Well, I do agree with one thing that User Tron says about clones. It's his tag line, "End of Line". If the clones are brought back, it's Apple's EOL (where "L" is line, instead of 'life' . . . same difference actually). If the clones continue to be EOL'd, Apple can survive and grow, particularly now that people/corporations are getting tired of MS' licensing fees etc. Apple can capitalize on that scenario.
I agree with hmurchison when he said that cloning can be possible if the cloners contribute to the R&D at Apple and buy the OS at full $$. Otherwise, the way it was ... SJ was right, they were leeches and Apple Computer was the 'host'.
No more clone threads please. Mods, please lock or move this one. Is this FH? More like GD.
<strong>1.) Power Computing's first clone was introduced in September 1995! Clones were kill summer 1997! Motorola officially ended cloning in September 1997. Others following in respect their stock. After the summer everyone knew "this party was over". Well I said only one year because real competition started mid 1996.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm. Well. Yes, PowerComputing was purchased by Apple in mid-late '97. Contract/licensing discussion was still occurring for some time after that with other companies. One of the big bones of contention was that Apple wanted to raise the licensing fees (to pay for R&D among other things), and the clone manus wanted none o' that. That sorta says it all, doesn't it? IIRC, Apple wanted to raise the license fee from $50 to $100.
Don't know about Moto, as I didn't pay much attention to them (didn't think they were very good), but Umax didn't discontinue the S900 until Aug '98, MacTell stopped in Dec '98, MacWorks in June '98 (sorry to all outside the US, but I'm only familiar with those). I guess you could be right about the competition starting in '96, and the "party" being over in '97 - that I wouldn't know.
[quote]<strong>2.) What kind of statement is: "just went for current Apple's current base"???? They were selling Mac clones!!! Should they send someone into all stores and telling the customer: Sorry we can't sell you our computer because you might have bought a original Apple?????? Fact is that killing the clones help for a short time but it's also fact Apple's market share continued to fall constantly. It's really funny that this is always ignored. In reality the clones were slowing the fall of the mac os market share and IMO would have grown it latter. </strong><hr></blockquote>
When the clone manus started up, everbody (Apple, the new companies, the Mac magazines, and most users) thought that this was gonna be the "golden age of Apple". We were gonna see cheaper machines, faster machines. The market share was gonna grow incredibly almost over night (well, a few years). Apple, and more importantly, the clone makers were claiming an increased market share of 10% in "the next few years".
How would you expect the market share to grow? Entering into and going after new markets, or selling to an already established user base?
I remember all the ads for PowerComputing, Umax, etc in the Mac magazines.
Just out of curiousity, can anybody on this board recall seeing ANY ads outside the Mac community? In a PC magazine? In Time? An in-house corporate demo? Anything?
How is this going after new markets?
I don't agree that the market share would have grown later, 'cause Apple was pi$$ing out money, and not regaining it fast enough - there simply would not have been a later.
[quote]<strong>3.) Here in Austria and Germany (and probably the rest of Europe) almost no private person buys a branded computer. They all buy no name computers. Apple will _never_ have a chance with prices granted!
End of Line</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep, that's pretty much the way it is in the US and Canada as well.....a big chunk of the PC market is "home-grown", low-margin cr@p. It's one of the reasons that the computer industry is in a death spiral.
One of the big problems is that even were Apple to bring back the clones, you end up with a mess of conflicting systems (some supported, some not), with cheap components that die quickly and easily. So much for the main advantages Apple does currently have.....software/hardware integration, and longevity of hardware. This is already a major headache in the PC world, do you wish it on us as well? Just so you can buy a BuiltByBubba-Mac?
There were non-Apple-sanctioned clone makers around for a short time (before '95), and they all went under because of lack of compatibility with the OS.
CHRP might (and I stress might) have solved some of this, but CHRP is dead - mostly because of licensing issues (read - cost of licensing the MacOS).
It simply cannot happen until Apple has sufficient market share already (in which case they wouldn't need it), or they're in a position to make it from software alone (which means direct competition with M$, and that = death). I would suspect this means never again.....
Please, no more clone threads.....it just gives me a headache (and I suspect all who are reading this post, as well).
When the clone manus started up, everbody (Apple, the new companies, the Mac magazines, and most users) thought that this was gonna be the "golden age of Apple". We were gonna see cheaper machines, faster machines. The market share was gonna grow incredibly almost over night (well, a few years). Apple, and more importantly, the clone makers were claiming an increased market share of 10% in "the next few years".
How would you expect the market share to grow? Entering into and going after new markets, or selling to an already established user base?
I remember all the ads for PowerComputing, Umax, etc in the Mac magazines.
Just out of curiousity, can anybody on this board recall seeing ANY ads outside the Mac community? In a PC magazine? In Time? An in-house corporate demo? Anything?
How is this going after new markets?
I don't agree that the market share would have grown later, 'cause Apple was pi$$ing out money, and not regaining it fast enough - there simply would not have been a later.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It was only logical that the cloners would first hunt the easy pray. Who wouldn't? All cloners were growing very fast! (Never wondered why?) Once their growth had slowed they'd go for new markets very quickly. But not all would go into the same direction. Apple was losing big money because they build computers nobody wanted. Apple simply coudn't compete with the clones and propably can't today. Cloning will only work if Apple doesn't try to compete with the cloners -> big reduction of their HW offers.
[quote]Originally posted by taboo:
<strong>
Yep, that's pretty much the way it is in the US and Canada as well.....a big chunk of the PC market is "home-grown", low-margin cr@p. It's one of the reasons that the computer industry is in a death spiral.
One of the big problems is that even were Apple to bring back the clones, you end up with a mess of conflicting systems (some supported, some not), with cheap components that die quickly and easily. So much for the main advantages Apple does currently have.....software/hardware integration, and longevity of hardware. This is already a major headache in the PC world, do you wish it on us as well? Just so you can buy a BuiltByBubba-Mac?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) Well the computer on which my FW drive does not work properly is my cube It works perfect on all PCs I tried!
2.) You would be able to buy from a wide range starting with BuiltByBubba-Mac to high end server and this would increase the target group by magnitudes!
[quote]Originally posted by taboo:
<strong>
There were non-Apple-sanctioned clone makers around for a short time (before '95), and they all went under because of lack of compatibility with the OS.
CHRP might (and I stress might) have solved some of this, but CHRP is dead - mostly because of licensing issues (read - cost of licensing the MacOS).
It simply cannot happen until Apple has sufficient market share already (in which case they wouldn't need it), or they're in a position to make it from software alone (which means direct competition with M$, and that = death). I would suspect this means never again.....
Please, no more clone threads.....it just gives me a headache (and I suspect all who are reading this post, as well). </strong><hr></blockquote>
If the Mac OS is so great how many here claim then why wouldn't it stand the competition?
<strong>as a mac-support-guy in a mid-sized dtp-company i worked with clones and they where junk imho.
they where more a pc then a mac. in eveything.
they simply didn't feel and work like mac's.
and if you ever opened up a clone-box...yuck!
i spent more time supporting clones then mac's.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
But most people don't care. Your arguments are all valid, still more than 90% buy the chunk and complain.
[quote]Originally posted by peve:
<strong>
i just like well engeneered hardware (mhz-myth aside).
if somebody dosn't like mac-hardware - then they should get a intel/amd-box - (and start having problems).
if you realy look at what you get with a mac (hard- and software, ease of use) they are simply not more expensive then pc's.
plus most of the users ranting about speed - don't use it. it's just nice to have a box with a "2 ghz"-sticker on it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There I have to disagree: Many pros are leaving the platform simply because of the speed. My brother runs a video post production company and is very pro Apple, still he thinks about going x86 simply because of speed. Pros are very important for Apple because they buy the more expensive SW.
[quote]Originally posted by peve:
<strong>
a have a cube and i work with fw-disks - never had a problem. what kind of disks do you use?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Momobay CX-1, CX-2 they won't be recognized if hot plugged in. Mac OS X hangs if they should be awaken from power saving modes :-(
<strong>My brother runs a video post production company and is very pro Apple, still he thinks about going x86 simply because of speed. Pros are very important for Apple because they buy the more expensive SW.</strong><hr></blockquote>
final cut on a dual (whatever) and he complains about speed?!?
show me a wintel/amd that gets the work faster done (and show me the price of that baby)
<strong>I don't think so: real Apple aficionados are likely to stick with Apple...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately history shows you are wrong - cannibalise is exactly what the clone experiment did (and the reality is that those machines were not even all that good). People claiming the clones had performance advantages are living in dreamland. the only machine that could have had that label, the PowerComputing G3, never shipped.
In the beginnig about 2-3 mil copies a year with about $60-$80 profit each copy. Actually the cloners were willing to pay about $150 each copy. The problem wasn't the money, SJ simply didn't want to lose control of the HW.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is wrong. The clone boards were all Apple reference models, and essentially the same as the Apple boards - Apple was never going to let that go which is why there really couldn't be a "competitive" clone market and all the clones did was canniblaise.
Comments
I agree with hmurchison when he said that cloning can be possible if the cloners contribute to the R&D at Apple and buy the OS at full $$. Otherwise, the way it was ... SJ was right, they were leeches and Apple Computer was the 'host'.
No more clone threads please. Mods, please lock or move this one. Is this FH? More like GD.
[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: MacJedai ]</p>
<strong>1.) Power Computing's first clone was introduced in September 1995! Clones were kill summer 1997! Motorola officially ended cloning in September 1997. Others following in respect their stock. After the summer everyone knew "this party was over". Well I said only one year because real competition started mid 1996.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm. Well. Yes, PowerComputing was purchased by Apple in mid-late '97. Contract/licensing discussion was still occurring for some time after that with other companies. One of the big bones of contention was that Apple wanted to raise the licensing fees (to pay for R&D among other things), and the clone manus wanted none o' that. That sorta says it all, doesn't it? IIRC, Apple wanted to raise the license fee from $50 to $100.
Don't know about Moto, as I didn't pay much attention to them (didn't think they were very good), but Umax didn't discontinue the S900 until Aug '98, MacTell stopped in Dec '98, MacWorks in June '98 (sorry to all outside the US, but I'm only familiar with those). I guess you could be right about the competition starting in '96, and the "party" being over in '97 - that I wouldn't know.
[quote]<strong>2.) What kind of statement is: "just went for current Apple's current base"???? They were selling Mac clones!!! Should they send someone into all stores and telling the customer: Sorry we can't sell you our computer because you might have bought a original Apple?????? Fact is that killing the clones help for a short time but it's also fact Apple's market share continued to fall constantly. It's really funny that this is always ignored. In reality the clones were slowing the fall of the mac os market share and IMO would have grown it latter. </strong><hr></blockquote>
When the clone manus started up, everbody (Apple, the new companies, the Mac magazines, and most users) thought that this was gonna be the "golden age of Apple". We were gonna see cheaper machines, faster machines. The market share was gonna grow incredibly almost over night (well, a few years). Apple, and more importantly, the clone makers were claiming an increased market share of 10% in "the next few years".
How would you expect the market share to grow? Entering into and going after new markets, or selling to an already established user base?
I remember all the ads for PowerComputing, Umax, etc in the Mac magazines.
Just out of curiousity, can anybody on this board recall seeing ANY ads outside the Mac community? In a PC magazine? In Time? An in-house corporate demo? Anything?
How is this going after new markets?
I don't agree that the market share would have grown later, 'cause Apple was pi$$ing out money, and not regaining it fast enough - there simply would not have been a later.
[quote]<strong>3.) Here in Austria and Germany (and probably the rest of Europe) almost no private person buys a branded computer. They all buy no name computers. Apple will _never_ have a chance with prices granted!
End of Line</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep, that's pretty much the way it is in the US and Canada as well.....a big chunk of the PC market is "home-grown", low-margin cr@p. It's one of the reasons that the computer industry is in a death spiral.
One of the big problems is that even were Apple to bring back the clones, you end up with a mess of conflicting systems (some supported, some not), with cheap components that die quickly and easily. So much for the main advantages Apple does currently have.....software/hardware integration, and longevity of hardware. This is already a major headache in the PC world, do you wish it on us as well? Just so you can buy a BuiltByBubba-Mac?
There were non-Apple-sanctioned clone makers around for a short time (before '95), and they all went under because of lack of compatibility with the OS.
CHRP might (and I stress might) have solved some of this, but CHRP is dead - mostly because of licensing issues (read - cost of licensing the MacOS).
It simply cannot happen until Apple has sufficient market share already (in which case they wouldn't need it), or they're in a position to make it from software alone (which means direct competition with M$, and that = death). I would suspect this means never again.....
Please, no more clone threads.....it just gives me a headache (and I suspect all who are reading this post, as well).
<strong>
When the clone manus started up, everbody (Apple, the new companies, the Mac magazines, and most users) thought that this was gonna be the "golden age of Apple". We were gonna see cheaper machines, faster machines. The market share was gonna grow incredibly almost over night (well, a few years). Apple, and more importantly, the clone makers were claiming an increased market share of 10% in "the next few years".
How would you expect the market share to grow? Entering into and going after new markets, or selling to an already established user base?
I remember all the ads for PowerComputing, Umax, etc in the Mac magazines.
Just out of curiousity, can anybody on this board recall seeing ANY ads outside the Mac community? In a PC magazine? In Time? An in-house corporate demo? Anything?
How is this going after new markets?
I don't agree that the market share would have grown later, 'cause Apple was pi$$ing out money, and not regaining it fast enough - there simply would not have been a later.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It was only logical that the cloners would first hunt the easy pray. Who wouldn't? All cloners were growing very fast! (Never wondered why?) Once their growth had slowed they'd go for new markets very quickly. But not all would go into the same direction. Apple was losing big money because they build computers nobody wanted. Apple simply coudn't compete with the clones and propably can't today. Cloning will only work if Apple doesn't try to compete with the cloners -> big reduction of their HW offers.
[quote]Originally posted by taboo:
<strong>
Yep, that's pretty much the way it is in the US and Canada as well.....a big chunk of the PC market is "home-grown", low-margin cr@p. It's one of the reasons that the computer industry is in a death spiral.
One of the big problems is that even were Apple to bring back the clones, you end up with a mess of conflicting systems (some supported, some not), with cheap components that die quickly and easily. So much for the main advantages Apple does currently have.....software/hardware integration, and longevity of hardware. This is already a major headache in the PC world, do you wish it on us as well? Just so you can buy a BuiltByBubba-Mac?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) Well the computer on which my FW drive does not work properly is my cube
2.) You would be able to buy from a wide range starting with BuiltByBubba-Mac to high end server and this would increase the target group by magnitudes!
[quote]Originally posted by taboo:
<strong>
There were non-Apple-sanctioned clone makers around for a short time (before '95), and they all went under because of lack of compatibility with the OS.
CHRP might (and I stress might) have solved some of this, but CHRP is dead - mostly because of licensing issues (read - cost of licensing the MacOS).
It simply cannot happen until Apple has sufficient market share already (in which case they wouldn't need it), or they're in a position to make it from software alone (which means direct competition with M$, and that = death). I would suspect this means never again.....
Please, no more clone threads.....it just gives me a headache (and I suspect all who are reading this post, as well).
If the Mac OS is so great how many here claim then why wouldn't it stand the competition?
End of Line
they where more a pc then a mac. in eveything.
they simply didn't feel and work like mac's.
and if you ever opened up a clone-box...yuck!
i spent more time supporting clones then mac's.
i just like well engeneered hardware (mhz-myth aside).
if somebody dosn't like mac-hardware - then they should get a intel/amd-box - (and start having problems).
if you realy look at what you get with a mac (hard- and software, ease of use) they are simply not more expensive then pc's.
plus most of the users ranting about speed - don't use it. it's just nice to have a box with a "2 ghz"-sticker on it.
[quote]tatoo: Well the computer on which my FW drive does not work properly is my cube. It works perfect on all PCs I tried<hr></blockquote>
a have a cube and i work with fw-disks - never had a problem. what kind of disks do you use?
<strong>as a mac-support-guy in a mid-sized dtp-company i worked with clones and they where junk imho.
they where more a pc then a mac. in eveything.
they simply didn't feel and work like mac's.
and if you ever opened up a clone-box...yuck!
i spent more time supporting clones then mac's.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
But most people don't care. Your arguments are all valid, still more than 90% buy the chunk and complain.
[quote]Originally posted by peve:
<strong>
i just like well engeneered hardware (mhz-myth aside).
if somebody dosn't like mac-hardware - then they should get a intel/amd-box - (and start having problems).
if you realy look at what you get with a mac (hard- and software, ease of use) they are simply not more expensive then pc's.
plus most of the users ranting about speed - don't use it. it's just nice to have a box with a "2 ghz"-sticker on it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There I have to disagree: Many pros are leaving the platform simply because of the speed. My brother runs a video post production company and is very pro Apple, still he thinks about going x86 simply because of speed. Pros are very important for Apple because they buy the more expensive SW.
[quote]Originally posted by peve:
<strong>
a have a cube and i work with fw-disks - never had a problem. what kind of disks do you use?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Momobay CX-1, CX-2 they won't be recognized if hot plugged in. Mac OS X hangs if they should be awaken from power saving modes :-(
End of Line
<strong>My brother runs a video post production company and is very pro Apple, still he thinks about going x86 simply because of speed. Pros are very important for Apple because they buy the more expensive SW.</strong><hr></blockquote>
final cut on a dual (whatever) and he complains about speed?!?
show me a wintel/amd that gets the work faster done (and show me the price of that baby)
I would never buy a clone, ever.
Not even if hell froze over.
Apple 4 Life, Apple 4 Ever.
<strong>I don't think so: real Apple aficionados are likely to stick with Apple...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately history shows you are wrong - cannibalise is exactly what the clone experiment did (and the reality is that those machines were not even all that good). People claiming the clones had performance advantages are living in dreamland. the only machine that could have had that label, the PowerComputing G3, never shipped.
<strong>
In the beginnig about 2-3 mil copies a year with about $60-$80 profit each copy. Actually the cloners were willing to pay about $150 each copy. The problem wasn't the money, SJ simply didn't want to lose control of the HW.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is wrong. The clone boards were all Apple reference models, and essentially the same as the Apple boards - Apple was never going to let that go which is why there really couldn't be a "competitive" clone market and all the clones did was canniblaise.