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.
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.
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.