Slashdot Mirror
New Mac Clone Maker 'Quo' To Open Retail Store
bughunter writes "Cnet is reporting that Mac clone maker Quo Computer plans to open its first retail location, selling Mac clones, on June 1st. To start, Quo will offer three desktop systems: the Life Q, Pro Q, and Max Q. While details of the components are not yet available, founder Rashantha De Silva said they are looking at Apple's system configurations for guidance. Pricing has also not been finalized on the desktop machines, but the company is looking to start pricing at less than $900. While Quo is starting off with the desktop machines, De Silva said it is looking at offering an Apple TV-like media server and a smaller computer similar to the Mac Mini. He acknowledges that Quo will likely face opposition from Apple, much like Psystar. 'They probably will (sue us),' De Silva said. 'There are others doing this, but we have a different attitude. There are thousands of people in the "Hackintosh" market, but many of them are creating bad products. I don't think anyone wins in that environment.'"
Why would anyone want to run Mac OS on unsupported hardware? It's going to be unstable, missing features, and chances are that getting updates from Apple to install with or without hosing your installation is going to be a bitch.
If you want OS X that bad why not just buy a Mac?
Basically, they're launching a retail store on Monday and don't know what configurations and prices will be for offer.
This is probably the reason Apple will not see Quo just as a manufacturer who will help popularize their OS.
That and the fact that Apple is a hardware company, which everyone seems to forget. OS X is built specifically to sell Apple computers. Apple != Microsoft, but since most consumers see the computer for the OS, it becomes OS X versus Windows instead of Apple versus HP or Apple versus Dell, which is the way Apple sees it. Why do you think they are so ready to advertise running Windows on your mac? They don't care if you don't use OS X, they just want you to buy their computers.
But if Apple dominated the OS market they could control the hardware market too. If Apple got every PC user hooked to OS X as much as every Mac fanboy, Apple could switch architectures and take the hardware market with it....
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Apple's belief that they should be a hardware company (as they were when they started) is what keeps their share of the market from growing. If they want to grow (maybe they don't really want to, and that's okay too) then they are going to have to change. It seems to ancient idea now when hardware (including their own) has become commodity to such an extent.
I know it's an opinion, but it's a widely held opinion: Apple does better at building an OS that Microsoft. If they had refocused a few years ago and changed the attitude that the OS only sells hardware I think Microsoft would actually have to some real competition.
Every time Apple has shot down clone competitors have had to just shake my head. It seems exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. Didn't they learn by watching the evolution of the PC? If they wanted to they could emulate that success by getting their OS to run better that Windows on all types of hardware. They could sell more copies of the OS and bring down the price, etc.. etc.. etc..
They aren't stupid at Apple... so maybe they know this and are just ignoring it. But jessh, doesn't it seem like they could really, really
have great opportunities with these clone companies? There are millions of people that would choose an Apple OS over a Windows OS if it worked as well (and with Apple's expertise it would probably work a lot better) on reasonably priced, reasonably solid commodity hardware.
Maybe they like their market share the way it is. People yell about Apple's share of the market, but even a 5% share of the size of the multi-billion computer market is still big, and our addition to economic growth is just that... an addiction.
In a word? YES!
There are probably more, but there are two lines of products that come to mind when I think of this stupid phenomenon. People think they can buy something that, to them represents a very cool cultural group, and instamatically become a member of a club or group. Those to brands are Apple and Harley Davidson. Harley Davidson, once the nearly exclusive domain of motorcycle gangsters is now the toy of the rich boy who wished he could be a "bad boy" and may even get a tattoo with the Harley Davidson logo at some point. These are people who have their Harleys shipped to Sturgess to attend the rally instead of riding there themselves (which is kind of the point!).
The Apple brand gives people the impression that if they use an Apple, life will be more simple and they will instantly become happier and cooler too. And they tend to forgive the fact that running Apple means there is a very long list of things they can't do either because the app exists only for Windows or because Apple doesn't approve of it which is something of a puzzle to me but I guess buying into an image calls for some sacrifice to maintain that image... rather like all the trouble women go through with their hair and make-up.
Apple's belief that they should be a hardware company (as they were when they started) is what keeps their share of the market from growing. If they want to grow (maybe they don't really want to, and that's okay too) then they are going to have to change. It seems to ancient idea now when hardware (including their own) has become commodity to such an extent.
Apple's main asset is their image. They would damage it if they didn't control it like they do by carefully selecting all hardware and software.
They are not here to fight Microsoft or Windows... they're here to bring us a new business model based on getting tech gadgets that simply do the job, and do it right. Releasing their OS for all hardware would bring in more gold in the short run, but would probably change their image and turn them into just another software vendor.
diegoT
maybe they don't really want to, and that's okay too
Ding ding ding!
Apple wants to make good products that they're excited about, and they want to make money doing it. They do not seek, and never have sought, to supplant Dell or Microsoft.
They like their closed ecosystem. They're fully aware of the limitations it entails in terms of lineup gaps, careful control of user experience and product design, and zealous control of their brand. They're all deliberate choices to fit within a particular philosophy, made in full recognition of the obvious downsides. But every time there's an Apple story, someone has to whine about how it's not China Hardware Emporium running KDE with extra configuration panels. The same people will turn around the next day to defend common user complaints about Linux platforms by saying "you just don't get it".
Well, they just don't get Apple. You don't have to like Apple; you don't have to buy Apple. Running around and thinking that the ultimate goal of any given corporation is a monopoly is the kind of thinking that even a first semester economics student is forced to leave behind. What's optimal in the aggregate is not necessarily maximizing every single variable one at a time.
Why should they cut prices, and the resulting features and standards along with profits, to grow their market share? They have a giant pile of cash, and apart from being sued for unlawful trade practices, they could sell all of their machines at a loss and really blow their competitors away. But why would they? Price consumers aren't loyalty consumers. Why fight a war with 1000 strangers with clamped-shut wallets when you can get 100 people who will likely be repeat customers (while still making money, and more importantly, making the products you want to make)? I'm an investor in a local bakery--I'd rather them keep consistent quality, artisan craftsmanship, and prices relatively high (and catering to a smaller audience) than try to fight Safeway and its industrial-scale suppliers for supplying white bread and hamburger buns to the masses. Safeway has its place, and people who like getting white bread and hamburger buns as cheaply as possible can do that. Not everyone has to. Market share and price aren't the only two metrics for comparison, and yet everyone seems to insist on them to prolong a pointless flamewar, with "if Apple were Microsoft-sized, they wouldn't be able to get away with x". Yes, and if the atmosphere were methane, we'd all suffocate. Neglecting that condition x would have to be resolved in order to grow to Microsoft's size in the first place is usually the first flaw.
They don't compete in certain markets or at the bottom end of the price scale because they neither need to nor want to. That means there is an upper limit to their market share, and their strategy also turns off some people, but so be it. They were never the desirable kind of customer anyway for a company like Apple. They might be the target customer for a different kind of company. It all works out in the end.
"But if Apple dominated the OS market they could control the hardware market too. If Apple got every PC user hooked to OS X as much as every Mac fanboy, Apple could switch architectures and take the hardware market with it...."
Did I miss something? Didn't Apple switch over to Intel in 2006?
Every time I read about a CEO being paid millions, I think 'wow, there have to be lots of people out there who could do the job just as well for a lot less'. Then I read Slashdot comments and wonder if I am mistaken. A large percentage of Slashdotters seem to be of the opinion that if they were in charge of Apple, they would gleefully join in that race to the bottom that is PC manufacturing.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
locking high-end MP3 players to their software
For the most part, yes, but there are ways to use iPods with other software or even custom firmware. Apple wont sue you for it. Don't like it? There are plenty of other MP3 players out there.
locking their software to their operating system
This is the stupidest fucking argument I've seen. So Apple should port all of their software to other platforms? On that note, I want Microsoft Movie Maker for Mac, dammit!
locking their operating system to their hardware
Yes, they do. IBM had a lock of Microsoft software until they were reverse-engineered. If Apple gets big enough, this will have to change one way or another.
locking their high-end MP3 players to their hardware (firewire only)
Wow, this just dethroned the above as the stupidest fucking argument I've seen. For one, iPods have been able to sync with USB since the third gen iPods and haven't had Firewire capability at all (except to charge) since the video iPods came out. For two, PCs could use Firewire too, ya know. Apple is restricting iPods to their hardware by making it use an interface that can be found on Macs and PCs? What a crock.
locking their phone to their software which is tied to certain operating systems
Those OSes comprise at least 98% of the overall market. Yep, what a horribly monopolistic practice. Where's the iTunes port for Amiga, dammit?
Fortunately there is no way their EULA will be found legally binding and so while they can make it hard for mac-cloners (no hw support, trademarks, no license to sell os X, etc), they cant stop them.
Maybe, maybe not. As we've seen with Psystar, Apple doesn't have to win the case. They have vats of money to throw at lawyers until the other side folds up. If the EULA is going to be overturned, it's going to need someone with a lot of money that can afford a long, drawn-out court battle.
It might be that they mean "Designed by Apple in California" and not "Designed by Apple in Shanghai". I love California even less than most people, but the bottom line is, jobs (small "j") in California are jobs in the USA.
On the original topic, I paid a premium for my Mac, knowing that I could get similar specs for cheaper on a PC, for two reasons. I prefer OS X, and I enjoy the fact that the hardware and software, including a number of included, free applications, are pre-integrated for me and function as a cohesive whole. I'm pretty nerdy, I could set up an easy workflow for my tasks on a PC or other OS given enough time, but I don't want to spend the time. So I spent the money.
It's not that one is inherently better than the other, it's that they are different value propositions. Certainly they have different strengths and weaknesses, and I would have thought that this community, if not the general public, would understand this by now.
Eagles may fly, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Apple will sue them until they file for bankruptcy like they did Pystar.
If you are trying to sell Hackintosh systems, Apple will sue you to protect their territory.
Apple does not want Mac Clones because last time they allowed Mac Clones they cut into Apple's own sales. Apple makes most of its profits by selling hardware with software already installed on it. Cheaper Mac Clones will cut into hardware sales.
If you want to distinguish yourself sell Linux pre-installed on PC systems, even AROS or HaikuOS pre-installed on systems, some people don't want to install their own OS and want a pre-installed system. Make your money selling them tech support and developing software for Linux, AROS, and HaikuOS.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Like, how many people can actually put hard drives in thier computers. Like, in high school, there is a course for that and they spend a week just getting the computer open. Most people just go to the store and pay $100 to have it done, which is why most people just buy a new computer.
Or use, you know, the modern solution. A fast cable, like firewire 800, which, coincidentally, is on the iMac. Two terrabytes for $30, which is not as cheap as bare drives, but cheaper than paying to install. I myself have moved into the 21st century and have expanded with multiple dvd drivers, over a terabyte of hard disk space, what ever I want. With no limitation of the original case design.
Of course it does not look as nice as everything being in case, but nobody said we were buying computers on looks.