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.'"

Comments

Maybe Apple will hug you to death

[Scr3wFace]

Instead of suing you into oblivion....

This is my Mac book,
there are many like it, but this one is mine!

Re:Maybe Apple will hug you to death

[Sponge Bath]

This is my Macbook, this is my gun.
This one's for porn, this one's for fun.
Sound off!

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Why?

[CarpetShark]

The same argument applies (arguably doubly so) to people running pirated copies of Windows. Personally, I stick with Linux.

That said, if OS X would work reasonably on my system, I'd (at least) dual-boot it for sure. It runs perfectly well on a relative's store-bought standard PC though, and I can easily see why people would run it rather than Windows.

Apple are really being dumb by sticking with their own hardware, imho. They could probably kill windows overnight if they invested in mainstream hardware drivers, and got quickly to the critical mass where hardware manufacturers have to develop drivers for them. Even Linux has managed that, so Apple definitely could.

Re:Why?

[wstrucke]

The same argument applies (arguably doubly so) to people running pirated copies of Windows.

Not really, no. Windows is designed to run on commodity hardware from any vendor. OS X is designed to run only on Apple hardware. In reality it's not at all the same thing.

Re:Why?

[Darkness404]

Um, in case Apple has confused you, a Mac is made of commodity hardware. Other then perhaps EFI, nothing about the computer is a Mac, a Mac is simply a configuration of a PC installed with OS X by default.

Sure, OS X was designed with only one or two configurations for a Mac but with third party drivers its possible to extend it to almost any modern configuration in existence. There is nothing special about a Mac.

Re:Why?

[Dhalka226]

Apple are really being dumb by sticking with their own hardware, imho.

I'm not a huge fan of Apple, but one thing they're not is stupid. I'm sure they've run the numbers and determined they make more money by keeping OS X exclusive to their hardware (ie, not cannibalizing their own hardware sales and the large profit margins they can make on them) than taking the hardware sales loss to greatly inflate their sales of OS X, where margins are probably much thinner--and where, frankly, Microsoft can and does play dirty with their pricing.

Re:Why?

[mario_grgic]

Yes, that's true for electronics inside the box. It's all commodity hardware. Apple does not make their own memory or CPU or hard drive.

But they do make their own motherboards, they make their own cooling solutions, they often meticulously design power supplies to be quiet, they will often times design the battery. They design the cases to be sturdy, have excellent heat conduction and they are quiet.

I was amazed when I first opened my Mac Pro how simple and elegant it is inside and how amazingly quiet (for heavy aluminum case that's quite a feat). As you can see I value quiet quite a bit :D.

And things like these are important to a select few users that choose to buy Apple. When it comes to notebook computers, case and tactile feel matters even more.

And in the end it is the integrated package that matters as well. User experience and expectation is well managed from the moment you receive the box, from opening it, to using the computer (hardware part) to using the OS.

Just providing OS X for users to buy and install on whatever hardware would not lead to comparable or even similar user experience. But if you ship your OS on your designed hardware you know that every user has the minimum accepted standard and same experience as others. This is why Apple leads the user satisfaction surveys.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Current sales offerings only provide a half dozen configurations that OSX supports, but OSX Leopard still supports G4 systems (and will unofficially run on G3 systems), and all the configurations from then until now. While the number of officially supported hardware pieces is smaller than Windows, the range is no less. Multiple CPU architectures, GPUs from 3 major vendors, RAM of all sorts, wireless from Atheros, Broadcom, and probably others, support for most USB devices and anyone else who will write a driver. Add in the knowledge gained from the OSX86 community and it supports damn near everything else outside of weird proprietary 3rd party stuff that Windows or Linux couldn't support without that manufacturer's help either.

That's no less diverse than other OSs, and better than Windows in most cases.

Re:Why?

[ya really]

But they do make their own motherboards, they make their own cooling solutions, they often meticulously design power supplies to be quiet, they will often times design the battery. They design the cases to be sturdy, have excellent heat conduction and they are quiet.

Actually, Intel builds their motherboards for for Apple http://news.zdnet.co.uk/emergingtech/0,1000000183,39244663,00.htm

Re:Why?

[burris]

Cuz you can't get a 9" laptop with 2 gigs of ram, an 8 gig ssd, and wifi that runs OSX for $300 from Apple.

You can, however, get one from Dell and a number of other manufacturers. Let's compare the missing features between the $300 Dell Mini9 I gave my GF for her birthday with what Apple is offering:

Dell Mini 9: two finger scrolling (fixed in next DellEFI update)

Apple $300 netbook: has no features because it doesn't exist!

So it turns out that Dell's $300 laptop running Mac OSX offers a lot more functionality than Apple's $300 laptop. It's not even like Apple is offering a $400 or $500 laptop. No the cheapest laptop is $1000.

Unfair comparison? If my choices were limited to Apple laptops then I just couldn't get my GF a mac laptop for her birthday. She is quite grateful that the Dell Mini 9 is available. She said she would feel horrible if I spent over a $1000 on her present, plus it would be larger and heavier. She doesn't want a bigger and heavier laptop with "power" she doesn't need.

Conveniently, the Mac OS retail box comes with Apple stickers to cover up the Dell logo.

*found out they stopped making the mini 9 in the last month or two but my argument still holds

Re:Why?

[hairyfeet]

Because Apple for years have been ignoring a very BIG market for Macs: Those that want a midrange Apple desktop. There are quite a few out there that would like a Mac tower that has upgrade potential that can't afford to bend over and grab their ankles like you do with the Mac Pro line. Frankly the Mac Pro line is extreme overkill to most folks who just want an Apple tower with some upgrade slots, which they really haven't had an affordable option in that area in many years.

So to answer your question it is the same reason a Grey market pops up in any area. There are those that want a product, the ones in charge of that market refuse to give it to them, someone see a potential for profit, and therefor enters and creates a place for these under served customers to spend their money. It is about pure classical supply and demand, nothing more. Apple refuses to supply what many customers want, so someone else comes in to fill that demand. if Apple really wanted to get rid of this market it couldn't be more simple. Just give the customer what they want. The fact that companies keep entering this market and have no trouble finding customers simply proves the demand is there.

So before the Apple fans start screaming "Apple ripoff" just remember: This market wouldn't exist if Apple would give the customers a midrange line, which they have been asking for over and over again for many many years.

Re:Why?

[TheRaven64]

Because Apple for years have been ignoring a very BIG market for Macs: Those that want a midrange Apple desktop

Asserting it, even in capitals, does not make it true. Desktops, of any kind, now make up around 40% of total computer sales. Laptop sales passed desktops for Macs a few years back, and for the industry as a whole over a year ago. The only people who want a midrange desktop, as opposed to something like a Mac Mini or an iMac, are those that want to be able to upgrade their hardware, but don't want to pay the premium for something like the Mac Pro. Not only is this not a huge market, it is an incredibly unprofitable market to be in, with the lowest margins of any computer market segment.

Re:Why?

[maxume]

Except Microsoft makes about $0.75 of income on every $1 of OS sales that they do. See the client segment here:

http://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar08/10k_fr_dis.html

Apple doesn't break out their revenues and income by product segment, so a direct comparison is difficult; also, they don't publish a fancy Annual report, just a 10-Q for the SEC, which is available here (and probably lots of other places), so no linking to the pertinent section:

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=107357&p=irol-sec

It is probably reasonably fair to compare Microsoft's above operating income for client sales to Apple's overall operating margin of about 20%:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AAPL

The big difference is that Microsoft is selling OEM's licenses to Windows, with essentially no production costs (just development costs) and Apple has to buy all the parts for those computers from somebody, with costs that comprise a substantial portion of the eventual revenue that they bring in.

It's possible that computer hardware sales are more lucrative than other Apple products, but I doubt that it is a factor of 2 or whatever. So Microsoft could halve the revenue they are bringing in for OS sales and still probably be making more income on those revenues than Apple makes.

I think the biggest reason Apple doesn't want to license OS X for sale is that they would lose control over the experience ("It just works" is a big marketing point for them). Next in line is that they have significant hardware operations that would face lower margin competitors, likely eroding their revenues.

Re:Why?

[mrsteveman1]

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the situation you just described happens to real macs too. Every time they release a new machine or refresh one of the lines, something doesn't work. Lines across the screen, video chips that separate from the mainboard, random freezes, etc.

They haven't been able to make a legitimate "we build the whole thing so it's stable" argument in a long time, if they ever could.

Re:Why?

[ToasterMonkey]

Um, in case Apple has confused you, a Mac is made of commodity hardware. Other then perhaps EFI, nothing about the computer is a Mac, a Mac is simply a configuration of a PC installed with OS X by default.

Please mod this garbage down. You can easily say pre-Intel Macs were made of commodity hardware also, and the argument would just boil down to "is a PowerPC processor a commodity?" What the hell does that matter? That is the among the LAST parts anyone would be considering when talking of consumer level OS/hardware integration. We all know Apple doesn't manufacture hard drives, DIMMs, and processors. Thanks for the info anyway.

Sure, OS X was designed with only one or two configurations for a Mac but with third party drivers its possible to extend it to almost any modern configuration in existence. There is nothing special about a Mac.

So, how would you describe your level of experience with Apple hardware? Or are you repeating what you've learned on /.? Please, for the love of GOD, don't repeat stuff you heard on /., ON /., and feel good about your +5 informative. There is so much misinformation here, it's retarded.

Before anyone starts, I'm not a fucking fanboy. There is a LOT to hardware/software integration other than "has drivers", and that goes for all PC's, electronics, etc. Maybe that's the Linux definition of 'integration', 'works at some level'. Ohhh, no I didn't. Yes I did.

Why Apple won't tolerate Quo

[TechForensics]

I know Apple hardware is supposed to be of high quality, and it is often argued that buying a similar-quality PC would cost as much as a Mac. But I still believe there is enough excess profit to Apple for a clone maker to offer the same quality for less money. This is probably the reason Apple will not see Quo just as a manufacturer who will help popularize their OS.

Interesting. Cheap knockoffs sully the brand, but excellent ones cannibalize sales. There may be no hope for a would-be Mac clone maker without enough capital allocated to legal defense.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo

[wstrucke]

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.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo

[Decameron81]

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.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo

[mr_matticus]

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.

Vaporware?

[slarrg]

Basically, they're launching a retail store on Monday and don't know what configurations and prices will be for offer.

"I don't think anyone wins in that environment"

[ubrgeek]

The same is true of the environment on Mars, but you're not going to change it. People complain that the only way to get supported access to an Apple OS is on Apple hardware is to be locked into Apple. The only way to get supported access to an Apple OS on non-Apple hardware will be to be locked into these third-party vendors. The theoretical solution - and best for the consumer - is for Apple to make it easier to install OS X (or whatever) on hardware they don't control. A show of hands for those who expect that to happen anytime soon? Didn't exactly get a breeze going from all of those hands flying up, did we?

A "company"?

[hwyhobo]

Has anyone even looked at Quo Computer website? Its entire content consists of a "maito" link. They don't even have their own domain in the link, instead mail goes to "rush" at "izdigital.com". A check shows registrant as:

Registrant:
This Domain is expired
Please renew at
www.domaincontender.com
New Orleans, LA 70130
US
(504) 274-4800

Fascinating. Let's go to www.izdigital.com:

Index of /
[ICO] Name Last modified Size Description
[TXT] geforce.html 08-Mar-2009 12:43 462

This is one classy website.

Seriously, folks. This passes for news now on the Internet media? A fly-by-night announces they will dethrone Apple, but so far they haven't yet figured out how to build a website or handle email. Right.

Re:That article is from 2005...

[sandbenders]

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.

Re:That article is from 2005...

[davester666]

How dare you present a reasonable argument.

Sir, this is Slashdot, where you must use colloquialisms and willful blindness to advocate an extreme point of view.

You must surrender your current login/ID and reapply for a new one within 24 hours or CowboyNeal will be making a house call.

Re:You know this is going to end badly

[oDDmON oUT]

"Apple does not want Mac Clones because last time they allowed Mac Clones they cut into Apple's own sales."

I'm not entirely sure that that's entirely true.

One of Apple's primary sales point is it's commitment to the total user experience, and the best way they can ensure it will be as positive as possible is to retain ironclad control over the hardware, so as to tightly tie the software and drivers to it.

As someone who was asked to demo one of the Power Computing clones in the 90s I can say categorically that at that time the clone maker product was inferior to a comparable Apple manufactured machine. It crashed more frequently, locked up and was less responsive. Whether it was poor components, or in-house drivers, the Power Computing unit was *not* a Mac.

So, while there may be some validity that Apple doesn't want to lose the tangible sales, I would suspect that it's more important to the company that the intangible value of the user experience that they've spent so long perfecting isn't diluted by allowing another company to manufacture hardware, install the OS and market it, in anyway, shape or form, as a "Mac".