You are making my point -- both are products of Honda, not some other car manufacturer licensed by Honda to make Honda cars. Some believe that Apple should be licensing OSX to other hardware makers, though why they believe this, has never been clear to me. So you'd have to ask them why. The point I'm making is, if Apple followed this advice, they'd be creating competitors for themselves, which is an unusual business strategy to be sure.
I completely agree with you. I think what they believe is if apple licenses OS X to other builders, that their computing experiences will suddenly get cheaper for using OS X. They *think* they would have more hardware options. I suppose they would to a point (like more graphic card options and configurations), but more or less it would be just as expensive.
Many people believe apple sells a full copy of OS X for $129. In reality they are upgrade prices that are offset by the past hardware sales that person has made. So in order for Apple to sell full blown copies without the hardware offset, it's unknown what the price would be. My guess is in the $300-$500 range.
In the end it makes no sense for apple to completely change their business model. What they have works and works well. Some people think that a greater market share would bring them a lot more money, imo it would just bring a lot more problems and less money.
I think this just means that the lawyers are trying to keep the ship afloat a little longer so they can attend to the further lawsuit in Florida and their appeals. That's all it sounds like. In any case, it won't make any difference.
What were they thinking going against Apple with such clearly defined rights and usage rules with the Mac OS?
Other than Rebel RFI what is left in Florida to argue? The guts of that case including Snow Leopard have been decided in California .
One, which is the way Apple does business, like it or not. If the "average consumer" wants a Honda, how many choices do they have? One, which is the way Honda does business, like it or not. That doesn't mean they can't also buy a Toyota.
No. This would be more along the lines of... Honda develops the rubber tire. There are similar systems in place in other cars, but they aren't as good. Wood tires are just far too bumpy, and if you want those rubber tires on your car, you can only get them from honda, with comparable (and sometimes sub-par) hardware, at a much higher price. You are also bound to a EULA that says you may not put those tires on any non-honda car.
Honda additionally tells other companies that they may not have rubber tires on their cars, refusing to license it, as the last time it happened, too many of their customers decided that the other companies, with the same tires, were a much better deal. Honda didn't like that. So rather than competing, attempting to match or beat specs of those other cars, Honda decided that it would make a lot more money if they invested in an army of lawyers instead.
Now, another car maker comes along, and attempts to challenge those rulings, saying they should be able to sell cars with rubber tires too. They offer to license it, pay additional fees, and invest heavily in what they believe should be allowed. Unfortunately, Honda's cult following spread heavily in previous 10 years, and now their customers no longer have a sense of what is in their own best interest, but instead tend to act in the best interest of Honda. Unfortunately, those people don't realize that Honda doesn't care about them, and is only doing what they do for profit, like any other company.
I couldn't help read your phrase of "MacBook" which isn't meant to be for the "Road Warrior".
Apple has the MacBook Air and as our Steve said "Was meant to be for the Wireless World" An innovative piece of engineering in a slim and sexy design. Not to mention the MacBook Air beats any netbook in the market in regards to computing power.
Neither the MacBook nor the MacBook Air are "Road Warrior" laptops.
A matte screen 15" or17" MacBook Pro IS a road warriors machine.
Why? You need it be able to anything just about anywhere on battery power.
The MacBook Air is a dainty, fragile, overpriced and underpowered piece of junk that looks like it's more effective at being thrown as a sharp weapon or used to cut vegetables or something. I'm almost afraid I or someone else would sit on the poor thing and bend it completely unless in a seconds.
If your going to buy a fragile netbook, why pay thousands when one can pay hundreds?
The MacBook is nearly a child's computer, especially the white ones.
Forgive me for being so blunt and to anyone reading this who has either of those two machines, but the 15" MacBook Pro is Apple's most popular selling laptop and for a good reason. It's nearly got all the features of a portable desktop.
Apple is dicking around now, making the matte screen 15" a "top of the line" BTO 15" only, they are really pissing me and a lot of professional Mac users off.
My next machine is a $400 Dell Mini with a large SSD drive running Ubuntu, screw Apple and their $3000 plus glossy screen crap.
If I can't be comfortable using the computer with a matte screen and there is nothing to do on a computer anymore except web surf and a occasional email, there is no sense in buying Apple's $3000 gear when I can pay $400 instead. That's 7.5 Ubuntu Dell Mini's for the price of one Apple Pro Laptop.
My present 3 year old MacBook Pro's 85 watt Magsafe has failed, like so many others have and I'm using my two month old and dead (drink spill) glossy screen white MacBook's 65 watt adapter instead.
I completely agree with you. I think what they believe is if apple licenses OS X to other builders, that their computing experiences will suddenly get cheaper for using OS X. They *think* they would have more hardware options. I suppose they would to a point (like more graphic card options and configurations), but more or less it would be just as expensive.
Cheaper hardware would be the result, almost without a doubt. But that's completely besides the point, since as you say, it's fundamentally ridiculous to expect Apple to change their business model (which happens to be a completely conventional business model) for the purpose of intentionally creating competitors to their own products (a completely unconventional business model).
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Madcapper
No. This would be more along the lines of...
Not at all. You make the common mistake of thinking that Apple sells boxes of parts. In fact, they sell Mac computers, not computer parts -- in precisely the same way that Honda sells cars, not tires. Very simply, you either buy the entire product as it is sold, or you don't, depending entirely on your preference. Neither company is under any obligation to break their products down into assembly parts, so you or anyone else can build them in competition.
Neither the MacBook nor the MacBook Air are "Road Warrior" laptops.
A matte screen 15" or17" MacBook Pro IS a road warriors machine.
The term portability for notebooks require Weight, and Power combined, the macbook air does that well compared to the nascent segment of netbook users, spec for spec. I can't see to many people showing up with a 17" MacBook pro saying it's portable enough.
Quote:
Why? You need it be able to anything just about anywhere on battery power.The MacBook Air is a dainty, fragile, overpriced and underpowered piece of junk that looks like it's more effective at being thrown as a sharp weapon or used to cut vegetables or something. I'm almost afraid I or someone else would sit on the poor thing and bend it completely unless in a seconds.
The Air when released was the WORLDS THINNEST NOTEBOOK, Not to mention the extreme functionality and use of the notebook, All that power in a paper weight design. Steve has answered the portable segment of users with the MacBook Air
Quote:
Apple is dicking around now, making the matte screen 15" a "top of the line" BTO 15" only, they are really pissing me and a lot of professional Mac users off.
Apple was reminded that the small majority of pro's still prefer the matte option. Remember at the 2009 MacWorld when Phil Shiller showed the 17" MBP in Matte and only a small few cheered, as Phil said "SEE THERE ARE STILL A FEW OUT THERE ". I'm a professional and the glossy screen is actually much better for an overall experience when I'm not doing photography editing on PS or Aperture.
Apple is still providing top of the line specs in all its Pro Notebooks (i.e; 256GB SSD, 8GB RAM, 3.06ghz c2d with 6MB L2 cache etc...)
Quote:
My next machine is a Dell Mini with a large SSD drive running Ubuntu, screw Apple and their $3000 plus glossy screen crap.
A statement like this fully verifies that their are some users who simply have a Wal-Mart mindset. You want a MAC PRO for a MAC MINI price. Your un-realistic, oh yeah I almost forgot that all this Hardware is managed by the WORLDS MOST ADVANCE OPERATING SYSTEM. By the Way the 15" Pro's start at $1,699.
1: Not tying OS X to Apple hardware. ( They actually do )
OS X was only tied to hardware with PPC processors, now Mac's use common Intel processors, making the difference between a Mac and a PC nearly zero.
Just because some words in the EULA says you can't use OS X on non-Apple hardware doesn't mean laws in other countries honor that or that people follow it.
Even Apple sells millions of black market Wifi enabled iPhones in China against China's law.
Quote:
2: Ignoring the low end of the PC market. ( Ignoring for a Great Reason, the low end PC market are just a bunch of Wal-Mart minded consumers, wanting A MAC PRO for the price of a MACBOOK, I'm glad Apple ignores these people and as STEVE told a reporter during the 2007 Apple event " WE DON'T SHIP JUNK, IT'S NOT IN OUR DNA TO SELL PRODUCTS WE WOULDN'T RECOMMEND TO OUR LOVED ONES")
I'm not suggesting Apple give away their hardware for free, but something is obviously WRONG if Psystar and other cloners are able to make a business and PROFIT from selling PC's with OS X installed.
Quote:
3: Thinking the law is going to protect their sales. ( The law does protect those who are doing right and Apple is doing right so the Law protects them )
Only in the US. Apple still has cloners to whack in many other countries, the laws are different in different countries and enforcement is a whole another matter too.
Look at the untold millions of illegal copies of Windows sold in China's street corner vendors there.
Not at all. You make the common mistake of thinking that Apple sells boxes of parts. In fact, they sell Mac computers, not computer parts -- in precisely the same way that Honda sells cars, not tires. Very simply, you either buy the entire product as it is sold, or you don't, depending entirely on your preference. Neither company is under any obligation to break their products down into assembly parts, so you or anyone else can build them in competition.
You don't seem to be disagreeing with me. Re-read my post for clarification, if needed.
Neither the MacBook nor the MacBook Air are "Road Warrior" laptops. ...
I would argue that if a MacBook Air is not a "Road Warrior" machine, then neither is any netbook.
I've seen a lot of netbooks, and a few running OS-X, and not one of them is more than a toy. the MacBook Air is the current "netbook" for Apple and compares favourably with the netbook class on everything but price.
You don't seem to be disagreeing with me. Re-read my post for clarification, if needed.
I hope I am disagreeing, since your analogy makes no sense. Your analogy assumes that someone could patent the concept of rubber tires, which in itself is nonsense. It becomes deeper nonsense to compare rubber tires to a Macintosh computer, which as nearly as I can figure out, is what you're doing. To make it as clear I can, Apple could no more patent the concept of a personal computer than Honda or anyone else could patent the concept of a rubber tire. None of which prevents Apple from patenting a Macintosh computer or Honda or anyone else from patenting their particular type of rubber tire.
And just to settle an extremely silly side issue, none of the above has anything even remotely to do with whether these companies "care" about us.
OS X was only tied to hardware with PPC processors, now Mac's use common Intel processors, making the difference between a Mac and a PC nearly zero.
Just because some words in the EULA says you can't use OS X on non-Apple hardware doesn't mean laws in other countries honor that or that people follow it.
Even Apple sells millions of black market Wifi enabled iPhones in China against China's law.
I'm aware of that and like Apple I see nothing wrong with selling wiFi to users whos government wants to control their people. Apple selling of those enabled devices has to do with choice, and human rights.
Quote:
I'm not suggesting Apple give away their hardware for free, but something is obviously WRONG if Psystar and other cloners are able to make a business and PROFIT from selling PC's with OS X installed.
Their is something wrong with riding the backs of a company's innovative software. While profiting from it. Psytar was attempting to destroy the Apple experience in which users and consumers are accustomed to. Not to mention their whole business model was ILLEGAL
Quote:
Only in the US. Apple still has cloners to whack in many other countries, the laws are different in different countries and enforcement is a whole another matter too.
Thats why we have a GREAT LEGAL TEAM
Quote:
Look at the untold millions of illegal copies of Windows sold in China's street corner vendors there.
Windows is experiencing Karma. When you've been stealing from others for decades expect the same in return, Microsoft is only getting what it deserves.
The term portability for notebooks require Weight, and Power combined, the macbook air does that well compared to the nascent segment of netbook users, spec for spec. I can't see to many people showing up with a 17" MacBook pro saying it's portable enough
You may be right, but it's NOT a road warriors machine.
Quote:
The Air when released was the WORLDS THINNEST NOTEBOOK, Not to mention the extreme functionality and use of the notebook, All that power in a paper weight design. Steve has answered the portable segment of users with the MacBook Air
I got no problem if people want something like that, but it's too frail to be a road warrior's laptop.
And I took my MacBook Pro "on the road" for two straight months in all sorts of environments taking pictures all around the US.
Quote:
Apple was reminded that the small majority of pro's still prefer the matte option. Remember at the 2009 MacWorld when Phil Shiller showed the 17" MBP in Matte and only a small few cheered, as Phil said "SEE THERE ARE STILL A FEW OUT THERE ".
Screw Phil, I've met him and liked him right off, but his stance on glossy screens is bullshit. He's trying to con us and we are not taking it lightly nor appreciate it. Pro's are giving Apple the finger in record numbers.
It was me that got a hold of Steve himself and got the 15" matte screen back, but it seems Phil or someone else is playing games again.
Quote:
I'm a professional and the glossy screen is actually much better with an overall experience when I'm not doing photography editing on PS or Aperture.
Yea, in a dark hole it's wonderfully accurate.
Quote:
Apple is still providing top of the line specs in all its Pro Notebooks (i.e; 256GB SSD, 8GB RAM, 3.06ghz c2d with 6MB L2 cache etc...)
Don't need it or want it anymore.
Got ripped off spending big bucks for a PowerMac G5, 30" monitors and Apple goes off and changes processors and no more OS X for PPC. So the long term investment with the machine just dropped like a stone.
The MBP has served me well, despite having to upgrade the crappy hard drives and Superdrives Apple uses. Now it's the Magsafe that failed.
The white MacBook was a utter and complete waste of a good $1000, it was supposed to be a gift and a honest attempt to see if glossy would still bother my eyes, it did and unfortuntly so did the person I gave it too, who just ignored it and then through that neglect got water spilled on the keyboard. Like a good machine shouldn't be susceptible to this sort of thing right?
Quote:
A statement like this fully verifies that their are some users who simply have a Wal-Mart mindset. You want a MAC PRO for a MAC MINI price. Your un-realistic, oh yeah I almost forgot that all this Hardware is managed by the WORLDS MOST ADVANCE OPERATING SYSTEM. By the Way the 15" Pro's start at $1,699.
No, I want a $500 OS X laptop, the extra $100 over the $400 Dell Mini for a slightly better quality build, a matte screen and a three year mail in warranty.
But alas, with Apple unless you spend more than $1000 they don't want to hear from you, then for only a year, another $349 gets you another two years.
Apple can remain happy with their 10% market share, the world will move on, but as soon as the "steve Jobs effect" wears off, it's curtains for Apple.
I already see the partial control of someone else, a bean counter.
I hope I am disagreeing, since your analogy makes no sense. Your analogy assumes that someone could patent the concept of rubber tires, which in itself is nonsense. It becomes deeper nonsense to compare rubber tires to a Macintosh computer, which as nearly as I can figure out, is what you're doing. To make it as clear I can, Apple could no more patent the concept of a personal computer than Honda or anyone else could patent the concept of a rubber tire. None of which prevents Apple from patenting a Macintosh computer or Honda or anyone else from patenting their particular type of rubber tire.
And just to settle an extremely silly side issue, none of the above has anything even remotely to do with whether these companies "care" about us.
Tires are what make cars move. Many mac enthusiasts would agree that Apple (Honda, in this analogy)'s systems are rolling smoothly along on rubber tires, while other systems are restricted to the wood wheel of yesteryear. (Though some believe that the new Windows' synthetic rubber-like material is almost comparable!)
2: Ignoring the low end of the PC market. ( Ignoring for a Great Reason, the low end PC market are just a bunch of Wal-Mart minded consumers, wanting A MAC PRO for the price of a MACBOOK, I'm glad Apple ignores these people and as STEVE told a reporter during the 2007 Apple event " WE DON'T SHIP JUNK, IT'S NOT IN OUR DNA TO SELL PRODUCTS WE WOULDN'T RECOMMEND TO OUR LOVED ONES")
Just because a computer costs less than $1000 doesn't mean it's a piece of junk that only "Wal-Mart minded consumers" would want.... It's something that someone with not a lot of money might want.
I'm aware of that and like Apple I see nothing wrong with selling wiFi to users whos government wants to control their people. Apple selling of those enabled devices has to do with choice, and human rights.
Ok , so then what's wrong with serving a market Apple is ignoring?
Quote:
There is something wrong with riding the backs of a company's innovative software. While profiting from it. Psytar was attempting to destroy the Apple experience in which users and consumers are accustomed to. Not to mention their whole business model was ILLEGAL
No Psystar was serving a market Apple is ignoring and making a profit too, which Apple is ignoring.
Because Apple's prices are insanely high compared to similar PC offerings of the same quality.
Quote:
Thats why we have a GREAT LEGAL TEAM
Enjoy the world travel, bring lots of warm clothes and condemns.
Quote:
Windows is experiencing Karma. When you've been stealing from others for decades expect the same in return, Microsoft is only getting what it deserves.
So Apple pirates Xerox, Microsoft pirates Apple, Apple pirates Unix and Psystar pirates Apple.
And Apple complains?
Apple is a pirate, they KNOW others are pirates, so why not tie OS X harder to Apple hardware so it's near impossible to run on PC's?
It's because Apple want's their OS to be pirated, just not publicly and for commercial profit that's all.
Psystar see's this too, thus they purposely challenged Apple in court knowing they are going to lose but reap a client list and free publicity for Rebel EFI.
Heck, they file for bankruptcy and they don't even have to pay fines or fee's!
You may be right, but it's NOT a road warriors machine.
I got no problem if people want something like that, but it's too frail to be a road warrior's laptop.
And I took my MacBook Pro "on the road" for two straight months in all sorts of environments taking pictures all around the US.
Screw Phil, I've met him and liked him right off, but his stance on glossy screens is bullshit. He's trying to con us and we are not taking it lightly nor appreciate it. Pro's are giving Apple the finger in record numbers.
It was me that got a hold of Steve himself and got the 15" matte screen back, but it seems Phil or someone else is playing games again.
Quote:
Yea, in a dark hole it's wonderfully accurate.
Couldn't help but laugh
Quote:
Don't need it or want it anymore.
Got ripped off spending big bucks for a PowerMac G5, 30" monitors and Apple goes off and changes processors and no more OS X for PPC. So the long term investment with the machine just dropped like a stone.
The MBP has served me well, despite having to upgrade the crappy hard drives and Superdrives Apple uses. Now it's the Magsafe that failed.
The white MacBook was a utter and complete waste of a good $1000, it was supposed to be a gift and a honest attempt to see if glossy would still bother my eyes, it did and unfortuntly so did the person I gave it too, who just ignored it and then through that neglect got water spilled on the keyboard. Like a good machine shouldn't be susceptible to this sort of thing right?
No, I want a $500 OS X laptop, the extra $100 over the $400 Dell Mini for a slightly better quality build, a matte screen and a three year mail in warranty.
But alas, with Apple unless you spend more than $1000 they don't want to hear from you, then for only a year, another $349 gets you another two years.
Apple can remain happy with their 10% market share, the world will move on, but as soon as the "steve Jobs effect" wears off, it's curtains for Apple.
I already see the partial control of someone else, a bean counter.
This argument sounds like the type of users Apple DOESN'T want to have.
[*] APPLE LEADS THE INDUSTRY IN CUSTOMER SUPPORT
[*] Phil and Apple's executive team Ran the company very ably while Steve was dealing with personal issues. I didn't see any (Steve effect) as you put it wear off
[*] Apple's 10% share has grown beyond the industry in record numbers.
[*] Steve & Apple are 99.9% of the time right. That .1% is just the category of nascent complainers who don't understand the company or it's creator. (Are you one?)
You obviously need to build your own PC, cause your un-realistic.
I couldn't help read your phrase of "MacBook" which isn't meant to be for the "Road Warrior".
Apple has the MacBook Air and as our Steve said "Was meant to be for the Wireless World" An innovative piece of engineering in a slim and sexy design. Not to mention the MacBook Air beats any netbook in the market in regards to computing power.
Give this a try
No thanks. It's not for road warriors. I know this, I'm that guy. 144 flights this year.
The machine is a bit under powered. No storage. No replaceable battery. Lousy graphics. I couldn't get it to work with my InFocus projector, not enough graphics performance or oomph or something. Can't do a business presentation, why tote it? Not a road warrior machine.
Maybe for Steve. But he probably forgot that the rest of us don't have our own private jet, and can rarely afford to sit in Business Class, where the power ports are.
ORD to CGY is a little over 9 hours. LAX to MEL is almost 16 hours. SYD to HKG is 9-1/2 hours & HKG to LAX is 13 hours. I travel these routes all the time. Traveling with the toy MBA would mean I'd get anywhere from 3 to 4, maybe 4-1/2 hours of work done, and then I'd be finished. What do I do for the next 12 hours? At least with my aluminum MacBook boat-anchor, I can snap in another battery and keep going. Also, TSA will let me on the plane with Apple's replacement batteries, because they are original equipment... sometimes, they force 3rd party batteries into the cargo hold. We've seen it happen to our crews.
I have more Power Point presentations, Excel budget spreadsheets and PDF specification sheets on our products than the MBA can hold on it's puny drive. This doesn't even account for any applications or music or photos or any other documents. This thing is a cute toy.
Hell, you can't even connect to an Ethernet network and plug a USB thumb drive into the stupid-ass machine at the same damn time. Hilarious. All for $1400, $1500? Give me a break. What kind of modern computer is that? It's for suburban housewives who want to look cool surfing at StarBucks.
The size and weight of the MBA was achieved by de-featuring, not innovation. If Fujitsu can get DVI, HDMI, Gig Ethernet, a removable battery, 3 USB2.0 ports plus 1394 into a 10" ultra-portable netbook, I would hope Apple might be able to do the same thing. If they bothered trying.
Also, I'm thinking you didn't really pay attention to my post. I want & need a computer with a smaller footprint. This is really the show stopper - the 13" LCD means the base of the machine has to accommodate it. I want a smaller footprint. The smallest footprint Apple produces is 13", 30% greater than my desired standard. This is ok for 2004 or 2005 technology but not in today's netbook world.
Apple needs to start innovating again in the portable computer space (I don't mean phones), and stop resting on their previous, now long in the tooth designs. I want something that absorbs 30% less space than their most portable Macintosh book.
Tires are what make cars move. Many mac enthusiasts would agree that Apple (Honda, in this analogy)'s systems are rolling smoothly along on rubber tires, while other systems are restricted to the wood wheel of yesteryear. (Though some believe that the new Windows' synthetic rubber-like material is almost comparable!)
And? Even if we agree that Apple makes the better personal computer, that has no bearing on whether anyone other than Apple has any conceivable right to build and sell Apple's product. Building a better product and being rewarded -- that's how the system works.
Just because a computer costs less than $1000 doesn't mean it's a piece of junk that only "Wal-Mart minded consumers" would want.... It's something that someone with not a lot of money might want.
Apple has a computer under $1000, the Mac Mini and MacBook. Those are hardly junk and appeal to they low end user market
Comments
You are making my point -- both are products of Honda, not some other car manufacturer licensed by Honda to make Honda cars. Some believe that Apple should be licensing OSX to other hardware makers, though why they believe this, has never been clear to me. So you'd have to ask them why. The point I'm making is, if Apple followed this advice, they'd be creating competitors for themselves, which is an unusual business strategy to be sure.
I completely agree with you. I think what they believe is if apple licenses OS X to other builders, that their computing experiences will suddenly get cheaper for using OS X. They *think* they would have more hardware options. I suppose they would to a point (like more graphic card options and configurations), but more or less it would be just as expensive.
Many people believe apple sells a full copy of OS X for $129. In reality they are upgrade prices that are offset by the past hardware sales that person has made. So in order for Apple to sell full blown copies without the hardware offset, it's unknown what the price would be. My guess is in the $300-$500 range.
In the end it makes no sense for apple to completely change their business model. What they have works and works well. Some people think that a greater market share would bring them a lot more money, imo it would just bring a lot more problems and less money.
I think this just means that the lawyers are trying to keep the ship afloat a little longer so they can attend to the further lawsuit in Florida and their appeals. That's all it sounds like. In any case, it won't make any difference.
What were they thinking going against Apple with such clearly defined rights and usage rules with the Mac OS?
Other than Rebel RFI what is left in Florida to argue? The guts of that case including Snow Leopard have been decided in California .
One, which is the way Apple does business, like it or not. If the "average consumer" wants a Honda, how many choices do they have? One, which is the way Honda does business, like it or not. That doesn't mean they can't also buy a Toyota.
No. This would be more along the lines of... Honda develops the rubber tire. There are similar systems in place in other cars, but they aren't as good. Wood tires are just far too bumpy, and if you want those rubber tires on your car, you can only get them from honda, with comparable (and sometimes sub-par) hardware, at a much higher price. You are also bound to a EULA that says you may not put those tires on any non-honda car.
Honda additionally tells other companies that they may not have rubber tires on their cars, refusing to license it, as the last time it happened, too many of their customers decided that the other companies, with the same tires, were a much better deal. Honda didn't like that. So rather than competing, attempting to match or beat specs of those other cars, Honda decided that it would make a lot more money if they invested in an army of lawyers instead.
Now, another car maker comes along, and attempts to challenge those rulings, saying they should be able to sell cars with rubber tires too. They offer to license it, pay additional fees, and invest heavily in what they believe should be allowed. Unfortunately, Honda's cult following spread heavily in previous 10 years, and now their customers no longer have a sense of what is in their own best interest, but instead tend to act in the best interest of Honda. Unfortunately, those people don't realize that Honda doesn't care about them, and is only doing what they do for profit, like any other company.
I couldn't help read your phrase of "MacBook" which isn't meant to be for the "Road Warrior".
Apple has the MacBook Air and as our Steve said "Was meant to be for the Wireless World" An innovative piece of engineering in a slim and sexy design. Not to mention the MacBook Air beats any netbook in the market in regards to computing power.
http://www.apple.com/macbookair/features.html
Give this a try
Neither the MacBook nor the MacBook Air are "Road Warrior" laptops.
A matte screen 15" or17" MacBook Pro IS a road warriors machine.
Why? You need it be able to anything just about anywhere on battery power.
The MacBook Air is a dainty, fragile, overpriced and underpowered piece of junk that looks like it's more effective at being thrown as a sharp weapon or used to cut vegetables or something. I'm almost afraid I or someone else would sit on the poor thing and bend it completely unless in a seconds.
If your going to buy a fragile netbook, why pay thousands when one can pay hundreds?
The MacBook is nearly a child's computer, especially the white ones.
Forgive me for being so blunt and to anyone reading this who has either of those two machines, but the 15" MacBook Pro is Apple's most popular selling laptop and for a good reason. It's nearly got all the features of a portable desktop.
Apple is dicking around now, making the matte screen 15" a "top of the line" BTO 15" only, they are really pissing me and a lot of professional Mac users off.
My next machine is a $400 Dell Mini with a large SSD drive running Ubuntu, screw Apple and their $3000 plus glossy screen crap.
If I can't be comfortable using the computer with a matte screen and there is nothing to do on a computer anymore except web surf and a occasional email, there is no sense in buying Apple's $3000 gear when I can pay $400 instead. That's 7.5 Ubuntu Dell Mini's for the price of one Apple Pro Laptop.
My present 3 year old MacBook Pro's 85 watt Magsafe has failed, like so many others have and I'm using my two month old and dead (drink spill) glossy screen white MacBook's 65 watt adapter instead.
Ubuntu doesn't get viruses neither.
I completely agree with you. I think what they believe is if apple licenses OS X to other builders, that their computing experiences will suddenly get cheaper for using OS X. They *think* they would have more hardware options. I suppose they would to a point (like more graphic card options and configurations), but more or less it would be just as expensive.
Cheaper hardware would be the result, almost without a doubt. But that's completely besides the point, since as you say, it's fundamentally ridiculous to expect Apple to change their business model (which happens to be a completely conventional business model) for the purpose of intentionally creating competitors to their own products (a completely unconventional business model).
No. This would be more along the lines of...
Not at all. You make the common mistake of thinking that Apple sells boxes of parts. In fact, they sell Mac computers, not computer parts -- in precisely the same way that Honda sells cars, not tires. Very simply, you either buy the entire product as it is sold, or you don't, depending entirely on your preference. Neither company is under any obligation to break their products down into assembly parts, so you or anyone else can build them in competition.
Neither the MacBook nor the MacBook Air are "Road Warrior" laptops.
A matte screen 15" or17" MacBook Pro IS a road warriors machine.
The term portability for notebooks require Weight, and Power combined, the macbook air does that well compared to the nascent segment of netbook users, spec for spec. I can't see to many people showing up with a 17" MacBook pro saying it's portable enough.
Why? You need it be able to anything just about anywhere on battery power.The MacBook Air is a dainty, fragile, overpriced and underpowered piece of junk that looks like it's more effective at being thrown as a sharp weapon or used to cut vegetables or something. I'm almost afraid I or someone else would sit on the poor thing and bend it completely unless in a seconds.
The Air when released was the WORLDS THINNEST NOTEBOOK, Not to mention the extreme functionality and use of the notebook, All that power in a paper weight design. Steve has answered the portable segment of users with the MacBook Air
Apple is dicking around now, making the matte screen 15" a "top of the line" BTO 15" only, they are really pissing me and a lot of professional Mac users off.
Apple was reminded that the small majority of pro's still prefer the matte option. Remember at the 2009 MacWorld when Phil Shiller showed the 17" MBP in Matte and only a small few cheered, as Phil said "SEE THERE ARE STILL A FEW OUT THERE ". I'm a professional and the glossy screen is actually much better for an overall experience when I'm not doing photography editing on PS or Aperture.
Apple is still providing top of the line specs in all its Pro Notebooks (i.e; 256GB SSD, 8GB RAM, 3.06ghz c2d with 6MB L2 cache etc...)
My next machine is a Dell Mini with a large SSD drive running Ubuntu, screw Apple and their $3000 plus glossy screen crap.
A statement like this fully verifies that their are some users who simply have a Wal-Mart mindset. You want a MAC PRO for a MAC MINI price. Your un-realistic, oh yeah I almost forgot that all this Hardware is managed by the WORLDS MOST ADVANCE OPERATING SYSTEM. By the Way the 15" Pro's start at $1,699.
1: Not tying OS X to Apple hardware. ( They actually do )
OS X was only tied to hardware with PPC processors, now Mac's use common Intel processors, making the difference between a Mac and a PC nearly zero.
Just because some words in the EULA says you can't use OS X on non-Apple hardware doesn't mean laws in other countries honor that or that people follow it.
Even Apple sells millions of black market Wifi enabled iPhones in China against China's law.
2: Ignoring the low end of the PC market. ( Ignoring for a Great Reason, the low end PC market are just a bunch of Wal-Mart minded consumers, wanting A MAC PRO for the price of a MACBOOK, I'm glad Apple ignores these people and as STEVE told a reporter during the 2007 Apple event " WE DON'T SHIP JUNK, IT'S NOT IN OUR DNA TO SELL PRODUCTS WE WOULDN'T RECOMMEND TO OUR LOVED ONES")
I'm not suggesting Apple give away their hardware for free, but something is obviously WRONG if Psystar and other cloners are able to make a business and PROFIT from selling PC's with OS X installed.
3: Thinking the law is going to protect their sales. ( The law does protect those who are doing right and Apple is doing right so the Law protects them )
Only in the US. Apple still has cloners to whack in many other countries, the laws are different in different countries and enforcement is a whole another matter too.
Look at the untold millions of illegal copies of Windows sold in China's street corner vendors there.
Not at all. You make the common mistake of thinking that Apple sells boxes of parts. In fact, they sell Mac computers, not computer parts -- in precisely the same way that Honda sells cars, not tires. Very simply, you either buy the entire product as it is sold, or you don't, depending entirely on your preference. Neither company is under any obligation to break their products down into assembly parts, so you or anyone else can build them in competition.
You don't seem to be disagreeing with me. Re-read my post for clarification, if needed.
Neither the MacBook nor the MacBook Air are "Road Warrior" laptops. ...
I would argue that if a MacBook Air is not a "Road Warrior" machine, then neither is any netbook.
I've seen a lot of netbooks, and a few running OS-X, and not one of them is more than a toy. the MacBook Air is the current "netbook" for Apple and compares favourably with the netbook class on everything but price.
You don't seem to be disagreeing with me. Re-read my post for clarification, if needed.
I hope I am disagreeing, since your analogy makes no sense. Your analogy assumes that someone could patent the concept of rubber tires, which in itself is nonsense. It becomes deeper nonsense to compare rubber tires to a Macintosh computer, which as nearly as I can figure out, is what you're doing. To make it as clear I can, Apple could no more patent the concept of a personal computer than Honda or anyone else could patent the concept of a rubber tire. None of which prevents Apple from patenting a Macintosh computer or Honda or anyone else from patenting their particular type of rubber tire.
And just to settle an extremely silly side issue, none of the above has anything even remotely to do with whether these companies "care" about us.
OS X was only tied to hardware with PPC processors, now Mac's use common Intel processors, making the difference between a Mac and a PC nearly zero.
Just because some words in the EULA says you can't use OS X on non-Apple hardware doesn't mean laws in other countries honor that or that people follow it.
Even Apple sells millions of black market Wifi enabled iPhones in China against China's law.
I'm aware of that and like Apple I see nothing wrong with selling wiFi to users whos government wants to control their people. Apple selling of those enabled devices has to do with choice, and human rights.
I'm not suggesting Apple give away their hardware for free, but something is obviously WRONG if Psystar and other cloners are able to make a business and PROFIT from selling PC's with OS X installed.
Their is something wrong with riding the backs of a company's innovative software. While profiting from it. Psytar was attempting to destroy the Apple experience in which users and consumers are accustomed to. Not to mention their whole business model was ILLEGAL
Only in the US. Apple still has cloners to whack in many other countries, the laws are different in different countries and enforcement is a whole another matter too.
Thats why we have a GREAT LEGAL TEAM
Look at the untold millions of illegal copies of Windows sold in China's street corner vendors there.
Windows is experiencing Karma. When you've been stealing from others for decades expect the same in return, Microsoft is only getting what it deserves.
There is competition it is called Dell, HP, Sony, Acer, Asus, Toshiba, ...
The term portability for notebooks require Weight, and Power combined, the macbook air does that well compared to the nascent segment of netbook users, spec for spec. I can't see to many people showing up with a 17" MacBook pro saying it's portable enough
You may be right, but it's NOT a road warriors machine.
The Air when released was the WORLDS THINNEST NOTEBOOK, Not to mention the extreme functionality and use of the notebook, All that power in a paper weight design. Steve has answered the portable segment of users with the MacBook Air
I got no problem if people want something like that, but it's too frail to be a road warrior's laptop.
And I took my MacBook Pro "on the road" for two straight months in all sorts of environments taking pictures all around the US.
Apple was reminded that the small majority of pro's still prefer the matte option. Remember at the 2009 MacWorld when Phil Shiller showed the 17" MBP in Matte and only a small few cheered, as Phil said "SEE THERE ARE STILL A FEW OUT THERE ".
Screw Phil, I've met him and liked him right off, but his stance on glossy screens is bullshit. He's trying to con us and we are not taking it lightly nor appreciate it. Pro's are giving Apple the finger in record numbers.
It was me that got a hold of Steve himself and got the 15" matte screen back, but it seems Phil or someone else is playing games again.
I'm a professional and the glossy screen is actually much better with an overall experience when I'm not doing photography editing on PS or Aperture.
Yea, in a dark hole it's wonderfully accurate.
Apple is still providing top of the line specs in all its Pro Notebooks (i.e; 256GB SSD, 8GB RAM, 3.06ghz c2d with 6MB L2 cache etc...)
Don't need it or want it anymore.
Got ripped off spending big bucks for a PowerMac G5, 30" monitors and Apple goes off and changes processors and no more OS X for PPC. So the long term investment with the machine just dropped like a stone.
The MBP has served me well, despite having to upgrade the crappy hard drives and Superdrives Apple uses. Now it's the Magsafe that failed.
The white MacBook was a utter and complete waste of a good $1000, it was supposed to be a gift and a honest attempt to see if glossy would still bother my eyes, it did and unfortuntly so did the person I gave it too, who just ignored it and then through that neglect got water spilled on the keyboard. Like a good machine shouldn't be susceptible to this sort of thing right?
A statement like this fully verifies that their are some users who simply have a Wal-Mart mindset. You want a MAC PRO for a MAC MINI price. Your un-realistic, oh yeah I almost forgot that all this Hardware is managed by the WORLDS MOST ADVANCE OPERATING SYSTEM. By the Way the 15" Pro's start at $1,699.
No, I want a $500 OS X laptop, the extra $100 over the $400 Dell Mini for a slightly better quality build, a matte screen and a three year mail in warranty.
But alas, with Apple unless you spend more than $1000 they don't want to hear from you, then for only a year, another $349 gets you another two years.
Apple can remain happy with their 10% market share, the world will move on, but as soon as the "steve Jobs effect" wears off, it's curtains for Apple.
I already see the partial control of someone else, a bean counter.
I hope I am disagreeing, since your analogy makes no sense. Your analogy assumes that someone could patent the concept of rubber tires, which in itself is nonsense. It becomes deeper nonsense to compare rubber tires to a Macintosh computer, which as nearly as I can figure out, is what you're doing. To make it as clear I can, Apple could no more patent the concept of a personal computer than Honda or anyone else could patent the concept of a rubber tire. None of which prevents Apple from patenting a Macintosh computer or Honda or anyone else from patenting their particular type of rubber tire.
And just to settle an extremely silly side issue, none of the above has anything even remotely to do with whether these companies "care" about us.
Tires are what make cars move. Many mac enthusiasts would agree that Apple (Honda, in this analogy)'s systems are rolling smoothly along on rubber tires, while other systems are restricted to the wood wheel of yesteryear. (Though some believe that the new Windows' synthetic rubber-like material is almost comparable!)
2: Ignoring the low end of the PC market. ( Ignoring for a Great Reason, the low end PC market are just a bunch of Wal-Mart minded consumers, wanting A MAC PRO for the price of a MACBOOK, I'm glad Apple ignores these people and as STEVE told a reporter during the 2007 Apple event " WE DON'T SHIP JUNK, IT'S NOT IN OUR DNA TO SELL PRODUCTS WE WOULDN'T RECOMMEND TO OUR LOVED ONES")
I'm aware of that and like Apple I see nothing wrong with selling wiFi to users whos government wants to control their people. Apple selling of those enabled devices has to do with choice, and human rights.
Ok , so then what's wrong with serving a market Apple is ignoring?
There is something wrong with riding the backs of a company's innovative software. While profiting from it. Psytar was attempting to destroy the Apple experience in which users and consumers are accustomed to. Not to mention their whole business model was ILLEGAL
No Psystar was serving a market Apple is ignoring and making a profit too, which Apple is ignoring.
Because Apple's prices are insanely high compared to similar PC offerings of the same quality.
Thats why we have a GREAT LEGAL TEAM
Enjoy the world travel, bring lots of warm clothes and condemns.
Windows is experiencing Karma. When you've been stealing from others for decades expect the same in return, Microsoft is only getting what it deserves.
So Apple pirates Xerox, Microsoft pirates Apple, Apple pirates Unix and Psystar pirates Apple.
And Apple complains?
Apple is a pirate, they KNOW others are pirates, so why not tie OS X harder to Apple hardware so it's near impossible to run on PC's?
It's because Apple want's their OS to be pirated, just not publicly and for commercial profit that's all.
Psystar see's this too, thus they purposely challenged Apple in court knowing they are going to lose but reap a client list and free publicity for Rebel EFI.
Heck, they file for bankruptcy and they don't even have to pay fines or fee's!
You may be right, but it's NOT a road warriors machine.
I got no problem if people want something like that, but it's too frail to be a road warrior's laptop.
And I took my MacBook Pro "on the road" for two straight months in all sorts of environments taking pictures all around the US.
Screw Phil, I've met him and liked him right off, but his stance on glossy screens is bullshit. He's trying to con us and we are not taking it lightly nor appreciate it. Pro's are giving Apple the finger in record numbers.
It was me that got a hold of Steve himself and got the 15" matte screen back, but it seems Phil or someone else is playing games again.
Yea, in a dark hole it's wonderfully accurate.
Couldn't help but laugh
Don't need it or want it anymore.
Got ripped off spending big bucks for a PowerMac G5, 30" monitors and Apple goes off and changes processors and no more OS X for PPC. So the long term investment with the machine just dropped like a stone.
The MBP has served me well, despite having to upgrade the crappy hard drives and Superdrives Apple uses. Now it's the Magsafe that failed.
The white MacBook was a utter and complete waste of a good $1000, it was supposed to be a gift and a honest attempt to see if glossy would still bother my eyes, it did and unfortuntly so did the person I gave it too, who just ignored it and then through that neglect got water spilled on the keyboard. Like a good machine shouldn't be susceptible to this sort of thing right?
No, I want a $500 OS X laptop, the extra $100 over the $400 Dell Mini for a slightly better quality build, a matte screen and a three year mail in warranty.
But alas, with Apple unless you spend more than $1000 they don't want to hear from you, then for only a year, another $349 gets you another two years.
Apple can remain happy with their 10% market share, the world will move on, but as soon as the "steve Jobs effect" wears off, it's curtains for Apple.
I already see the partial control of someone else, a bean counter.
This argument sounds like the type of users Apple DOESN'T
[*] APPLE LEADS THE INDUSTRY IN CUSTOMER SUPPORT
[*] Phil and Apple's executive team Ran the company very ably while Steve was dealing with personal issues. I didn't see any (Steve effect) as you put it wear off
[*] Apple's 10% share has grown beyond the industry in record numbers.
[*] Steve & Apple are 99.9% of the time right. That .1% is just the category of nascent complainers who don't understand the company or it's creator. (Are you one?)
You obviously need to build your own PC, cause your un-realistic.
I couldn't help read your phrase of "MacBook" which isn't meant to be for the "Road Warrior".
Apple has the MacBook Air and as our Steve said "Was meant to be for the Wireless World" An innovative piece of engineering in a slim and sexy design. Not to mention the MacBook Air beats any netbook in the market in regards to computing power.
Give this a try
No thanks. It's not for road warriors. I know this, I'm that guy. 144 flights this year.
The machine is a bit under powered. No storage. No replaceable battery. Lousy graphics. I couldn't get it to work with my InFocus projector, not enough graphics performance or oomph or something. Can't do a business presentation, why tote it? Not a road warrior machine.
Maybe for Steve. But he probably forgot that the rest of us don't have our own private jet, and can rarely afford to sit in Business Class, where the power ports are.
ORD to CGY is a little over 9 hours. LAX to MEL is almost 16 hours. SYD to HKG is 9-1/2 hours & HKG to LAX is 13 hours. I travel these routes all the time. Traveling with the toy MBA would mean I'd get anywhere from 3 to 4, maybe 4-1/2 hours of work done, and then I'd be finished. What do I do for the next 12 hours? At least with my aluminum MacBook boat-anchor, I can snap in another battery and keep going. Also, TSA will let me on the plane with Apple's replacement batteries, because they are original equipment... sometimes, they force 3rd party batteries into the cargo hold. We've seen it happen to our crews.
I have more Power Point presentations, Excel budget spreadsheets and PDF specification sheets on our products than the MBA can hold on it's puny drive. This doesn't even account for any applications or music or photos or any other documents. This thing is a cute toy.
Hell, you can't even connect to an Ethernet network and plug a USB thumb drive into the stupid-ass machine at the same damn time. Hilarious. All for $1400, $1500? Give me a break. What kind of modern computer is that? It's for suburban housewives who want to look cool surfing at StarBucks.
The size and weight of the MBA was achieved by de-featuring, not innovation. If Fujitsu can get DVI, HDMI, Gig Ethernet, a removable battery, 3 USB2.0 ports plus 1394 into a 10" ultra-portable netbook, I would hope Apple might be able to do the same thing. If they bothered trying.
Also, I'm thinking you didn't really pay attention to my post. I want & need a computer with a smaller footprint. This is really the show stopper - the 13" LCD means the base of the machine has to accommodate it. I want a smaller footprint. The smallest footprint Apple produces is 13", 30% greater than my desired standard. This is ok for 2004 or 2005 technology but not in today's netbook world.
Apple needs to start innovating again in the portable computer space (I don't mean phones), and stop resting on their previous, now long in the tooth designs. I want something that absorbs 30% less space than their most portable Macintosh book.
Tires are what make cars move. Many mac enthusiasts would agree that Apple (Honda, in this analogy)'s systems are rolling smoothly along on rubber tires, while other systems are restricted to the wood wheel of yesteryear. (Though some believe that the new Windows' synthetic rubber-like material is almost comparable!)
And? Even if we agree that Apple makes the better personal computer, that has no bearing on whether anyone other than Apple has any conceivable right to build and sell Apple's product. Building a better product and being rewarded -- that's how the system works.
Apple has a computer under $1000, the Mac Mini and MacBook. Those are hardly junk and appeal to they low end user market