advantage of it's "closed loop" model (as it appear is has done with the new Mac Pro's pricing), then the barbarians at the gate ( Pystars) will continue to make inroads piecemeal into Apple's territory - even if most of it ends up underground because of legal restrictions.
Let's see how Dell and HP respond price wise to Apple's Nehelem Mac Pro's. If Apple is indeed marking them up 70-100%, then the competition will expose and exploit this pricing tactic in the next few weeks...
Sometimes being the first with something on the market is not always the best position be in.
Not if Apple were to sell OSX as a full Retail ONLY, Standalone OS, that IS NOT licensed to, or bundled with any particular machine or company, and if they specifically put a disclaimer on this Retail OSX that if it is installed on any non-Apple computers that no follow-up support would be forthcoming. Support would only be provided (as now) to Apple machines ONLY. No legal liabilities would apply to Apple if this was the case.
And Yes, you are right about people wanting something for practically nothing, but what I'm saying here is that it doesn't have to be all or nothing - either Apple controls every last bit anything Apple, from the OS and applications, to all Apple hardware, to media and content distribution, or just lets everyone in to directly compete willy nilly - without retaining key protections to Apple's business model.
I don't see how opening up and allowing a Retail, Standalone version of OSX ( sold at a hefty price and with support restrictions) would hurt Apple in the slightest. In fact, I believe it would end up boosting Apple's marketshare - both in software, and in hardware ( though it might effect Apple initially until it's hardware pricing comes into line with current market realities).
I can understand you being a little annoyed with price, but what you want is an untenable situation both from a consumer and legal standpoint. And it's terrible from a business standpoint too, just look at how many people Microsoft just laid off.
[/QUOTE]
What I'm saying is that in american legal canon, if you offer a product, even as a stand-alone, you have to provide service for it. Were RIM to offer Palm the Blackberry OS, it is legal precedent that RIM would then have to provide customer service for that product whether it wanted to or not because it is the only company with the expertise to to do and the IP ownership to offer these customers certain services and privileges.
Now, in terms of your other assertion: Apple couldn't care less about market share. Again, like I said earlier, Microsoft owns 87% of the world's OS market and it just laid off several thousand people because its business model doesn't work, especially in a depression. Microsoft's profits directly correlate with it market share, Apple's don't and that's what it isn't dependent on that reading.
There is strategy in people a minority: you don't have to be everything to everyone like Windows does.
Not if Apple were to sell OSX as a full Retail ONLY, Standalone OS, that IS NOT licensed to, or bundled with any particular machine or company, and if they specifically put a disclaimer on this Retail OSX that if it is installed on any non-Apple computers that no follow-up support would be forthcoming. Support would only be provided (as now) to Apple machines ONLY. No legal liabilities would apply to Apple if this was the case.
And Yes, you are right about people wanting something for practically nothing, but what I'm saying here is that it doesn't have to be all or nothing - either Apple controls every last bit anything Apple, from the OS and applications, to all Apple hardware, to media and content distribution, or just lets everyone in to directly compete willy nilly - without retaining key protections to Apple's business model.
I don't see how opening up and allowing a Retail, Standalone version of OSX ( sold at a hefty price and with support restrictions) would hurt Apple in the slightest. In fact, I believe it would end up boosting Apple's marketshare - both in software, and in hardware ( though it might effect Apple initially until it's hardware pricing comes into line with current market realities).
In the end, companies like Psystar ( if you could even call it an actual company) only increase pricing pressures on Apple to be more competitive in offering the best machine at the best value/quality-to-performance ratio. If Apple does not
seriously heed these pressures, and instead takes further advantage of it's "closed loop" model, then the barbarians at the gate will continue to make inroads piecemeal into Apple's territory - even if most of it ends up underground because of legal restrictions.
Let's see how Dell and HP respond price wise to Apple's Nehelem Mac Pro's. If Apple is indeed marking them up 70-100%, then the competition will expose this very soon....
Also, the price Psystar charges isn't realistic anyway because it isn't paying a proper licensing fee, which is always part of what your paying in price on a computer (well, the price of the OS running on it, I should say). Psystar is simply trying to make a name for itself while fully violating even the most basic legal code.
It isn't forcing Apple to have more realistic prices. Go to Dell's website and make a BTO unit and then build that same rig yourself and it will cost you a third of what that vendor charged. Businesses are about profit and the supply and demand chain is ultimately determined by the consumer.
"Go to Dell's website and make a BTO unit and then build that same rig yourself and it will cost you a third of what that vendor charged. Businesses are about profit and the supply and demand chain is ultimately determined by the consumer."
Actually, no on can build an 8-Core Xeon Workstation - even with last years "Harpertown" processors - for " a third" of what Dell is charging for their BTO units. Each of these processor still cost upwards of $1300 each - with the 2.8GHz Quad-Core Xeon processor going for around $750 per processor ($1500 total). It would cost nearly the same price ( within 10-20% margin) to build one of your own Xeon workstations with the Intel Penryn Quad-Core Xeons. ( see my previous posting for links to retail prices ).
As far as what Dell, or other companies may charge for the new Nehalem Xeon Processors, only time will tell since Apple is the only one to announce them ahead of their official release later this month. What we do know is that Apple has decided to go with the low-end, least expensive variants of these new Xeon chips, but has not passed on it's considerably less expensive hardware savings to consumers, especially in relation to the cost of the previous generation Quad-Core Xeon Mac Pro's.
How will Dell and others price their Xeon Workstations?- it's still too soon to tell. But until we have a direct hardware-to-hardware comparison to go by, Apple seems to be taking full advantage of the price drops to further maximize it's bottom line.
And if Dell does indeed price it's Xeon Workstations very similar to what Apple's Nehalem Mac Pro's are commanding, they will come under intense and direct pricing pressure by the "Build-your-own" crowd - that would then be able to construct the very same Workstation, for less than half of either Dell's, or Apple options. I would be very surprised to see Dell fall into that mark-up pricing trap.
Apple may not have direct competition with it's hardware right now, but Dell, and other companies do. That is why very few customers (novices) ever actually pay the full retail price for any Dell computer -with their all their special discounts, coupons and such.
The last Mac Pro Apple released (2008 rev.) was actually very competitive in pricing as compared to their PC counterparts.
This new Mac Pro release has caused a nice little brohaha on the Mac and PC boards..and not in a good way at all. Read: "What is Apple Smoking?".
"Go to Dell's website and make a BTO unit and then build that same rig yourself and it will cost you a third of what that vendor charged. Businesses are about profit and the supply and demand chain is ultimately determined by the consumer."
Actually, no on can build an 8-Core Xeon Workstation - even with last years "Harpertown" processors - for " a third" of what Dell is charging for their BTO units. Each of these processor still cost upwards of $1300 each - with the 2.8GHz Quad-Core Xeon processor going for around $750 per processor ($1500 total). It would cost nearly the same price ( within 10-20% margin) to build one of your own Xeon workstations with the Intel Penryn Quad-Core Xeons. ( see my previous posting for links to retail prices ).
As far as what Dell, or other companies may charge for the new Nehalem Xeon Processors, only time will tell since Apple is the only one to announce them ahead of their official release later this month. What we do know is that Apple has decided to go with the low-end, least expensive variants of these new Xeon chips, but has not passed on it's considerably less expensive hardware savings, especially in relation to the cost of the previous generation Quad-Core Xeon Mac Pro's.
How will Dell and others price their Xeon Workstations?- it's still too soon to tell. But until we have a direct hardware-to-hardware comparison to go by, Apple seems to be taking full advantage of the price drops to further enrich it's bottom line.
And if Dell does indeed price it's Xeon Workstations very similar to Apple's Nehalem Mac Pro's, they will come under intense and direct pricing pressure by the "Build-your-own" crowd that would then be able to construct the very same Workstation, for less than half of either Dell's, or Apple options. I would be very surprised to see Dell fall into that mark-up pricing trap.
Apple may not have direct competition with it's hardware right now, but Dell, and other companies do. That is why very few customers (novices) ever actually pay the full retail price for any Dell computer -with their all their special discounts, coupons and such.
The last Mac Pro Apple released (2008 rev.) was actually very competitive in pricing as compared to their PC counterparts.
This new Mac Pro release has caused a nice little brohaha on the Mac and PC boards..and not in a good way at all. Read: "What is Apple Smoking?".
I mean building a computer in general, not specifically the Xeon based ones. But regardless, the Mac Pro has the lowest unit sales of any Mac and therefore has to have the highest profit margin. I'm not arguing with you that such is a little lame, but there's an actual reason for it to be that way. That said, I seriously doubt if other companies severely undercut the Mac Pro, that price will stand for long. The iPhone's original price was sky high and you see how long that lasted. Apple does sometimes over do it and change course.
Now, in terms of business economics, Dell offering these discounts is also why it's now in the red in every sector it competes in. The company's stock is literally in the toilet at this point and I honestly don't expect it to survive this depression. It has high unit sales but low margins per unit, which is why in this climate, its profits are severely shuttered. It's also sitting on eleven BTO factories that it can no longer use because it has to rely on external means for its new computers (especially lap-tops). I don't expect Dell's prices to be as high, but again, it's receiving payment from several sources that Apple isn't because its a multi-vendor solution, so it doesn't need to recoup R&D in the same manner.
I mean building a computer in general, not specifically the Xeon based ones. But regardless, the Mac Pro has the lowest unit sales of any Mac and therefore has to have the highest profit margin. I'm not arguing with you that such is a little lame, but there's an actual reason for it to be that way. That said, I seriously doubt if other companies severely undercut the Mac Pro, that price will stand for long. The iPhone's original price was sky high and you see how long that lasted. Apple does sometimes over do it and change course.
Now, in terms of business economics, Dell offering these discounts is also why it's now in the red in every sector it competes in. The company's stock is literally in the toilet at this point and I honestly don't expect it to survive this depression. It has high unit sales but low margins per unit, which is why in this climate, its profits are severely shuttered. It's also sitting on eleven BTO factories that it can no longer use because it has to rely on external means for its new computers (especially lap-tops). I don't expect Dell's prices to be as high, but again, it's receiving payment from several sources that Apple isn't because its a multi-vendor solution, so it doesn't need to recoup R&D in the same manner.
Do you really think that Apple can continue with it's "premium" price structure, and still maintain it's current market share in these gloomy economic times? Apple's stock may be doing better than most at the moment, closing at just above $85 today, but it is still less than half of what it was six months ago and Apple's overall long term situation isn't as strong as you might think. Their sales figures are beginning to soften already (as is everyone else's), and as the recession deepens, diminishing demand for high-end anything will not bode well for Apple's $2000+ laptops (a good percentage of them sold to businesses), as well as their Mac Pro line, and Pro App software. They will still probably do well on the low end of things for a time- with the iPod, the iPhone, the Mac Mini, and entry-level iMacs, but spending is getting mighty tight lately, and many of my clients have cancelled, or postponed major computer and electronics (1K+) purchases until further notice. And that includes Apple hardware.
Apple may be riding this out without any major damage yet, but in this new economic reality, no one is safe or immune from it's ravages. Not even Apple.
I have a feeling that in the coming months - the big A will have to be a little more "humble" in the "premium" pricing of their products. They might even have to bring back the sub-1K laptop later this year, or in early 2010, in a belated attempt to compete with the rising popularity of NetBooks.
The whole Psystar thing may eventually become moot if, or when Apple itself has increasing problems selling their own "premium" hardware to struggling, cost conscious consumers.
Maybe it will be the economy, and not upstarts like Psystar, that finally forces Apple's closed loop hand...
Wow you are really clueless aren't you? Driving folks to buy an alternative to a Mac? Pull your head out of your ass! Apple has had record sales in Macs, and competitors can't sell anything these days. Just proves how clueless you really are. If you don't like Apple's business, why did you buy a Mac in the first place? Buy your cheap PC and run Windows. No one forced you to buy the Mac.
By the way, in your previous post, you can't quote EBAY as the fair market price for a CPU. Dumbass!
Apples' marketshare of computers sold in 2009 is forecast to be 10-11m out of 260m units sold.
Comments
"Just because they price high doesn't mean another company should be allowed to break copyright laws. "
Well...what in the hell do you think is driving folks to seek an "alternative" machine to run OSX on in the first place? Could it be Apple's price-gouging perhaps????
The more Apple tries to maximize it's profit margins on their hardware, the more there will be hackers, cloners, EFI dongle companies etc...
"Don't be silly." you say?
Silly is paying $1000 more than it's actually work because it comes embalmed in aluminum and sports a piece of fruit with a bite out of it logo. The bite is coming to be symbolized more and more as a "premium Apple bite out of our wallets".
Psystar is just the beginning. This OSX closed loop crappola is about to be busted wide open.
You can take your EULA and......
My next Mac is going to be a state-of-the-art PC that will run OSX faster and cheaper than any
Aluminum entombed, monetary sink hole.
http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/revie...b-v1-reviewed/
Wow you are really clueless aren't you? Driving folks to buy an alternative to a Mac? Pull your head out of your ass! Apple has had record sales in Macs, and competitors can't sell anything these days. Just proves how clueless you really are. If you don't like Apple's business, why did you buy a Mac in the first place? Buy your cheap PC and run Windows. No one forced you to buy the Mac.
By the way, in your previous post, you can't quote EBAY as the fair market price for a CPU. Dumbass!
they aren't taking anything..they are buying it!!!...jeez.
And by buying it they have the right to hack the program and re-sell it?
Using that logic, and using a previous example I made on this thread, I could buy a game exclusive to Sony PS3, hack it and convert it to Nintendo Wii format and then sell it and... not expect Sony to call their lawyers?
By the way, in your previous post, you can't quote EBAY as the fair market price for a CPU. Dumbass!
they aren't taking anything..they are buying it!!!...jeez.
You don't read the fine print, do you? The retail copy of Leopard they give you is a worthless disc. You cannot re-install Leopard on the Psystar computer. So just because they bought a copy, doesn't allow them to steal the intellectual rights from Apple, hack it, and install it on their own PC. If you need to reinstall Leopard, you have to fill out a form with Psystar in order to get their specially-hacked CD that will allow you to reinstall Leopard.
Here is the best part...this is the release you must sign to get the restore CD:
"By completing and returning this form via Fax or Postal Mail I state that I am satisfied with my product, my 7-day return period is over, I would like any restore media related to my product delivered to me immediately, and I do not intend to dispute the purchase of my Open Computing product."
You have to declare your purchase date, purchase price, credit card number, shipping tracking number, and computer serial number in order to get the disc. Now I wonder why Psystar would require the customer to release all their rights in order to restore the software? Hmmm, maybe it is because what they are doing is ILLEGAL?
Now with that restriction, who the hell would want to buy one of their piece of shit computers? Except for maybe the bonehead that thinks Apple is price gouging their customers.
WRONG!. Dell has not released a desktop Workstation on the Nehalem platform as of yet. Only Apple has with the Mac Pro line. The one you sited that is "within $100 of Mac Pro" comes with the previous Penryn Xeon chips still retail for $750 or more each. Dell is NOT charging 2.5K for a Workstation with a $350 single processor, and a $60.00 rebranded Nvidia 8500GT video card. there would be a revolt if they did.
http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-Intel-Quad-C...3286.m20.l1116
When Dell announces it's own Nehalem platform Workstation later this month, it will most likely offer much higher end processor variants (@ higher clocks) for around the same cost as the new Mac Pro's (providing a better performance-to-value ratio than Apple's), or a lower priced entry level option equivalent to Apple's 2.66GHz SP, for less than 2K . Dell, as well as other high-end Workstation maker, will be forced to reflect the actual hardware costs for the simple fact that in PC-Land, anyone can go and build for themselves the very same spec'ed out Xeon Workstations for about half the cost of Apple's entry-level pricing of $2500 (Nehalem processors included).
Apple was the first to show it's hand in it's Xeon Nehelem pricing structure. Watch for the rest of the PC pack to take full advantage of Apple's arrogant and exclusive OSX "Tax" by seriously undercutting them by at least 30-50%.
Read: "What is Apple smoking?"
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2009-03-blog.html
Your post still did not answer my question. You still did not show me "similar" system from Dell. Dell must be offering similar Xeon processor with the same specs. Since you know so much about computers maybe you can configure one better than me and enlighten us with solid example.
Wow you are really clueless aren't you? Driving folks to buy an alternative to a Mac? Pull your head out of your ass! Apple has had record sales in Macs, and competitors can't sell anything these days. Just proves how clueless you really are. If you don't like Apple's business, why did you buy a Mac in the first place? Buy your cheap PC and run Windows. No one forced you to buy the Mac.
By the way, in your previous post, you can't quote EBAY as the fair market price for a CPU. Dumbass!
You idiot (dumbass in my speak)! I only used eBay because it accurately reflected what the cost
of the Xeon 2.8 Quad is still going for right now.
Here is one from Provantage:
http://www.provantage.com/intel-bx80...a~7ITEP2KU.htm
And Newgg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819117144
Pretty much about the same $750 with tax and shipping "dumbass"!
And to reply to solopsism's request for Intel's pricing of the entry-level Mac Pro's 2.66 Xeon SP in 1K lots:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...eon_Chips.html
Notice that the last price listing is for the W3520 2.66GHz Quad Core SP - going for the princely sum of $278 per processor. Apple plops the cheapest Nehalem Xeon processor available, along with a rebranded, $60 9500GT graphics card, and then cripples the whole contraption by limiting it to 8 gigs of ram in only three DIMM slots and calls it a "Workstation" for 2.5K. Ya right!..Can you say: bend over?
Go Psystar! ( I really don't care if they win or lose - but I know just appearing to root them on really pisses some of you old Apple Apologist farts to no end. That's worth all of the "dumbass" insults ten fold).
And to reply to solopsism's request for Intel's pricing of the entry-level Mac Pro's 2.66 Xeon SP in 1K lots:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...eon_Chips.html
Notice that the last price listing is for the W3520 2.66GHz Quad Core SP - going for the princely sum of $278 per processor. Apple plops the cheapest Nehalem Xeon processor available into a 2.5K machine, along with a rebranded, $60 9500GT graphics card, and then cripples the whole thing by limiting it to 8 gigs of ram. Can you say: bend over?
If that is the CPU Apple is using then I don't I see how the cost can be justified when the other options are priced much better with their relative CPUs. Because of this, I'd wager that the CPU being used in the entry-level machine is not what you think it is.
When you consider that the higher-priced, BTO models will sell less units, that Apple has priced the Mac Pro very competitively compared to Dell selling a very similarly configured workstation (not a it's more than enough machine for most people) and that the gross profit would be a huge jump over the other models and Apple's usual business model, you have to ask yourself what is wrong with this picture. The simple answer is that you do not have the correct data. While you may have the right data, we just don't know at this point. That is the point that many of us are trying to state. Not that you are wrong in your calculations, but that you are wrong to make them absolute at this time.
Go Psystar! ( I really don't care if they win or lose - but I know just appearing to root them on really pisses some of you old Apple Apologist farts to no end. That's worth all of the insults "dumbass" ten fold).
You were called clueless, which is technically a personal attack, albeit a tame one, but you have upped the ante with the repeated dumbass and apologist omments. Disagreeing won't get you banded, but repeated personal attacks will.
PS: Thanks for using the board's markup. I appreciate it.
If that is the CPU Apple is using then I don't I see how the cost can be justified when the other options are priced much better with their relative CPUs. Because of this, I'd wager that the CPU being used in the entry-level machine is not what you think it is.
When you consider that the higher-priced, BTO models will sell less units, that Apple has priced the Mac Pro very competitively compared to Dell selling a very similarly configured workstation (not a it's more than enough machine for most people) and that the gross profit would be a huge jump over the other models and Apple's usual business model, you have to ask yourself what is wrong with this picture. The simple answer is that you do not have the correct data. While you may have the right data, we just don't know at this point. That is the point that many of us are trying to state. Not that you are wrong in your calculations, but that you are wrong to make them absolute at this time.
You were called clueless, which is technically a personal attack, albeit a tame one, but you have upped the ante with the repeated dumbass and apologist comments. Disagreeing won't get you banded, but repeated personal attacks will.
PS: Thanks for using the board's markup. I appreciate it.
I can assure you that the Intel Xeon 2.66GHz Quad-Core that Apple is using in the $2499 Mac Pro IS the Intel Xeon W3520 processor - since there are only 3 clock speed options for the SP Nehelem variants (a 2.66, 2.93, and a 3.20GHZ ) . There is no "secret", or "special" (more expensive) Mac only W3500 series processor available. Just the same three SP processor options that everyone else will be using. And yes, they are going for $278 each (maybe even less for Apple). I know that this is hard to accept this pricing reality at face value - because how could Apple pay so little for what is usually THE most valuable part of any high-end "Workstation" and not pass some of the reduced hardware cost on to their consumers (remembering the SP option in the 2008 Mac Pro's that went for just a little over $2300) - especially in this very difficult economy?
http://www.macblogz.com/2008/11/13/i...rly-next-year/
And even worse hardware value to actual hardware cost is offered at the 2nd, $3299 level, with Apple only springing for 2x 2.66 Quad-Cores that are priced at $373 per processor - for a grand total of $756 - right about what it cost them for just a single 2.8GHz Harpertown processor (2 of which were included in the 2008 "entry-level" Mac Pro's).
These have to be some of the highest profit margins (mark-ups) that the Mac Pro line has ever seen. Maybe Apple figures that they can bleed more $$$ from the well-healed "Pro", and "Prosumer" market, before they too finally feel the financial squeeze and cry uncle! Whatever their reasoning, quite a few of have caught on to this new "Apple tax", and are beginning to question the real "value" of these new Mac Pro's - soon to be directly juxtaposed (price and performance wise) to their PC counterpart.
I'm not against anyone making a profit, but lately Apple has been going in the absolutely wrong direction regarding their hardware and how they are pricing it - like dropping the low end Macbook for a $1399 entry-level model (selling off older Macbook stocks @ $1099 notwithstanding). All this "extreme" pricing will end up doing is increasing the chances of more Psystar like companies (new ones will most likely take a different, non-direct approach like EFI-X) to challenge Apple in OSX compatible hardware. Psystar is just the "canary in the coal mine" for Apple here. Apple will not be able to continue to have OSX consumers invest thousands $$$ in the Mac software platform, and then take advantage of that investment by increasing their profit margins on the "closed loop" hardware that is necessary to run that software. I, like many, many others I know, would willingly pay 2,3 even 4 times the current price for a truly liberated, Retail OSX that can run on any machine with an Intel processor. I will naturally assume all the risks and associated problems that may come from this and not expect Apple to provide any kind of follow-up support for using OSX on non-apple hardware. Just let us pay the full retail cost for a stand-alone copy OSX (say $499, which should more than cover the R&D cost to developers). And if Apple ends up selling the best hardware to run it on, then people will buy it willingly - without being artificially forced to. If not, then we could still have the hardware op-out option by buying a full Retail version of OSX and installing it on a non-Apple machine.
And yes, you are correct that I should refrain from personal attacks, or name calling. It doesn't do anything to further my position - other than making me feel a little better striking back. Humor would go a much longer way I think...
With the recently announced, Nehelem Mac Pro's, Apple has just re-enforced the growing demand for a more economical, third party desktop hardware solution that can run OSX - Apple's EULA be damned.
Charging $2499 for an entry level Mac Pro that has only a single socket 2.66GHz Nehalem Xeon processor (retailing for around $350), is the ultimate in hubris from Apple in these harsh economic times.
The New 4-core, entry level 2.66GHz Mac Pro has about $1200-1400 in hardware cost total - a mark-up of anywhere from 80-100% by Apple. The same is true with the New 8-Core Mac Pro that is going for $3299.
It sports (2), low level, 2.26 Xeon processors - that retail for around $350 each ($700 for both). The mark-up for these machines is well over 100%.
At least my 2008, entry level, 8-core 2.8GHz Penryn Mac Pro had (2) $750 ($1500) chips when it was released at $2799 - a far better value in hardware cost.
Apple, and all of you die hard Appleholics can scream bloody murder at pip-squeek upstarts like Psystar till you turn blue in the face. As long as Apple insists on increasing it's profit margins, and price gouging for generic (PC) hardware that is readily and affordably available on the open market, then the we are going to see more and more challengers to Apple's Hardware monopoly - both personally and publicly - regardless of Apple's pathologically litigious behavior.
And don't give me that old " If you don't like what Apple is charging - then don't but it" crap. In reality - most of us are locked into OSX as an operating system - simply because of the fact that we have already invested thousands of $$$ in OSX compatible software throughout the years. Apple knows and is exploiting this to the hilt - that is why they have become even more aggressive in applying their "Apple Tax" on all of their new OSX hardware. But the Mac natives are getting mighty restless in these fragile economic days.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=95870
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=660643
If you AppleTologist are up in arms over the heathen Psystar, and it's "crappy" Mac clones, you had better buckle up - cause it's gonna be a very, very bumpy ride for ya'll in the coming months. EFI-X Here we come!!!
Does this line ever get old to you? Apple is a registered hardware company that makes an OS in order to better entice people to buy its hardware because the hardware is where its profits come from. Microsoft makes software which it then syphons out to the various vendors because the software is where its money comes from.
You can act all day long as if a copyright holder has no rights to dictate the usage of its product, but you will fail every time (even in Europe). And what kind of argument is it that you bought software and somehow that's Apple's fault? The company didn't force your hand, you did it freely knowing that Apple hardware cost more than other hardware. You also did it fully aware of the type of hardware systems Apple would be offering and still made the purchase.
We all nag at you because you're quite possibly the most ignorant person who posts here. Were it simply your distaste for Apple, that would be one thing, but you completely and utterly ignore several factors in your posts. For instance, when PC vendors use Vista, it's because Microsoft is ceding a percentage of profit to them in order to do so. They didn't in any way, shape, or form, have to spend money to research and develop and operating system, they simply threw together some hardware and charged a little profit on it because it sells in mass and they therefore have no need for higher margins and then got a little cut from Microsoft for each unit on top of that.
By the nature of being a premium brand, your margins have to be higher because your unit sales will be lower. I swear to g-d, even a basic economics class will explain that function of supply and demand to you. Apple makes the Mac Mini precisely for the kind of people who need a headless Mac, but not in the range of a Mac Pro and I can assure you from working in retail throughout college that 95% of the people on this earth will never ever need a Pro anyway. It's a business class workstation meant to be used in conjunction with a server anyway.
To use your words, you can go blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is, there are equivalent programs littered throughout both Windows and Linux and you had every right to chose one of those options. See, that's the thing about life, you have personal choice, which you can employ at any time. When you bought a Mac, you knew there was an EULA which you agreed to buy purchasing the that Mac Pro and agreeing to the license upon boot up. If you didn't agree with those terms, you should have bought neither hardware or software and the only person you have to blame for that is yourself.
A company with top rated customer service and satisfaction resultant from tying it hardware together does not have to meet your needs simply because you want a one part solution to be divided into two. I am so tired of people like you who have no appreciation for what you get when you buy a Mac, it's not just about the hardware or the software or the service: it's the whole package together.
If I wanted to put up with the bs Windows users do, I'd wait for Windows 7, not buy a Mac. If you want a multi-vendor solution that is your answer. Stop trying to ruin a good experience for everyone else because that's all your doing: using Apple as an expression of your selfish nature.
I can assure you that the Intel Xeon 2.66GHz Quad-Core that Apple is using in the $2499 Mac Pro IS the Intel Xeon W3520 processor - since there are only 3 clock speed options for the SP Nehelem variants (a 2.66, 2.93, and a 3.20GHZ ) . There is no "secret", or "special" (more expensive) Mac only W3500 series processor available. Just the same three SP processor options that everyone else will be using. And yes, they are going for $278 each (maybe even less for Apple). I know that this is hard to accept this pricing reality at face value - because how could Apple pay so little for what is usually THE most valuable part of any high-end "Workstation" and not pass some of the reduced hardware cost on to their consumers (remembering the SP option in the 2008 Mac Pro's that went for just a little over $2300) - especially in this very difficult economy?
http://www.macblogz.com/2008/11/13/i...rly-next-year/
And even worse value of hardware is offered at the 2nd, $3299 level, with Apple only springing for 2x 2.66 Quad-Cores that are priced at $373 per processor - for a grand total of $756 - right about what it cost them for just a single 2.8GHz Harpertown processor (2 of which were included in the 2008 "entry-level" Mac Pro's).
These have to be some of the highest profit margins (mark-ups) that the Mac Pro line has ever seen. Maybe Apple figures that they can bleed more $$$ from the well-healed "Pro", and "Prosumer" market, before they too finally feel the financial squeeze and cry uncle! Whatever their reasoning, quite a few of have caught on to this new "Apple tax", and are beginning to question the real "value" of these new Mac Pro's - soon to be directly juxtaposed (price and performance wise) to their PC counterpart.
I'm not against anyone making a profit, but lately Apple has been going in the absolutely wrong direction regarding their hardware and how they are pricing it - like dropping the low end Macbook for a $1399 entry-level model (selling off older Macbook stocks @ $1099 notwithstanding). All this "extreme" pricing will end up doing is increasing the chances of more Psystar like companies (new ones will most likely take a different, non-direct approach like EFI-X) to challenge Apple in OSX compatible hardware. Psystar is just the "canary in the coal mine" for Apple here. Apple will not be able to continue to have OSX consumers invest thousands $$$ in the Mac software platform, and then take advantage of that investment by increasing their profit margins on the "closed loop" hardware that is necessary to run that software. I, like many, many others I know, would willingly pay 2,3 even 4 times the current price for a truly liberated, Retail OSX that can run on any machine with an Intel processor. I will naturally assume all the risks and associated problems that may come from this and not expect Apple to provide any kind of follow-up support for using OSX on non-apple hardware. Just let us pay the full retail cost for a stand-alone copy OSX (say $499, which should more than cover the R&D cost to developers). And if Apple ends up selling the best hardware to run it on, then people will buy it willingly - without being artificially forced to. If not, then we could still have the hardware op-out option by buying a full Retail version of OSX and installing it on a non-Apple machine.
And yes, you are correct that I should refrain from personal attacks, or name calling. It doesn't do anything to further my position - other than making me feel a little better striking back. Humor would go a much longer way I think...
Here's the problem: the average consumer is not like you and would expect the follow up support. After all, that's part of what you expect when you purchase any kind of item. Were Dell, for instance, to start selling OS X rigs and one has trouble, their response is going to be to call Apple and when Apple says "I'm sorry, you bought this on non-Apple hardware," they're going to get sued and lose because that precedent for service was squashed legally a long time ago. If you sell it on something, you also have to back it up with service.
Also, people are inanely cheap even in a good economy. If Apple's profits are eroded from third party sales on netbooks and cheapo lap-tops, which it then also has to provide service to (which will suffer given they will not know what hardware it's on to quickly pin-point the issue), then it has to compete across vendors the same way Microsoft does, then there's really no difference between the two systems any longer other than design and security and people will then choose Windows because they're more familiar with it.
I can understand you being a little annoyed with price, but what you want is an untenable situation both from a consumer and legal standpoint. And it's terrible from a business standpoint too, just look at how many people Microsoft just laid off.
Does this line ever get old to you? Apple is a registered hardware company that makes an OS in order to better entice people to buy its hardware because the hardware is where its profits come from. Microsoft makes software which it then syphons out to the various vendors because the software is where its money comes from.
You can act all day long as if a copyright holder has no rights to dictate the usage of its product, but you will fail every time (even in Europe). And what kind of argument is it that you bought software and somehow that's Apple's fault? The company didn't force your hand, you did it freely knowing that Apple hardware cost more than other hardware. You also did it fully aware of the type of hardware systems Apple would be offering and still made the purchase.
We all nag at you because you're quite possibly the most ignorant person who posts here. Were it simply your distaste for Apple, that would be one thing, but you completely and utterly ignore several factors in your posts. For instance, when PC vendors use Vista, it's because Microsoft is ceding a percentage of profit to them in order to do so. They didn't in any way, shape, or form, have to spend money to research and develop and operating system, they simply threw together some hardware and charged a little profit on it because it sells in mass and they therefore have no need for higher margins and then got a little cut from Microsoft for each unit on top of that.
By the nature of being a premium brand, your margins have to be higher because your unit sales will be lower. I swear to g-d, even a basic economics class will explain that function of supply and demand to you. Apple makes the Mac Mini precisely for the kind of people who need a headless Mac, but not in the range of a Mac Pro and I can assure you from working in retail throughout college that 95% of the people on this earth will never ever need a Pro anyway. It's a business class workstation meant to be used in conjunction with a server anyway.
To use your words, you can go blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is, there are equivalent programs littered throughout both Windows and Linux and you had every right to chose one of those options. See, that's the thing about life, you have personal choice, which you can employ at any time. When you bought a Mac, you knew there was an EULA which you agreed to buy purchasing the that Mac Pro and agreeing to the license upon boot up. If you didn't agree with those terms, you should have bought neither hardware or software and the only person you have to blame for that is yourself.
A company with top rated customer service and satisfaction resultant from tying it hardware together does not have to meet your needs simply because you want a one part solution to be divided into two. I am so tired of people like you who have no appreciation for what you get when you buy a Mac, it's not just about the hardware or the software or the service: it's the whole package together.
If I wanted to put up with the bs Windows users do, I'd wait for Windows 7, not buy a Mac. If you want a multi-vendor solution that is your answer. Stop trying to ruin a good experience for everyone else because that's all your doing: using Apple as an expression of your selfish nature.
On go on now! I'm not ruining "a good experience for everybody". You closed loopers think that everyone should think exactly like you do regarding all things Apple. Guess what....they don't!
And if you don't like what I, or any other that you disagree with are saying, then just move on.
Otherwise, buck-up there. You beloved Apple will be just fine for the time being, and easily can withstand my "selfish nature".
Go Psystar!..Sorry, I just can't help myself....
On go on now! I'm not ruining "a good experience for everybody". You closed loopers think that everyone should think exactly like you do regarding all things Apple. Guess what....they don't!
And if you don't like what I, or any other that you disagree with are saying, then just move on.
Otherwise, buck-up there. You beloved Apple will be just fine for the time being, and easily can withstand my "selfish nature".
Go Psystar!..Sorry, I just can't help myself....
My point is that you, the minority, have no right to try to force your will on the majority. I'm exceptionally tired of that kind of religious ethos finding its way into business politics.
And I'm not saying you have no right to disagree with me. What I'm saying is that your cheerleading for a company that, no matter what legal precedent you use, is doing nothing more than ripping off another company's IP while steadfastly refusing to admit there are any benefits to the relationship of hardware, software, & service that we all enjoy so much.
I'm also alot more offended by your poor understanding of the law than your distaste for Apple. You complain about price and offer up unrealistic solutions and then ignore the full body of american, japanese, and european copyright law to make your responses.
I don't care whether you like Apple or not because that has no effect on my life, but when basically make a legal argument that amounts to reverse socialism, I take issue because that does affect me.
Here's the problem: the average consumer is not like you and would expect the follow up support. After all, that's part of what you expect when you purchase any kind of item. Were Dell, for instance, to start selling OS X rigs and one has trouble, their response is going to be to call Apple and when Apple says "I'm sorry, you bought this on non-Apple hardware," they're going to get sued and lose because that precedent for service was squashed legally a long time ago. If you sell it on something, you also have to back it up with service.
Also, people are inanely cheap even in a good economy. If Apple's profits are eroded from third party sales on netbooks and cheapo lap-tops, which it then also has to provide service to (which will suffer given they will not know what hardware it's on to quickly pin-point the issue), then it has to compete across vendors the same way Microsoft does, then there's really no difference between the two systems any longer other than design and security and people will then choose Windows because they're more familiar with it.
I can understand you being a little annoyed with price, but what you want is an untenable situation both from a consumer and legal standpoint. And it's terrible from a business standpoint too, just look at how many people Microsoft just laid off.
Not if Apple were to sell OSX as a full Retail ONLY, Standalone OS, that IS NOT licensed to, or bundled with any particular machine or company, and if they specifically put a disclaimer on this Retail OSX that if it is installed on any non-Apple computers, no follow-up support would be forthcoming. Support would only be provided (as now) to Apple machines ONLY. No legal liabilities would then apply to Apple if this was the case.
And Yes, you are right about people wanting something for practically nothing, but what I'm saying here is that it doesn't have to be all or nothing - either Apple controls every last bit anything Apple, from the OS and applications, to all Apple hardware, to media and content distribution, or just lets everyone in to directly compete willy nilly - without retaining key protections to Apple's business model.
I don't see how opening up and allowing a Retail, Standalone version of OSX ( sold at a hefty price and with support restrictions) would hurt Apple in the slightest. In fact, I believe it would end up boosting Apple's marketshare - both in software, and in hardware ( though it might effect Apple initially until it's hardware pricing comes somewhat into line with current market realities).
In the end, companies like Psystar ( if you could even call it an actual company) only increase pricing pressures on Apple to be more competitive in offering the best machine at the best value/quality-to-performance ratio.
If Apple choses not to seriously heed these pressures, and instead takes further advantage of it's "closed loop" model (as it appear is has done with the new Mac Pro's pricing), then the barbarians at the gate ( Pystars) will continue to make inroads piecemeal into Apple's territory - even if most of it ends up underground because of legal restrictions.
Let's see how Dell and HP respond price wise to Apple's Nehelem Mac Pro's. If Apple is indeed marking them up 70-100%, then the competition will expose and exploit this pricing tactic in the next few weeks...
Sometimes being the first with something on the market is not always the best position be in.
Not if Apple were to sell OSX as a full Retail ONLY, Standalone OS, that IS NOT licensed to, or bundled with any particular machine or company, and if they specifically put a disclaimer on this Retail OSX that if it is installed on any non-Apple computers that no follow-up support would be forthcoming. Support would only be provided (as now) to Apple machines ONLY. No legal liabilities would apply to Apple if this was the case.
And Yes, you are right about people wanting something for practically nothing, but what I'm saying here is that it doesn't have to be all or nothing - either Apple controls every last bit anything Apple, from the OS and applications, to all Apple hardware, to media and content distribution, or just lets everyone in to directly compete willy nilly - without retaining key protections to Apple's business model.
I don't see how opening up and allowing a Retail, Standalone version of OSX ( sold at a hefty price and with support restrictions) would hurt Apple in the slightest. In fact, I believe it would end up boosting Apple's marketshare - both in software, and in hardware ( though it might effect Apple initially until it's hardware pricing comes into line with current market realities).
I can understand you being a little annoyed with price, but what you want is an untenable situation both from a consumer and legal standpoint. And it's terrible from a business standpoint too, just look at how many people Microsoft just laid off.
[/QUOTE]
What I'm saying is that in american legal canon, if you offer a product, even as a stand-alone, you have to provide service for it. Were RIM to offer Palm the Blackberry OS, it is legal precedent that RIM would then have to provide customer service for that product whether it wanted to or not because it is the only company with the expertise to to do and the IP ownership to offer these customers certain services and privileges.
Now, in terms of your other assertion: Apple couldn't care less about market share. Again, like I said earlier, Microsoft owns 87% of the world's OS market and it just laid off several thousand people because its business model doesn't work, especially in a depression. Microsoft's profits directly correlate with it market share, Apple's don't and that's what it isn't dependent on that reading.
There is strategy in people a minority: you don't have to be everything to everyone like Windows does.
Not if Apple were to sell OSX as a full Retail ONLY, Standalone OS, that IS NOT licensed to, or bundled with any particular machine or company, and if they specifically put a disclaimer on this Retail OSX that if it is installed on any non-Apple computers that no follow-up support would be forthcoming. Support would only be provided (as now) to Apple machines ONLY. No legal liabilities would apply to Apple if this was the case.
And Yes, you are right about people wanting something for practically nothing, but what I'm saying here is that it doesn't have to be all or nothing - either Apple controls every last bit anything Apple, from the OS and applications, to all Apple hardware, to media and content distribution, or just lets everyone in to directly compete willy nilly - without retaining key protections to Apple's business model.
I don't see how opening up and allowing a Retail, Standalone version of OSX ( sold at a hefty price and with support restrictions) would hurt Apple in the slightest. In fact, I believe it would end up boosting Apple's marketshare - both in software, and in hardware ( though it might effect Apple initially until it's hardware pricing comes into line with current market realities).
In the end, companies like Psystar ( if you could even call it an actual company) only increase pricing pressures on Apple to be more competitive in offering the best machine at the best value/quality-to-performance ratio. If Apple does not
seriously heed these pressures, and instead takes further advantage of it's "closed loop" model, then the barbarians at the gate will continue to make inroads piecemeal into Apple's territory - even if most of it ends up underground because of legal restrictions.
Let's see how Dell and HP respond price wise to Apple's Nehelem Mac Pro's. If Apple is indeed marking them up 70-100%, then the competition will expose this very soon....
Also, the price Psystar charges isn't realistic anyway because it isn't paying a proper licensing fee, which is always part of what your paying in price on a computer (well, the price of the OS running on it, I should say). Psystar is simply trying to make a name for itself while fully violating even the most basic legal code.
It isn't forcing Apple to have more realistic prices. Go to Dell's website and make a BTO unit and then build that same rig yourself and it will cost you a third of what that vendor charged. Businesses are about profit and the supply and demand chain is ultimately determined by the consumer.
"Go to Dell's website and make a BTO unit and then build that same rig yourself and it will cost you a third of what that vendor charged. Businesses are about profit and the supply and demand chain is ultimately determined by the consumer."
Actually, no on can build an 8-Core Xeon Workstation - even with last years "Harpertown" processors - for " a third" of what Dell is charging for their BTO units. Each of these processor still cost upwards of $1300 each - with the 2.8GHz Quad-Core Xeon processor going for around $750 per processor ($1500 total). It would cost nearly the same price ( within 10-20% margin) to build one of your own Xeon workstations with the Intel Penryn Quad-Core Xeons. ( see my previous posting for links to retail prices ).
As far as what Dell, or other companies may charge for the new Nehalem Xeon Processors, only time will tell since Apple is the only one to announce them ahead of their official release later this month. What we do know is that Apple has decided to go with the low-end, least expensive variants of these new Xeon chips, but has not passed on it's considerably less expensive hardware savings to consumers, especially in relation to the cost of the previous generation Quad-Core Xeon Mac Pro's.
How will Dell and others price their Xeon Workstations?- it's still too soon to tell. But until we have a direct hardware-to-hardware comparison to go by, Apple seems to be taking full advantage of the price drops to further maximize it's bottom line.
And if Dell does indeed price it's Xeon Workstations very similar to what Apple's Nehalem Mac Pro's are commanding, they will come under intense and direct pricing pressure by the "Build-your-own" crowd - that would then be able to construct the very same Workstation, for less than half of either Dell's, or Apple options. I would be very surprised to see Dell fall into that mark-up pricing trap.
Apple may not have direct competition with it's hardware right now, but Dell, and other companies do. That is why very few customers (novices) ever actually pay the full retail price for any Dell computer -with their all their special discounts, coupons and such.
The last Mac Pro Apple released (2008 rev.) was actually very competitive in pricing as compared to their PC counterparts.
This new Mac Pro release has caused a nice little brohaha on the Mac and PC boards..and not in a good way at all. Read: "What is Apple Smoking?".
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2009-03-blog.html.
Not good Cali green bud fer shur...
Originally Posted by Halvri
"Go to Dell's website and make a BTO unit and then build that same rig yourself and it will cost you a third of what that vendor charged. Businesses are about profit and the supply and demand chain is ultimately determined by the consumer."
Actually, no on can build an 8-Core Xeon Workstation - even with last years "Harpertown" processors - for " a third" of what Dell is charging for their BTO units. Each of these processor still cost upwards of $1300 each - with the 2.8GHz Quad-Core Xeon processor going for around $750 per processor ($1500 total). It would cost nearly the same price ( within 10-20% margin) to build one of your own Xeon workstations with the Intel Penryn Quad-Core Xeons. ( see my previous posting for links to retail prices ).
As far as what Dell, or other companies may charge for the new Nehalem Xeon Processors, only time will tell since Apple is the only one to announce them ahead of their official release later this month. What we do know is that Apple has decided to go with the low-end, least expensive variants of these new Xeon chips, but has not passed on it's considerably less expensive hardware savings, especially in relation to the cost of the previous generation Quad-Core Xeon Mac Pro's.
How will Dell and others price their Xeon Workstations?- it's still too soon to tell. But until we have a direct hardware-to-hardware comparison to go by, Apple seems to be taking full advantage of the price drops to further enrich it's bottom line.
And if Dell does indeed price it's Xeon Workstations very similar to Apple's Nehalem Mac Pro's, they will come under intense and direct pricing pressure by the "Build-your-own" crowd that would then be able to construct the very same Workstation, for less than half of either Dell's, or Apple options. I would be very surprised to see Dell fall into that mark-up pricing trap.
Apple may not have direct competition with it's hardware right now, but Dell, and other companies do. That is why very few customers (novices) ever actually pay the full retail price for any Dell computer -with their all their special discounts, coupons and such.
The last Mac Pro Apple released (2008 rev.) was actually very competitive in pricing as compared to their PC counterparts.
This new Mac Pro release has caused a nice little brohaha on the Mac and PC boards..and not in a good way at all. Read: "What is Apple Smoking?".
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2009-03-blog.html.
Not good Cali green bud fer shur...
I mean building a computer in general, not specifically the Xeon based ones. But regardless, the Mac Pro has the lowest unit sales of any Mac and therefore has to have the highest profit margin. I'm not arguing with you that such is a little lame, but there's an actual reason for it to be that way. That said, I seriously doubt if other companies severely undercut the Mac Pro, that price will stand for long. The iPhone's original price was sky high and you see how long that lasted. Apple does sometimes over do it and change course.
Now, in terms of business economics, Dell offering these discounts is also why it's now in the red in every sector it competes in. The company's stock is literally in the toilet at this point and I honestly don't expect it to survive this depression. It has high unit sales but low margins per unit, which is why in this climate, its profits are severely shuttered. It's also sitting on eleven BTO factories that it can no longer use because it has to rely on external means for its new computers (especially lap-tops). I don't expect Dell's prices to be as high, but again, it's receiving payment from several sources that Apple isn't because its a multi-vendor solution, so it doesn't need to recoup R&D in the same manner.
I mean building a computer in general, not specifically the Xeon based ones. But regardless, the Mac Pro has the lowest unit sales of any Mac and therefore has to have the highest profit margin. I'm not arguing with you that such is a little lame, but there's an actual reason for it to be that way. That said, I seriously doubt if other companies severely undercut the Mac Pro, that price will stand for long. The iPhone's original price was sky high and you see how long that lasted. Apple does sometimes over do it and change course.
Now, in terms of business economics, Dell offering these discounts is also why it's now in the red in every sector it competes in. The company's stock is literally in the toilet at this point and I honestly don't expect it to survive this depression. It has high unit sales but low margins per unit, which is why in this climate, its profits are severely shuttered. It's also sitting on eleven BTO factories that it can no longer use because it has to rely on external means for its new computers (especially lap-tops). I don't expect Dell's prices to be as high, but again, it's receiving payment from several sources that Apple isn't because its a multi-vendor solution, so it doesn't need to recoup R&D in the same manner.
Do you really think that Apple can continue with it's "premium" price structure, and still maintain it's current market share in these gloomy economic times? Apple's stock may be doing better than most at the moment, closing at just above $85 today, but it is still less than half of what it was six months ago and Apple's overall long term situation isn't as strong as you might think. Their sales figures are beginning to soften already (as is everyone else's), and as the recession deepens, diminishing demand for high-end anything will not bode well for Apple's $2000+ laptops (a good percentage of them sold to businesses), as well as their Mac Pro line, and Pro App software. They will still probably do well on the low end of things for a time- with the iPod, the iPhone, the Mac Mini, and entry-level iMacs, but spending is getting mighty tight lately, and many of my clients have cancelled, or postponed major computer and electronics (1K+) purchases until further notice. And that includes Apple hardware.
Apple may be riding this out without any major damage yet, but in this new economic reality, no one is safe or immune from it's ravages. Not even Apple.
I have a feeling that in the coming months - the big A will have to be a little more "humble" in the "premium" pricing of their products. They might even have to bring back the sub-1K laptop later this year, or in early 2010, in a belated attempt to compete with the rising popularity of NetBooks.
The whole Psystar thing may eventually become moot if, or when Apple itself has increasing problems selling their own "premium" hardware to struggling, cost conscious consumers.
Maybe it will be the economy, and not upstarts like Psystar, that finally forces Apple's closed loop hand...
Wow you are really clueless aren't you? Driving folks to buy an alternative to a Mac? Pull your head out of your ass! Apple has had record sales in Macs, and competitors can't sell anything these days. Just proves how clueless you really are. If you don't like Apple's business, why did you buy a Mac in the first place? Buy your cheap PC and run Windows. No one forced you to buy the Mac.
By the way, in your previous post, you can't quote EBAY as the fair market price for a CPU. Dumbass!
Apples' marketshare of computers sold in 2009 is forecast to be 10-11m out of 260m units sold.
Clueless??
try a mirror..