Slashdot Mirror
Psystar Offers $399 "OpenMac" Computer
mytrip writes to tell us that Psystar has announced a new line of Intel-based computers that promise to run an unmodified version of Mac OS X "Leopard". Unfortunately almost immediately after the launch their website went down and as of this story remains unaccessible. "Astute readers may well hear this news and ask themselves if it doesn't sound like a Mac clone, something whose time came -- during Gil Amelio's tenure at Apple -- and went shortly after current CEO Steve Jobs assumed the helm at the company. [...] It definitely defies the EULA for Mac OS X, which specifies that the purchaser of a legal copy of Leopard is entitled to install the operating system on an Apple-branded computer. If you buy the $399 OpenMac, you can check the EULA yourself if you also buy the pre-install option, as the company includes a retail copy of Leopard with your purchase."
I'm sure it's gonna take Apple seconds to upgrade their OS so that it refuses to work on these things.
..but if they do, public perception of Leopard might go
from 'just works' to 'upgrades may be fatal'. So no
wonder they may want these units to not ship at all
even if technically it would be trivial to render them
into regular PCs.
BTW, how hard would it to hack this "EFI V8 emulator" into any PC that uses the same parts?
Why does this Apple-hardware-only provision of the EULA pertain to OSX but not to Safari?
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Just been on to the website. It's up but Very very slow... Apple will probably Kill this dead but if i did buy a Mac it would be something like an 'OpenMac' just so that i know i can stick it to Jobs and Co :D lol.
Wonder if they will go to court and test the EULA?? (Has an EULA been defended in court yet??)
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
So are they good and enforcable this week, or evil and unenforceable? Seeing as this pertains to Apple it's probably a coin toss. The fanbois will all chime in with how it's such a good thing that Apple restricts what hardware one can run OS X on, and how this company should be shut down. If this were about some MS EULA there would be a firestorm about how EULA's are bogus anyways and unenforceble.
If I buy OS X I'll damn well run it on any machine I want. In fact, one of my two OS X machines is *not* Appple Branded. That's right, it's a Hackintosh. Sue me, Jobs.
I imagine it now...
Webmaster: We just put up the site!
Technician: Oh no, the site just went down!
Webmaster: Did Apple slap us with a S&D letter?
Technician: No, someone posted our link on Slashdot!
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
I predict 100 posts from people saying "Apple can do whatever they damn well want with their OS!" from the very same people who scream bloody murder if MS so much as includes a media player with their OS.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
These aren't the first people to try something like this. People used to post instructions on buying various 3rd party PPC boards to build your own Mac.
The interesting part of this is that they have vowed to challenge Apple's EULA in court if (he he he, "if") they get sued. The outcome of that battle will be interesting. I want to say I'm on Apple's side on this one (they should get to say "only on Macs"), but a big part of me hates all the crazy restrictions in EULAs and I'm sure if Apple wasn't in a minority position I'd be crying foul over that clause as monopolistic.
The somewhat sad part is that this could satisfy quite a bit of the complains I've seen on /. and other places asking for an upgradeable Mac that costs less than the Mac Pro. Yet the hobbled the default configuration with integrated graphics. I also enjoy the bits I've read about this where they recommend AGAINST installing OS X updates until they say it's OK because it could easily hose the system.
All and all, while I don't expect this to go anywhere, it will be amusing to watch.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Web site works fine. Quit copying from the macobserver.com and do your own homework.
This is just reality calling Steve. Macs are PC clones now. Pretty, overpriced PC clones. Nobody as stopped cloned hardware before in the computing world for any length of time, Steve's reality distortion field has actually succeeded better than any realistic observer would have expected, but if this attempt fails more will follow.
Why? Follow the money. Macs carry anywhere between a 25% (the optimistic assertions from the Mac faithful) to 100% surcharge on the hardware compared to the prices for generic crap. That means there is enough margin for even good quality clones to undercut Apple's pricing. The big vendors have dominated the Windows PC world with their OEM pricing deals and at the same time would be terrified of tangling with Apple's legal goons. That leaves an opportunity for small offshore builders and where there is an opportunity for profit the Asian factories will sell products.
Democrat delenda est
Does it run Windows?
No wonder people are now saying M$ time is up. M$ should just says "all M$ software can only run directly on hardware or other M$ branded software" in the EULA. Then, it will kill wine, VMWare ... without violating and anti trust law or consumer law.
And the first-sale doctrine states that the purchaser of a legal copy of Leopard is entitled to install it wherever he wants, EULA notwithstanding.
http://outcampaign.org/
The site is back up. And the 'openmac' is available for sale on their products page. So I think you were perhaps a little impatient. /. effect, after all!
"Laziness is an optimisation protocol"
it's SO ugly !!
There are two independent computer shops near my place which will put together a hackintosh for you. They won't install the OS, but they'll build a computer that is fully compatible with os X and sell you a copy of osx too...
So... for me, this isn't news, really.
I've been wanting to replace my Franklin Ace!
"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them in summer school".
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
"By breaking the seal on this CD-ROM you agree that all rights regarding the use of this Software belong to US; that YOU have no rights; that you are only LICENSED for use on ONE computer, which cannot be anything other than Brand XXX model ZZZ computer; you agree to never make a copy of this Software ever; nor decompile nor modify said Software in ANY WAY; and if you do, your we will take your firstborn and eat it for lunch; this agreement shall be valid and binding in pertetuity and may not be revoked except at the whim of XXX Corp"
Alright, to everyone posting the sarcastic comments wondering whether slashdot is Pro EULA or Anti EULA this week because it's apple and not microsoft, lets try to spell out things that hopefully everyone can agree on.
1. EULAs are pretty much unenforcable in what littel court cases have involved them to any degree.
2. Apple has every right to say that they won't support or vouch for the stability software that isn't running on hardware they approve of.
Beyond that, you can argue how you wish. However that's pretty much what this eula thing boils down to.
Apple makes it a point to ensure stability in their operating system, sometimes at the purported sacrifice of flexible code for hardware they don't sell. But if people want to try to get it working on other hardware, i really don't think apple will mind. If they do, the only reason i could think of it is they're worried about their image as the "cool" and "hip" computers getting tied in with people's hacked together junker computers running MacOS.
Apple cares about image, and it's image is "just works". They use an eula to spell it out, albeit in a nonbinding way.
You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
The basic machine is $399.99, but for the Leopard install and disks it costs another $155 according to their website. Also not mentioned in the summary is the hard drive - 250GB 7200rpm SATA drive. There are a few other options (for extra cash of course) - RAM upgrade to 4GB for $100, 2.66GHz processor for $90 etc
Awful UID - but I have been here ages...
the computer this compares to is the imac not the powermac. on that basis:
faster CPU: 1.8-2 Ghz versus 2.2 Hhz
more memory in base model: 1Gb versus 2
bigger hard drive in base mode: 80gb versus 200gb
I note that places like mac-mall already slightly discount the price of macs and give memory upgrades so the memory comparison is irrelevant.
what you give up:
size: the mac is teeny weenie. this thing is a full sized box
quiet: this is not really known, but it's a fair guess that you don't get a quiet fan on a budget machine.
other costly items:
software: buy a copy of leopard $125
other missing: bluetooth and wifi. not clear on GB ethernet or firewire.
thus this thing is not very welcome in the living room, nor even on your desktop. since it will go under the desk this means lots of coords and down on your knees crawling under the desk.
The main drawback is no software update. which is of course what you really are paying for when you buy the OS. having all your apple apps staying secure automatically is peace of mind. Their website says that software update will occasionaly be unsafe to use. One can bet this will quickly become defacto true.
other things: no apple support. this is really good service. if you have computer problems apple is very good to you.
$399 + 125, does not really seem like much of a bargain.
conversely this sort of shows that the "apple tax" may be a myth.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
For the sake of nostalgia, I'm going to play with my Power Computing PowerCenter Pro 210 and Motorola Starmax 4000/160 tonight. Even though I have a 420MHz G3 CPU in the PowerCenter, I'm not brave enough to attempt to install OS X on it yet.
Seems a little overpriced. /ducks
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Apple has for YEARS flat-out *refused* to build a Mac of this type - a normal headless box. They come out with the Mac Mini, which many said was the same thing, but it uses laptop memory and harddrives, which are more expensive per MB/GB, and the thing isn't even upgradable. The Mac Pro is a Xeon workstation, and uses memory to match, and starts at, what, $2k or so? C'mon!
And here's what's really sad for Apple and their shareholders -- the profit margins at what Apple would likely price these things at would likely be much higher than those for iMacs and Mac Minis. Normal 3.5" HDs and regular DDR2 DIMMs are much less expensive than the laptop and workstation-class hardware.
This is a gaping hole in their product lineup, and it's been there as long as I can remember. It's no wonder someone wants to fill that hole. It's just too bad that Apple is going to wipe them out of existence by the end of the week for doing what Apple should've done ten years ago.
Of course, Apple knows all this. Selling machines with built-in displays and non-upgradable machines with limited storage is great for Apple's bottomline: it forces people to upgrade when non-replaceable parts break and non-upgradable machines are too slow to handle modern tasks. But it's also screwing the customer. Fortunately, Jobs' Reality Distortion Field overrides people's common sense (and lack of knowledge about computer hardware in general) so that they FEEL good about their purchase.
Not legally you wont.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Steve just wants control so he can ensure that you get an 'insanely great' product. He's a benevolent dictator, you see.
Installing OS X on arbitrary hardware may be fair use, just as reverse engineering for interoperability is fair use, regardless of a product's EULA. IANAL.
Seriously? Could they possibly sound more ghetto? Sure there isn't room for a "cyber" in there somewhere?
PC_EFI is a bootloader that's been around in the OSx86 community for some time now. Version 8 allows for GPT partition booting and a host of other features, including the ability to wrap OS X's early graphical booting to a card with a VGA BIOS instead.
These guys are just stealing work contributed to OSx86, throwing it on a standard PC, and trying to sell it. That's very shady, if you ask me.
BTW: OS X 10.5 boots on *many* different motherboards and *many* different configurations, if the kernel and kernel extensions support it (SSE3, PCI-E, etc). PC_EFI is purely a bootloader that emulates some EFI things so a stock Macintosh kernel thinks it's booting on a Mac. It has nothing to do with the hardware, there's plenty of kernel extensions and drivers floating around that support quite a fair chunk of hardware.
-DN
Mac Pros are overpriced, everyone knows. But Apple is seriously doing themselves harm on RAM pricing.
To add 8GB on a Mac Pro Quad Core from Apple, it's $1500. From anyone else, it's $250. And people are making noise on how they're ready for the enterprise market? Please. It's getting to the point where Adobe could sell the software AND the computer if it were running on Linux for less money than a Mac Pro flush with RAM. Seems like dangerous territory to me.
Getting modded as insightful for making the point that Apple is acting like Microsoft. The post will be non-insightful because it will completely ignore the fact that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Let me repeat that: the situations are different because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Let me phrase it another way, in deference to your apparent inability to understand the implications of that fact:
Apple ISN'T under government restrictions because of past CRIMINAL behavior. Microsoft IS.
(I.e. once you sell an operating system, are you really allowed to restrict it to your hardware? Ford can't restrict their cars to only running on Ford gas, and only being repaired with Genuine Ford Parts, for example.)
Could Apple legally say that no other O/S than OS-X is allowed to be run on their computers - just to ensure that you have to buy the O/S from them?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If TFA is right, the $399 includes Leopard.
And, as I keep pointing out whenever I hear this "bundling is great when Apple does it" argument: the whole point is I don't want half of the crap that a mac makes me pay for, anyways.
All's true that is mistrusted
I'd like to see some of those mac fanboys try and defend this whilst staying fashionable
My first Mac experience was on an Atari ST, running the Spectre 128 Mac emulator. Had to come up with the OS on my own (not too hard - Apple let you download less than current versions) and the ROMs from a real Mac. Got those from a private party. The end result? Apple has gotten a LOT of my money over the years. I wouldn't call that a bad thing (for Steve).
It looks like the site is back up.
You obviously don't understand what's involved in releasing an update to an operating system. For starters, they're not going to recall existing copies off of the shelves. They might try to kill it through Apple Update, and then tell the purchaser that it's not their fault that their operating system doesn't run on approved hardware any longer. They might not have a quick fix at all that doesn't break too much existing gear.
Of course that's outright TERRIBLE PR for Apple themselves since if any of these people had intended to buy Apple branded hardware they would have done so in the first place.
More likely they'll try to kill it through the courts, or make the Leopard successor attempt to detect Apple Genuine Advantage Hardware properly.
All this does is prove how overpriced Apple gear really is.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
As a Mac User, and a Realist, I feel a sudden urge to express my opinions bluntly, without remorse, smuggly and wearing a turtleneck, yet my opinions are not irrational, bolsterous claims. And the turtleneck? Machine washable.
Apple likes to control the hardware, that's no secret. In fact, I believe if Microsoft only had to design an OS for two or three active production models at any given time, Windows might be far more reliable than I find it to be.
Apple also likes to control the software. As does Microsoft. Both companies are, understandably, against the piracy of their operating systems. It's Microsoft's bread-and-butter, and the main feature pushing Apple's hardware.
Apple is reaching a very crucial stage, where the demand for their product is extending outside of their intended production area. They want to sell both the hardware and the software, and this $399 OpenMac would be an incredible loss in sales.
It could also be a loss in integrity. OS X has not been evaluated on the OpenMac's configuration by anyone within Apple (that we know of) and therefore the stability of the operating system may not be what is expected of OS X on the Apple-branded hardware.
And if OS X isn't as reliable on the OpenMac as it is on an Apple-branded system, where will the fingers point? I doubt very much they'll point at the OpenMac team.
The blame may very well be put on Apple. "You can't make your software work on every computer! You won't let me install it whever I want! You don't let me use any piece of hardware I want!"
Apple has never claimed the above hypothetical comments, and for some reason, that's all I ever see expected of the operating system.
Apple's response may be to act against the OpenMac team as quickly as possible (as it may have already) and sweep this under the rug. Apple can also point to the EULA and say "Not authorized".
Or, Apple could say "Install at your own risk" and simply not offer any support for the operating system when installed on a non-approved PC. However, I feel that would be the worst possible decision, as the tech-world media would not only have a field day with that news, but the judge handling the inevitable class-action lawsuit as well.
Apple is trying to provide as solid a product as possible. They limit themselves to specific hardware models, and it is expensive. These prices are hidden before purchase, they're readily available. I weighed my options and used several PCs before I could finally afford my first iBook.
When I went shopping for a new car, I wanted the BMW Z3 that was sitting on the lot. I found the monthly payments to be outrageously expensive, and settled on a Mercury Sable. I didn't complain to BMW that they should make their car more affordable to everyone, or that they should allow just any other manufacturer produce the exact same car without asking for BMW seal of approval. I bit the bullet and took the cheaper option, which provided me the exact same functionality, without the pleasing but unnecessary asthetics.
If Apple branches out onto additional hardware, honestly that's all the operating system will boil down to: asthetics. The stability is in the hardware restrictions and the lack of options for expansion. And the stability is implied through the sale of a new PowerMac just as much as through the retail sale of a boxed-edition of Leopard. And if OS X doesn't live up to the hype on any other PC, it's Apple that will receive the backlash, not anyone else.
I'm sure an argument could spawn for years, back and forth about why Apple's business practices and the OS X EULA are hypocritical, unethical and flat-out wrong, but what's the point in arguing that?
My only question is this: if someone is so dissatisfied with the way a product is packaged why would they want to buy it and support that company at all?
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
Perhaps this is the first step in Apple becoming a giant monopoly selling their OS and other software.
"During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
Can you use a real video card with this system?
If everyone would switch to Mac OS if they allowed it to run on clone PCs with no change in the cost of the OS, then there's no reason all those people switching wouldn't already be running Linux already.
Aside from Apple's EULA, I can see Apple having some legitimate objections to a cheap non-Apple computer with the name "OpenMac".
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
This must be the kind of case Apple's lawyers fantasize about. You can almost hear them snarling and clawing at their cage door.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
I want the Mac Apple refuses to sell me: an upgradeable machine that doesn't have ridiculous components (Xeons, FB-DIMMS) that maybe 0.01% of the userbase actually needs.
Jobs refuses to sell it because he knows people will buy it. He fears this because he is in love with AIO and wants people to buy iMacs even when they aren't a fit for their needs. He also is under the delusion that creating a Mac upgradeable prosumer desktop will somehow "Dell-ize" Apple. The reality, which most Mac users understand, is that what is actually valuable about Macs is not their different-ness, but the fact that they run OS X, which is the best consumer operating system on the market. Mac hardware is not special. It got even less special after 2005. Mac SOFTWARE is what is special.
+++ATH0
I read about this two days ago on reddit.com and grabbed a screenshot of the ad before it inevitably disappeared... http://flickr.com/photos/ghoti/2412827108/
Doesn't it defeat the purpose of running OS X on an arbitrary machine if you have to obtain said arbitrary machine from a dedicated vendor that charges you a premium, or requires at least as much time-money as the premium the vendor you're trying to avoid charges you.
Seems like a case of freedom being nothing left to lose.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
This is a bad concept, and if you use an Apple computer you know why you do it, and why you would pay the extra for the Apple hardware.
.....
If you are from the Windows world (or use it occasionally), you know how many "compatible" stuff you can buy, that makes your system unreliable, crashing, acting strangely.
I am relatively new to Apple , and switched after many years of Linux and many years of Windows.
I happily pay the extra now for an OS that runs on a hardware it was exactly written for. All the components have in-house drivers, that adds to the stability of the whole.
Yes, I ran BSD servers, and they are rock solid as well, but ran Linux, and suffered from bad X drivers and almost working hardware all the time. I do not think Windows is different any way either.
So I think the idea of providing a PC that runs OSX does not equal to an Apple system. Maybe if it is the exact copy of a specific Apple product.
But then I guess if this is any good for you, you are already wearing a fake rolex, and have a Nokia N95 from China without the GPS and Quad band, so who am I trying to explain it to at the first place
Even if the patents are not enforcable, I'll be Apple could you up in court for the next 5 years, and cost you over $10 million in legal fees.
level, if you want performance and such you go with the Pro which outside the realm of many of the geeks who "would love to own a Mac" but as geeks go they don't want some non expandable machine that forever traps them into it. Now I finally broke down and bought an iMac, USED off of e-bay thank you. While I like it very much I would also prefer something I could slap more drives in, occasionally boost the video card, and change out the optical drives as technology progresses. External drives don't cut it and even then I got to hope that once they come out I have support for all of them.
It isn't about profit, unless the model is to force upgrades to get new tech. I think they are fixated on style over function at the consumer level
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Google cache of psystar's page
You seem to be assuming that Apple are trying to sell an OS. They're not. They're trying to sell an entire system, from the chips on the motherboard up to the user interface.
It's simple - If you don't buy Apple branded hardware, you don't get OS X. It's like if you don't buy a BMW, you don't get iDrive.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Oh this is terrific, now I can buy one of these babies, and do video chats with my mom and dad!
Where do I sign up!
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Isn't this the ultimate 'fixed in documentation' issue?
Apple can reprint boxes with a line like 'For Apple Brand Computers ONLY!' on the outside.
Case closed.
Of course, if a user buys a copy, reads the EULA, and returns it, woop. It's a return. Currrently, you can try to make a case that you didn't know. Put the conditiokn on the outside of the box, and let the resellers charge a stocking fee, since there wasn't anything wrong with the product.
Just the user.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
If you go to the Psystar site it actually will cost you $ 155.00 to have Leopard installed, $ 50.00 for firewire. That Alone brings it to A little over $600.00. And there is no mention about the compatibility of the iLife suite which is very hardware peticular. There is also no guarantee about software updates either. You might be stuck with the same version of the OS for life. Seems you might as well buy a Mac mini ($599.00) which looks a lot better and is a fraction of the size, has wi-fi built in, gigabit ethernet, built in bluetooth...Just a few things to keep in mind.
Looks like the site is back up, and they took it down to change "OpenMac" to "Open Computer".
-Peter
total bs down to the cheezy 3d graphic. And I should add, bs without a shred of humor nor irony....
I don't know why, but Apple just refuses to participate in that market. They always have, and it is a good bet they'll continue to do so. People have been asking for it forever, and they just won't deliver. I remember when the G4s came out how Mac users were hopeful that the G3 towers would be maintained and sold as cheaper midrange units. Nope, away they went, the high end was all there was.
It is just something about Apple that isn't very likely to change.
Considering all the bad reports I've seen about iDrive, I don't think I'd want it. :-)
The interesting part of this is that they have vowed to challenge Apple's EULA in court
Good luck with that! They might think they're not in violation of the EULA because they're only distributing a boxed retail copy. However, by selling someone a non-Apple machine designed to run OSX, they are guilty of intentionally interfering with their customer's contract (EULA) with Apple. I.e. they are inducing a third party to breach their contract. However you feel about EULAs, as long as the court agrees that it's enforceable this is pretty cut and dry.
This is true whether they include the boxed copy or not. It's actually even easier to show because of the included boxed copy. However, even if they didn't include it they'd probably be in even more trouble because Apple could argue that they're additionally inducing people to pirate the OS. They're just fucked!
IANAL but America is pretty much a freedom of contract country.
Get over it. Apple can do what they want... it's not unconscionable...
If Apple didn't want to sell the OS to anybody, they shouldn't have put it in a box and put a price on it.
They don't get to pick and choose who they sell Mac OS X to when they offer it at retail. They sell an OS, in a box, for $129. Once you buy that box, it's yours. If it runs on some computer that wasn't built by Apple, that's none of Apple's business once they sold the box, and no amount of post-sale attempts to change your purchase contract will alter that fact.
If you want to go the car analogy - it's like if you don't buy a BMW, you don't get to buy BP gasoline - except, YOU DO.
http://www.psystar.com/openmac_the_apple_alternative.html
BP gasoline is made specifically to work in a wide variety of cars, and is marketed as such. It also comes with implicit (and in some cases explicit) terms of use, such as "don't put diesel in your petrol engine". Failure to abide by these rules leave you in no position to complain if you're left without a working engine. OS X is made to work on Macs, and therefore people are in no position to complain if they install it on something that isn't a Mac and Apple subsequently break that installation.
As far as the post-sale attempt to change my purchase contract goes, what about if I buy a copy of Linux? The entire GPL is not printed on the box, so by your argument if I buy a boxed copy of linux I'm therefore legally entitled to ignore the terms of the GPL (It was never presented to me before I bought the software) and distribute the code (Which is in the box, and therefore mine) however I want.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
They could argue that the first sale doctrine allows them to modify and resell it.
To get around the EULA, they could bypass the "I agree to sell my soul" box by disassembling the installer program, and disabling the EULA dialog. So they never "Agree" to the license.
Of course installing the software necessarily involves making a copy, from the DVD media to the computer's memory and hard drive. While you might think a license would be needed to perform this copying, in fact Title 17, section 117 specifically exempts this copying: I don't think Psystar can win, but this is more a reflection of the power that the copyright cartels wield over the government. (BTW I like Apple and would not look forward to another clone war, but that's a different post).
If people can do this, why can't they get it working under xen or other virtualisation systems?
The difference is that you will not get sued for using diesel in your petrol engine. (in fact many people do just this and mix a little diesel in with their normal gasoline thinking that it will help clean their fuel injectors or increase mileage or something? Its not really true but people do it anyways)
See the hardware as a license to use it, and the box as an updated software for using with that license. The box doesn't give you the license to use it (on it's own atleast), but just offer a newer version. The price are 129 because for everyone with a mac it's just an update of the OS and everyone have already paid extra for a mac and for the OS once. If it didn't worked like this the OS would probably retail for much more. Like $500. And then Apple would have to support more hardware and issues and not being able to sell their more expensive hardware (which are their choice, it's their hardware and software you know ... If you don't like it don't buy it, it's up to you, but you can't just say that you have the RIGHT to their property.)
...)
To fix your analogy it's more like throwing up a pair of cables on the power grid and say you don't want to pay a fee for grid access and installation because you did it yourself, so now you only want to pay for the electricity. Even thought everyone else are there already paying for the power grid to exist at all.
If OS X was sold at a uhm "self cost price" I would agree with you, but now I really doubt the number of retail sales of OS X multiplied with the cost / box really covers the development cost of the software. Even less with any profit. (And still, even if it did it's not for us to decide what it should sell for or how it should be sold. I guess Microsoft earns quite a lot on Windows sales aswell
Your beef is with Best Buy. If precedent is anything you would have no problem getting your money back from the manufacturer if the license was not to your liking after purchase (as in your scenario).
Not really trying to disagree with you - knowing before you buy would be nice (but aren't these EULA docs posted online somewhere for the truly curious?) - but that's a bad example to use.
-Matt
Apple is going to lose this one. It's a illegal tying arrangement under the Clayton Act:
The basic requirements that must be met for tying to be per se illegal are as follows:
Apple would have to try to enforce their EULA in court against an antitrust claim that their EULA is an illegal tying arrangement, which, on its face, it is.
Apple was able to put the previous generation of clone-makers out of business because some key portions of the original MacOS were in ROM, shipped with the machine. So they could make copyright arguments against cloning the Mac ROMs. But for today's machines, the OS isn't built onto the motherboard, so there's no copyright claim.
IBM lost this issue a long time ago, when Compaq made the first PC clone. That's why there's a PC industry.
Apple could put DRM hardware in future Macs and encrypt future OS releases, like a game console. Not having done that, they're stuck.
OS X is made to work on Macs, and therefore people are in no position to complain if they install it on something that isn't a Mac and Apple subsequently break that installation.
I still say there's some leeway for gripes if Apple specifically targets non-badged installations with an unnecessary and artificial "poison update". I'd agree that it is Apple's right to do that, for the reasons you said, but one can still be technically right, but an asshole for practical purposes nonetheless.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
I don't usually bring it up, but that has to be probably one of the better comments that I've read, in terms of actual content and meaning, with perhaps the worst error/paragraph ratio outside of MySpace! Seriously, a little study would make it a lot easier to read. It's for your own good.
And as a response: I upgrade frequently enough that if I missed something that I actually wanted this time around, I'll get it next time. And all those little things tend to add up to more than I want to spend, just about every time I've looked at a Mac.
That, and they don't have a low-end offering, at all. There's really not much out there to compete with the EEE PC.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I have a hackentosh I bought components to see if I could run osx on and get away from vista.
so, after using it for about 30 days- as a long time MS and a some time linux user I have to say it is the best OS I have used, not perfect but miles better than vista.
Because of this positive experience I am going to be buying all macs for my business.
1 hacked mac- loss of $150
4 macs and apple stuff SAS etc. - over 10k
pretty good deal for steve I would say.
I think it was just to draw attention to them, to separate them from the endless stream of cheap pc manufacturers. Now that ./ and the world see them as the guys who got shut down by Apple they can go on to sell the "modified" version for Winblows only.
If they didn't have this what would they have? A single line coming up in an Amazon search of "pc's under 400$.
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
United States courts have a long string of precedent that says essentially this:
If you walk into a store (or buy mail-order or online), and lay down your money for a product, before making any other kind of prior agreement, then you have PURCHASED that product, not "licensed" it. Regardless of what any "shrink-wrap" or "click-wrap" license says.
Believe me, manufacturers of EVERY kind of product other than software have tried this EULA crap, and been unilaterally shot down by the courts. The principle is simple: if you have not ALREADY agreed to some kind of contract before you pay, then after-the-fact "agreements" are null and void.
Since this legal principle holds true for just about every other product on earth, I fail to see why software should be different. In fact, it should not be different, and also in fact, I do not believe the federal courts in the U.S. have ever resolved that issue in regard to software.
But once again: for just about every other product in existence, if you paid your money BEFORE you "agreed" to any contract, it is yours to do with whatever you wish. Subject, of course, to copyright laws. That is to say, you still can't copy it and sell copies. But you can install it on any goddamned machine you want. And there is LOTS -- by now centuries -- of legal precedent to back you up, no matter what the big software companies try to make you believe.
The company (Psystar) is based in Miami. If this was linked on Fark it would be under the "FLORIDA" tag, ... and we'd all know everything we need to know.
http://www.psystar.com/
It's now called the "Open Computer," and there's an "OpenPro" option for $999, too!
Amazing... Companies can thrive by suing those who increase their sales!
That's a really bad analogy. You're absolutely entitled to ignore the terms of the GPL.
The thing is, you have no rights to copy the software without the GPL: the GPL grants you a conditional right (an exception to the default restriction against copying copyrighted work), it doesn't remove any rights.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Can you tell me why? (Hint: There already exists a machine that ALMOST fits the description I gave.)
+++ATH0
Trying to sell OS X by itself is economic suicide.
I don't disagree. But I'm not calling for that -- I'm calling for a Mac Pro Jr., because hardly anyone actually NEEDS a Mac Pro as it currently exists. The fact that people buy them doesn't mean it matches their needs - just that it has a feature set that is greater than what they need.
+++ATH0
Apple could simply sell upgrade cards or say "this one card works, and we make no guarantees about others." Just like they do with the Mac Pro.
Why does everyone forget that the Mac Pro exists when this concept is brought up?
+++ATH0
I know why Jobs cares. He is every bit as much a wannabe monopolist as is Gates. He loves total control and complete product lock down.
The idea that Jobs is obsessed with product control is quite credible. Market control? The only way to make that stick is to define Apple products as their own market (and thereby make product control == market control). The reality is there's no market segment -- no general class of devices or software -- in which Apple has ever been able to exert the kind of pressure Microsoft has with Windows. Not even digital music retailing or music players.
Tweet, tweet.
The web site is different. The cart doesn't work. The Site has no Copyrights. The domain has two name servers that resolve to only one IP address. The site appears to be the work of Rodolfo Pedraza, whos street address looks like a residence. The phone numbers look very suspicious and are probably not real. The whole site looks like an elaborate joke. But who is laughing?
I don't have the full EULA, but TFA claims the AULA states OS-X must be installed on Apple-branded hardware.
So..
1. Buy a mac.
2. Insert a new harddisk in mac.
3. Install OS-X on the new harddisk using the mac.
4. Move the harddisk to a clone.
5. $$$.
6. Repeat from step 2.
I'm pretty sure it still breaks EULA, but IANAL; perhaps somebody else here knows for fact?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Now, the next argument would be something along the lines of "It's copyrighted code anyway, so they're giving you permission to do something you couldn't before". Surely the same applies to OS X. You are granted a licence to use Apple's copyrighted code *as they want you to*
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
He was talking about a MacBOOK a laptop. What laptop offers the ability to add a graphics card.
It surely seems real. You should try it now. I think it was probably not ready for the Dig-- er, the Slashdot effect.
But here: the $399 price is really Dell marketing. It doesn't include the OS. It has an Intel graphics card and no firewire. If you get all that, you have a $749 computer. And no monitor, mouse or keyboad. So, let's say this "$399" computer costs about $1,000, if you want it to be something more than a Mac mini. Oops. No wi-fi yet. See?
Now, you'll be forever reliant on the pirate hackers for upgrades. Still sound like a good deal?
So IMHO Apple should turn this into an opportunity, spec a middle of the line hardware spec for 3rd party PC vendors, and then offer an approved version 'Mac OS X Lite' which is really cut down but only works on the 3rd party hardware. Sell it for the same price as Mac OS X, so that if you buy a clone you'll always have to buy the lesser version.
This way Apple controls the differentiator. It seems they would be excited about extending their market share, I bet they probably would net the same kinda profit off a mac mini that they would by selling OS to a 3rd party vendor.
And if they were really thinking about this strategically, they would require the cloned PCs to have a nice 3D chipset so that game companies start to see their platform as a more appetizing one to build games for.
- celer
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
The site is up - Looks like they were actually redesigning the website while it was off line. Here's the URL: http://www.psystar.com/openmac_the_apple_alternative.html If I had some cash to blow, I'd buy one now. Hopefully the site will last long enough for me to get that vaporware government check we've all been hearing about.
To avoid corruption, one must remain dishonest.
Microsoft aren't Apple's main competitor. They're not a software house, they're a consumer electronics company.
Besides, a large part of the reason Apple don't suffer the same problems as Microsoft is because they control the hardware. They don't have to worry about supporting a million graphics cards, they only have to support what they choose to use. Start supporting clones (let alone a bunch of versions of "OS X lite") and within a couple of releases they'll be mired in compatibility issues.
In exchange for this what do they get? Currently they make enough on a Mac that they'd have to shift a bundle of clones to make the same and a load of people who would have bought a Mac will now buy a clone. The clone manufactures once licenced will start demanding big discounts (copies of Windows ship to OEM's for as little as $25).
Say it's $50 for an OEM OS X - they're going to have to sell 5 clones for every mac the lose just to break even. And the reason Apple don't sell more isn't really down to cost anyway, it's not as price elastic as you make out. As often as not it's down to people not wanting to change (for a load of good reasons, good and bad, I spent 18 years as a loyal Microsofty and never regretted it, it was absolutely the right thing at the time), it's about compatibility (perceived and actual), it's about platform standardisation (among corporates) and it's even about brand loyalty to Microsoft.
And for all the "urgh, look how shitty Vista is" it's the fastest selling version of Windows ever. Most people have, as ever, just dropped their trousers, bent over and, without the so much as a drop of lube, upgraded.
The reality is that there isn't going to be a massive scene change because of Vista, regardless of what Apple do, the movement away from MS (if it happens) will be gradual.
Maybe that explains why Software Update all of a sudden shows an EFI update that "enhances stability". Of course NOWHERE on Apple's site does it specify AT ALL *what* exactly this EFI "upgrade" changes to "enhance stability"...
Apple specs the hardware for Macs. They write the software for Macs. They write the drivers for Mac hardware for their OS.
MS writes an OS that runs on whatever POS hardware your great aunt bought at Radio Mart for $35 on clearance. There are tens of thousands of things you could stick into the slots of that monstrosity for your great aunt, each with a driver written by the hardware manufacturer that may or may not have passed MS's tests (or even been subjected to them). MS in particular gives video drivers a lot of access, still, to the video drivers for performance reasons. It's entirely possible for NVidia's driver to crash your OS (and it sometimes does!).
People think of Macs running OS X as stable and reliable. People think of PCs running Windows as rough-edged pieces of crap. What's more, they're right but much of that is based on the hardware people use for Windows.
It's true that many people find Windows to be an inferior OS in the first place and that MS has some abusive business practices. Still, running Windows on a Dell XPS, a Sony Vaio, or a well-built quality home build with good, solid drivers is entirely different from running it on Joe's 'Puter Shack Model 2 with the $12 motherboard and $10 RAM.
You have part of the solution with your spec for a clone being written by Apple for third parties. Those third parties would have to be policed pretty heavily to make sure they're not pushing the machines as compatible with everything PC. If people think they're getting a Mac compatible and it crashes and burns just like Windows, then those people will never step up for a $3000 Mac Pro.
Apple has already forced Psystar to stop selling Mac-compatibles. Apple cited the EULA, which licenses installation on one "Apple-labeled computer."
So I don't get this, your primary competitor just fumbled their latest major release, and clearly people like Apple's software, so why not really let the masses get their hands on it cheaply, get them addicted now while they are really looking for alternatives.
First MS is not a competitor to Apple. Apple specifically avoids competing in the desktop OS space because it is suicide. You say MS fumbled their Vista release. It certainly has been panned by the press. It doesn't matter. Competing in the OS space means going up against both XP and Vista at once. It also means whenever MS makes any sort of change that makes OS X incompatible, that is an additional cost for Apple. Basically, MS can introduce artificial flaws with OS X or any other desktop OS at will. Trying to compete in such an environment is doomed to failure, regardless of how much better OS X might be in a fair and competitive capitalist market.
Lets put it this way. The vast majority of people in the market for an alternative OS will buy from Apple regardless of the hardware lock-in. If, however, OS X is available on other hardware a portion of those will buy the other hardware, but given the Windows lock-ins, lower priced hardware is unlikely to actually grow the market. It doesn't matter if the box is $200 bucks cheaper, if replacing all your already purchased applications will cost you $2000 and if you have to reengineer your intranet applications to work in something other than IE and if it also introduces dozens of other incompatibilities with your other systems and partners. Remember, MS sells very little in retail channels. desktop OS customers are large enterprise site licenses and OEMs looking to include it in their shipping complete systems. Current mainstream OEMs won't touch it because MS can retaliate against them and kill their Windows business (it would be betting the farm, something no large business finds acceptable). That means new OEMs (without and install base) and enterprise customers are it. Enterprises looking to switch have Linux and the muscle to customize it. New OEMs will be taking hardware market share from whom most likely, Dell or Apple?
In short, your post presupposes that selling OS X on white boxes would grow the OS X install base significantly. In a monopolized market, that is unlikely to be the case as Apple found out in the 90's when they tried it. On top of that, most new OEMs would be targeting the low-end, which means trying to present comparisons to existing high-end systems. That means cheap, less reliable components with similar "numbers" to Apple systems. It cannibalizes Apple's hardware business while at the same time hardware related failures are regularly blamed on the OS poisoning Apple's brand not only for computers, but also iPods and iPhones. I'd love there to be a business case for it. I'd love it if licensing OS X for whiteboxes would grow their install base and weaken MS. Sadly, that is almost certainly not the case.
So IMHO Apple should turn this into an opportunity, spec a middle of the line hardware spec for 3rd party PC vendors, and then offer an approved version 'Mac OS X Lite' which is really cut down but only works on the 3rd party hardware.
Again, crippleware would dilute their brand and cut into hardware sales. Where's the upside for Apple? Why do you think this would increase OS X's market share overall?
This way Apple controls the differentiator. It seems they would be excited about extending their market share, I bet they probably would net the same kinda profit off a mac mini that they would by selling OS to a 3rd party vendor.
Apple is very interested in growing their market share. In a free market, what you propose would make them money. Until other OS's make up at least 30% of the installed desktop OS's though, pretending the market is competitive does not help. Apple's strategy is to slowly chip away until it gets to that point and hope other entrants (low end linux desk
I'm pretty sure Lenovo does.
Actually, they might pull it from the shelves if the EULA does not stand up.
They might try to kill it through Apple Update...Likely.
...and then tell the purchaser that it's not their fault that their operating system doesn't run on approved hardware any longer.Do you mean unapproved hardware? They could just disable it and tell consumers the version they are using is in violation of their copyright and trademark and that they should contact PsyStar for a full refund.
They might not have a quick fix at all that doesn't break too much existing gear.Unlikely. Several core libraries have copy protection that can be activated, which will break a lot of OS X.
Of course that's outright TERRIBLE PR for Apple themselves since if any of these people had intended to buy Apple branded hardware they would have done so in the first place.Yeah, but they won't have any trouble spinning it. These things were marketed using Apple's Mac trademark in their name. It was completely stupid move which leads me to believe one of two things:
- - Psystar does not really intend on selling these and is just looking for publicity to sell other products or are being paid to dilute Apple's brand.
- - Psystar did not talk to any competent IP lawyers before making this move and are about to die, die, die.
More likely they'll try to kill it through the courts..Umm, try? The copyright, EULA thing is something that the courts could debate for a while. The trademark thing is open and shut and Apple can have an injunction in days while the courts decide how much damages Psystar will have to pay for stupidly violating a registered trademark like this.
All this does is prove how overpriced Apple gear really is.Umm, did you end with an attempt to troll? Consumer reports rated Apple's 2007 laptop offerings as the most reliable in the industry and having smaller margins than the second and third place vendors for small sales margins. They labelled the mac mini the best compact system buy for several years running.
Apple does not have much on the low end and because you are locked into one hardware vendor you're more likely to have to buy features you don't need to get one you do need. For what they offer though, they have been cheaper than comparable offerings in all but the tower space for years now. 2002 would like their argument back.
Those consumers can buy iMacs.
that the additional features of the mac pro doesn't cost that much more on top of the already high price.
The additional features are the REASON for the high price. Start with Xeons and FB-DIMM RAM -- without that, the Pro would be a sub-$2000 box.
+++ATH0
Sorry, spoke too soon. No other site is reporting such an agreement, and Psystar seemed to still be selling this system, albeit under a different name.
When another company can make a profit selling a more powerful system for half the price, it's not trolling to point out the obvious that the more expensive one is likely overpriced. Only hyper-sensitive Apple FanBois (who did pay too much) can take offense at common sense.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I agree that going up against Microsoft would be a mistake, at least until they build up a tolerance to iocaine powder. But I have to disagree with one thing:
In short, your post presupposes that selling OS X on white boxes would grow the OS X install base significantly. In a monopolized market, that is unlikely to be the case as Apple found out in the 90's when they tried it.
In the '90s:
(a) Mac OS really did suck an awful lot. Compared to Windows 95, even, Mac OS was a poor sister. I tried using OS 8 and OS 9 on Powermacs and it was appalling: it was slower than NeXTStep on a 68040. The memory management and disk IO in classic Mac OS was so bad that if you booted BeOS and ran OS 8 under Sheepshaver your Mac was more responsive, because BeOS handled the disk for you.
(b) If you bought a Mac clone and didn't like the OS, you had no place to go, there was no Windows alternative for your hardware, so there was nobody but existing Mac users as competition.
Today neither of these is true.
Also, today, Apple is hurting sales by limiting their product line. I ran OS X on used upgraded Powermacs for years rather than buy one of their iMacs or eMacs. The Mac mini was barely acceptable... it wasn't upgradable but it WAS headless (and even then I was shocked they released it after Steve Jobs comments about "no ugly monitors"... it must have been like drinking his own blood to make even that concession to practicality).
They still have no conventional desktop. The intel mini is less adequate, in 2008, than the original mini was when it came out. The iMac is an all-in-one.
I did eventually get a Macbook Pro. Getting a computer that cost that much was like drinking MY own blood, but I needed it at the time. I would have gotten a Macbook, but again they're unacceptable... thanks to the horrible intel GPUs... I can get a Thinkpad with exactly the same components as the Macbook plus an nVidia GPU and a MUCH better keyboard, trackpad, and overall design (including a docking station, something I miss every time I have to find all the cables when I plug my laptop in) for the same price as a Macbook.
If Apple got together with Lenovo and made a Thinkbook, and released a "Mac mini pro" with a 3.5" hard disk and a real GPU, they would sell more copies of OS X, because there's a lot of people like me who really do NOT like Apple's hardware and aren't quite as motivated by the software to put up with it.
Until they start shipping hardware that's attractive to a larger market, people are going to want to buy generic OS X and put it on hardware that sucks less. That's a real market, one that didn't exist in the '90s, because Apple's hardware wasn't as quirky and Apple's software wasn't as good.
I take it you did not actually look at a what Psystar were offering for a given price? First they were paying for an upgrade to OS, not the development cost. Second, we have no idea what quality of parts were used, but I'm willing to bet they were not the most reliable in the industry, a title Apple got from consumer reports last year. Their "comparable system" is missing firewire, wi-fi, doesn't have a silent fan and sure isn't in a small footprint case and motherboard. Who knows what else because they haven't published the full stats. They don't even list what ports it does have. The only reason we know it doesn't have those is because they are upgrade options.
Only hyper-sensitive Apple FanBois (who did pay too much) can take offense at common sense.So Consumer Reports, an unbiased company that won't even take ad dollars from Apple or anyone else, said Apple's hardware was more reliable and had lower margins than their next closest competitors. You're arguing that a machine you don't know the stats of is equivalent for half the price. Any you think that is a compelling argument? I'm not taking offense at common sense, I'm astonished that you can make such a claim seriously. Believe what you want and good luck learning about that "reason" stuff the rest of find so useful.
Sorry but I have to believe Apple has done more market research than you. You anecdote is great and all, but fairly irrelevant. In general, you haven't presented any data to support that licensing their OS would result in significant instal base increases. Given the inflexibility of a monopolized market, economic models show that it is unlikely. You might want it to be the case, because it would give you more choices of hardware, but that is not a reason why it would be.
If Apple got together with Lenovo and made a Thinkbook, and released a "Mac mini pro" with a 3.5" hard disk and a real GPU, they would sell more copies of OS X, because there's a lot of people like me who really do NOT like Apple's hardware and aren't quite as motivated by the software to put up with it.First, why Lenovo? They have lower reliability ratings than Apple, does, especially in the desktop area. Second, why would Lenovo do it, given that MS might retaliate in the next round of OEM licenses for Windows. MS can kill their ability to compete on price, and that would largely destroy Lenovo's business selling Windows (something no CEO in their right mind would be willing to risk). Yeah, some people don't like Apple's hardware, but very few are forgoing purchase of Macs for that reason, that would be likely to be real buyers otherwise.
Until they start shipping hardware that's attractive to a larger market, people are going to want to buy generic OS X and put it on hardware that sucks less.The vast majority of people don't want to put OS X on their machine for many reasons. They don't know what OS X or even an OS is. They need software that is only available on Windows. They have an investment in software they would have to throw away moving to OS X. They need to interact with Windows only servers or online services. That is mainly what limits Apple's market share, not hardware models or even price.
Even if Apple were to do it, MS could simply roll out update after update that broke compatibility with Macs, each costing Apple time and money to overcome. They could further cancel software for the Mac that is needed in business (MS Office for example) and software which is needed by many in the home (Windows Media Player for their porn). All these would stop Mac market share from growing while costing Apple a bundle in dev costs at the same time other companies were getting large chunks of their hardware sales. It is a fairly lost cause while MS has such a large market share and so many lock-in strategies in place.
Apple ships about as many models as other system vendors their size. As they slowly grow, they have been adding more models in the segments their research shows the most demand. I never would have guessed the MacBook Air filled such a market, but sales numbers seem to indicate otherwise. There is a perception an Slashdot that people here are representative of computer buyers. Disabuse yourself of that idea. Most people don't know what an OS is or want a particular one. Most people don't want any upgradability in their machine and will simply buy a new one if they want an upgrade. Most people don't even want separate monitors as strange as it sounds to technical people here. Judging potential markets based upon your wants or those of technical people is simply inaccurate. Sorry. I'd love to buy OS X and put it on a whitebox myself, but that doesn't make it a reasonable move for Apple and it doesn't mean Apple can continue to develop OS X and make money doing it.
The customer does not HAVE a "contract" with Apple. Apple has an after-the-fact attempt at "licensing" pop up on the screen when installing the software. Go get your legal books. An attempt to force one-sided conditions on a customer AFTER the product has already been purchased is not a "contract" at all. In fact, it violates the very concept of what a contract is: a mutually-beneficial agreement that is negotiated between two parties.
Further, because the conditions are strictly one-way, even if it were a legal contract it would be a "contract of adhesion", against which courts are deliberately biased.
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
The GPL isn't a EULA that restricts what you can do with the software, it is a license that grants you additional rights. If you choose to view it as invalid because you are unable to read it before opening the box then that is fine. Your right to copy and distribute the software is limited by copyright not the GPL. It is the GPL that grants you rights over and above copyright, one of which is the right to distribute the software under certain conditions.
Sorry but I have to believe Apple has done more market research than you.
I'm sure they have. They are also notorious for ignoring market research and doing what appears to be the wrong thing and getting big wins from it, and also coming up with monstrosities like a handheld computer that you can't fit in your pocket. They're also notorious for being amazingly resistent to doing sensible things until they can spin it as a brilliant idea... and all the hard core Apple fans forget (for example) that jobs said there would never be a headless desktop Mac and go all gaga about how cool the Mac mini is... ignoring the fact that it's a pretty awful desktop Mac.
Apple does stupid things. All the time. But at least they do manage to change their mind sometimes, which puts them ahead of Microsoft... a company that's even more addicted to making stupid decisions and keeping them alive.
First, why Lenovo?
Because the Thinkpad is still one of the best all-round laptops around (if not the best), and because Apple has worked with the Thinkpad division in the past when it was part of IBM.
Second, why would Lenovo do it
They did it before.
Yeah, some people don't like Apple's hardware, but very few are forgoing purchase of Macs for that reason, that would be likely to be real buyers otherwise.
Yep, that's what people used to say about headless desktop Macs before Apple came out with the Mac mini. And a lot of people who would never have considered Macs before bought them.
Apple ships about as many models as other system vendors their size.
(a) Apple isn't in the same position as other system vendors. They're not just a system vendor. People who buy an HP don't have to worry if the next HP model line will fit their needs in three years, they know that Dell or someone else will.
(b) No, actually, they don't. They have three desktop models, with two or three trim levels, and four laptop models, with one or two trim levels, and one tower. Thats' NOT comparable to any of the other big system vendors.
Most people don't know what an OS is or want a particular one.
If that were true Apple wouldn't have a market at all. If that were true we wouldn't be seeing "Vista" jokes in the mainstream media.
Most people don't want any upgradability in their machine and will simply buy a new one if they want an upgrade.
Assuming there is a computer available that fits what they want to upgrade to. Often they don't, and people know this. People aren't as naive and thoughtless as you're trying to characterize them as. There's a resistance to buying into Macs because they know it will limit their options. Even my AOL-loving inlaws who I should probably be charging at least a "friends-and-family" rate for tech support know about this, it was one of the first objections they came up with to getting a Mac.
Apple could solve this problem by increasing the upgradability of their computers, by increasing the variety of their product line, or by allowing people to buy Mac OS X and run it on third party hardware. Of these options I have already agreed with you that the third is least likely... because Microsoft would screw them big time.
I'm not arguing for Apple putting OS X on a white box, I'm responding to your argument that what happened with Power Computing and the other vendors has anything to do with the current situation. They are not comparable.
Anyone know whether one can add ethernet (so you can use the net etc), sound , wireless networking , bluetooth or a remote control to this not so little number? (as well as Firewire etc) . Will it run iLife if you buy it?
;-)
You know, to bring it up to basic MacMini configuration?
Cheers
Rod
I'm sure they have. They are also notorious for ignoring market research and doing what appears to be the wrong thing and getting big wins from it...
Really. What evidence do you have to support that Apple acts contrary to their market research? I've never heard such a thing.
...and also coming up with monstrosities like a handheld computer that you can't fit in your pocket...
I'm not sure what you're referring to here either. Please be specific.
They're also notorious for being amazingly resistent to doing sensible things until they can spin it as a brilliant idea... and all the hard core Apple fans forget (for example) that jobs said there would never be a headless desktop Mac...
Can you provide a link to that quote? Google does not seem to provide any such quote in the first 20 hits.
...and go all gaga about how cool the Mac mini is... ignoring the fact that it's a pretty awful desktop Mac.
The people that go "gaga" over how cool the Mac-mini is are not looking for a desktop Mac. They're looking for a cheap, small form factor machine and many don't even run OS X on it. The Mac mini is often regarded as best in its class because of its small size, relatively low price, and silent and relatively cool operation. It is perfect for mounting in small places, use in environments where noise is a concern (audio, home theater, etc.), building into robotics projects, etc. People on Slashdot like it, not because it is a viable midrange desktop Mac, but because it is smaller, cheaper, and better for geeky uses than pretty much all the shuttle-PC options out there. Some people are happy that it provides the lowest-end OS X system on the market and that was certainly Apple's target market, but that's not generally the applications you see it praised for, especially here on Slashdot.
Apple does stupid things. All the time.
They do things you perceive as stupid. That doesn't mean you're not just wrong or poorly informed. They're making a lot of money making those decisions, some of which are admittedly risky. Enough of those risks are paying off. If you think you can do better, start your own company.
Because the Thinkpad is still one of the best all-round laptops around (if not the best), and because Apple has worked with the Thinkpad division in the past when it was part of IBM.
The Thinkpad targets the exact same market as Apple's existing offerings, is slightly less reliable, and independent reviews often lists it as a close second to Apple's laptops. If they are going to partner with someone for expanding their offerings, shouldn't they go with someone that targets a different market entirely? Your argument sounds like it is founded in your desire for OS X on a ThinkPad, which you then have tried to come up with a reason for.
They did it before.
As I recall, IBM considered manufacturing Macs, using Apple's hardware design as well as OS. Lenovo is not IBM and IBM did not end up doing it. Again, what reasons would Lenovo have to do this in face of the huge risk it poses?
Yep, that's what people used to say about headless desktop Macs before Apple came out with the Mac mini. And a lot of people who would never have considered Macs before bought them.
Yeah, except the Mac mini makes Apple less money than any other system they sell (it has the smallest margins). It also has some of the lowest overall sales among mac offerings. Many analysts have been predicting it will be cancelled as a result, although they haven't been correct yet. I actually think Apple sees the mini as sort of a loss leader. They use it to target the lowest end market entrants in the hopes up an up-sell on their next purchase. They do this knowing it cuts into iMac and MacPro sales. So what makes you think the market and profits on a h
Apple isn't really a "PC" manufacturer, they're more a "systems" company. Would you expect to be able to order a fan for an Ultra 45 or IntelliStation yourself?
Disclaimer, I have a dual G4, and generally like Apple. I agree though, their service system is a joke, they aren't IBM and they shouldn't try and act like IBM. I've fixed my computer myself more than once, actually one of my fans is a replacement that I just spliced the power connector to myself. As a sibling poster said, call an independent dealer, or go looking around online, the info's all there.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
The only high-end vendor I ever dealt with was SGI and we couldn't get part numbers ourselves, we had to get a tech rep to come out. Score 1 for Sun...like I said, I'm not saying I agree with that sort of behavior, but I can at least see where it's coming from.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
You're arguing with someone else, you're not arguing with me. A couple of the more egregious examples:
MS still has monopoly influence to limit Apple's potential customer base
Look, in both previous messages I acknowledged that point. Bringing it up again is irrelevant.
That is NOT a common factor between now and the '90s.
Why?
Because that's not one of the things that killed the third party Macs. Apple wasn't selling an OS in competition with Windows (no, I don't count Microsoft's Power PC version of NT as anything but bait). Microsoft didn't have to threaten to hurt Power Computing's sales of Windows, because they didn't HAVE any.
I understand your perspective, but I still think you're trying to come up with reasons as to why Apple might fulfill your dreams and let you give them less money while giving Lenovo more money.
I don't care who gets my money, and that's more or less irrelevant because I'm not in the market for a laptop, period. I already have one that's going to last into the next decade, by which time the market will have changed again. I'm using this as an example of one possible way that Apple could address the problem. Another way would be by improving their current product line. A third (and, again, I've already said that's the least likely) is to license OS X.
Oh, and, Apple and IBM Japan (a group that is now part of Lenovo) cooperated on at least one of the Powerbooks.
You're also ignoring a lot of my points to attack statements that are close to but not quite what I said, for example:
According to the last survey I saw, 93% of respondents had claimed never to have upgraded their computer hardware instead of replacing it.
I wrote "Assuming there is a computer available that fits what they want to upgrade to."
Let me clear up ANY possible way for you to again misinterpret that.
Read it as "Assuming that, when they want to replace their Mac with a new computer, there is a new Mac that fits what they want at that time."
It doesn't matter whether it's a piecemeal upgrade or a forklift upgrade: even if Apple makes a computer that meets their needs now, when their needs change and they go to get a new computer... will there be one from Apple? Maybe. maybe not. If they bought their current computer from Dell they don't CARE if Dell has a computer to replace it with, because they can get a compatible computer from anyone.
That doubles the potential cost of replacing applications.
Again, people aren't stupid. They are capable of planning three years ahead when they buy a computer. Also, don't confuse familiarity with jargon for understanding of the issues. They may not know what "an OS" is, but they know that Macs aren't simply compatible with Windows apps, like they know Vista has driver problems without knowing what "drivers" are.
If this machine is as good as they say it would make a tremendous Linux box. Why poke at Apple with a big stick.
Look at how the Everex gPC flew off the shelves. People want a cheap PC with Linux pre installed
Bill Gates [to Steve Jobs]: "So, you have a twin Psystar...If you will not turn to the Dark Side, perhaps SHE WILL!"
[John Williams begins humming]
Typed on a nearly new, shiny and expensive (but wonderfully quiet) Mac Pro on Firefox whose 3 other tabs are pointed to (ouch, ooooo) MacFixit and Apple support. (One of the new "updates" has convinced the Pro that it doesn't want to share any files with anybody else on the network). Sigh.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
http://gizmodo.com/380488/psystar-exposed-looks-like-a-hoax
So i have you install OSX on the computer and the HDD
dies for what ever reason i will have to ship the
computer back to you for reinstall??
--- PSYSTAR Support Team wrote:
Dear Sir or Madam,
We absolutely do not support customers attempting
to install the
Leopard operating system on our Open Computer
themselves. This is due to
a difficult process that we go through to get
Leopard to function on our
computers. We encourage you to purchase an open
computer, and select the
option to have Leopard Pre-installed.
Thank you for your inquiries,
PSYSTAR Support Team,
www.psystar.com 305-356-3555
On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 09:42 -0500, Appleman wrote:
is there any problem installing my copy on your
machine?
Currently, that is the only option available. If the HDD dies, you can
ship it to us for $50 plus shipping, so we can replace it for you,.
Thank you for your inquiry,
PSYSTAR Support Team
www.psystar.com 305-356-6666