[dfs]

God knows I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that over the years the Feds have been exceedingly tolerant Apple's business practices, maybe because they have regarded Apple primarily as a useful counterweight to Microsoft. Two examples of what I mean: 1.) until the law was changed about eighteen months ago, Apple's largely successful attempts to control the retail as well as wholesale prices of its products was entirely illegal, but Apple was given a free pass. 2.) the possibly monopolistic implications of the OSX EULA agreement have never been challenged and tested in a court of law. But as the Mac's market shared continues to grow, so that it can no longer be written off as a niche product, one suspects that sooner or later this situation will change.

[n8mac]

Why would you buy a computer with a pentium D (netburst) and no OS for $620 when you can get a mini with core2 duo and Leopard for $599? Plus, if the mini does continue, it will soon be updated anyway. Competition indeed.

While Psystar will probably go down in flames, this company (assuming it can sell) might stick around as long as they don't mess with Apples' OS. I don't recall Apple ever going after an individual for breaking the EULA, and the same thing is continuing here.

Assuming this trend continues, so does the grin on Intel execs. On the flip side AMD isn't too happy. But best of all, more and more computers are selling without Windows, and that just gives me a bit of a grin too.

[heisetax]

As your summary result is about this Mac Clone item is that this is anti Windows not anti Mac. It is the need of many computer people to choose their own OS & hardware. With the change of the OS from only working with PPC computers to also including the Intel processors comes the ability to have hardware openly sold that will support the Mac OS.

All we reallly need is a group that can give us a central repository of lists of Mac OS compatable hardware & how to make the necessary changes to our own copy of OS X to allow it to boot this hardware. Many have tghe skills to do this on their own. Others just want to do it using more canned items. That is why these Clone companies have a market.

This market is made up of those that want a no-Apple solution to running OS X. But it is also made up of those that want Apple products that are in areas that Apple does not currently cover. Things like a mini tower with single processors, PCI-X/PCI express slots & room for a couple of drives & a choice of video cards & displays, both Apple & other manufactures.The Mac Mini has no slots, the iMac has no slots & an included display as does the Intel MacAir & Intl MacBook. The Intel MacBook Pro has a slot so cards can be aded for a high price. The Intel Mac Pro like I have is an overkill for many. Some say that you can pick up a Apple Mac cheaper than these Clones.But they do not cover the items that many want & should be able to have at these price points.

Even though most of my Macs are Apple built, I plan to try to build a Mac Clone. This is not because I can not affprd an Apple Mac, but because that internal drive to build my own computer. I could easily do that & run Windows or Linux. But my choice of OSes is just like yours, Mac OS X, followed by Mac OS 9, followed by Mac OS 8, followed by Mac OS 7, followed by Mac OS 6 & then probably Linux & other Unix systems, then Other versions of the Mac OS, then CP/M then last on the list Windows.

We need more open Clone coverage. This includes the Homebrew as well as the commercial ones.

Bill the TaxMan

[Schneb]

Jason Snell said:

It's because OS X has specific hardware requirements, as Rob Griffiths wrote about in his Frankenmac article. So these are systems designed to be compatible with OS X's hardware requirements.

Seems to me that Apple would not have a legal foothold to sue here. Just because your PC box has the "same specs and requirements" does not make a EULA violation. Apple could not come in to my house and sue me because my box is "up to spec" to run Leopard.
Where they might get in trouble is the "secret setup assistant" software included. Of course, if they make it an anonymous download utility, well----------

The fact is, this is the writing on the wall for Apple. If they do not come out with a moderately priced half-height, expandable, prosumer model, people will invest their hardware money elsewhere.

[Tom_Diola]

Clones always have their issues - getting tech support etc.

Apple on the other hand has stores you can go to with your machine and a whole company making sure the updates and

newer OS's work pretty much out of the box.

These clone companies using the Apple OS without getting Apples permission are doomed. . .

[dfs]

Maybe the real danger to Apple is not the real or implied threat of these dubios boxes put out by more or less fly-by-night outfits (who's going to buy a computer from a company when it's very doubtful that the company will be around a few months from now?) The real danger may be that somebody will cobble together a piece of software, an emulator or virtual environment or whatever you want to call it, that will allow OSX to run on something like a Dell or HP. Yes, I know that OSX is hardware-specific, but suppose some bright programmer figures out a workaround? Apple's lawyers would try like hell to put a stop to it, but this piece of software might be so compelling that it would be a genie that couldn't be put back in the bottle.

[Archiform_3D]

These guys look like they are actually outside of the USA altogether, which probably makes them feel less concerned about Apple taking them to court. It could just be a big scam brewing too.

I wouldnt be placing any orders right now - Apple's stuff may be more expensive but it the best and certainly legal.

Steve Bell
Archiform 3D Animation

[aquaadverse]

+Sheesh! I mean, I
understand the frustration over the perceived gap in Apple's product
line... but the bottom line is that another copy-cat fly-by-night
company isn't genuinely going to solve that problem, no matter how you
look at it.+

It's not a perceived gap, it's a real one. Apple made a good business decision when they made a wide difference between the Mini and the next model. It has nothing to do with Jobs caring about foisting crap on the users, it's because it would impact margins negatively. It was and is wildly successful.Offering a weak low end product insufficent to do the job and one that is more than you need really leaves one choice.

Apple is and will continue to be a niche market company. That's not a knock in any way. You have folks buying Macs now that haven't had one before, who know something in that price point isn't necessarily junk. The hackintosh review in this magazine made fun of the boot screen and jumble of cables as not "the Mac experience", then once the OSX86 was running admitted it was like using an iMac.

[zarmanto]

aquaadverse said:

It's not a perceived gap, it's a real one. Apple made a good business decision when they made a wide difference between the Mini and the next model.

Actually, I'd have to say that we agree, by-and-large. I think you're more quibbling with semantics then anything else... I call it a "perceived gap" because it is my view that any given user's needs can be met with Apple's existing product line; as you alluded, a machine which costs just a wee bit more then what the consumer would prefer to spend on their next machine will still fulfill their requirements.

But on the flip-side of the same argument, I would suggest that many people probably have unrealistic expectations, which more fall into the category of desires than needs; I used to be one of those people myself, until I purchased my current iMac. The three Macs prior to this iMac had all been towers; at the time, I felt that Apple's lesser offerings wouldn't have been good enough to meet my needs -- but in retrospect, I now feel that I never really took full advantage of the "expandability" of those systems. With the iMac, this type of "buyers remorse" hasn't hit me at all, and it still meets my needs quite well, almost two years after the initial purchase.

So ultimately, everything is a simply matter of perspective...

[heisetax]

There is a reason for slots in a computer. For some it is the ability to add useful to them features like serial SCSCI or additional serial ATA ports. Maybe they neeed to use 4 6 or 8 displays plus other needs. Then there are people that have a computer that meets most of their current needs, but it needs something like USB2 or FW800. My earlier PowerBooks fall into that category. Also y PowerMac with dual 1.25 GHz processors still can handle everything that we need here. But remember Apple did their best not to add USB2 or FW800 to these machines. With very few FW scanners, that leaves only USB1 to handle those chores.

That PowerMac is put in plaes that does not have an easy wired ethernet connection. It now has 802.11n network connection, much better than the 802.11b that was available from Apple. FW80 & USB 2 added. A dual link ATI display card has been added to allow use of an Apple 30" or competing display. Other people will have similiar or other needs to make their Mac last for a longer time. With the speed of the modern processor, a computer purchase can easily be put off with these kind of expansion abilities.

Some people do not want to replace a good display just because the computer does not have the ability to handle their current needs. Even though the Power Book or now the Intel MacBook Pro has an expansion slot, like all portables the screen is built-in & must be replaced just like in the iMac.

The Mac Mini takes partial care of the having to replace the display when the basic computer is changed. But it does not have the ability to handle most hardware upgrades. With the way Apple treats the Mac Mini it seems to be a place to use old processors that did not sell in previous laptops or iMacs. What many people wanted & needed is a lower priced lower ended Mac like the Mac Mini only with some expansion slots for current or future use.

As with everything els no 2 people have the same needs, wants & perceived wants or needs. Apple is missing out with these people or just restricting them to what Apple wants them to need. Also some people that want a Clone just like to mess around with their hardware. I know that my daughtor's husband has a Linux box that he built from parts. These things more have to do with chice & individual needs than many times with price.

To someone that is easily kept happy by Apple's limited model items, they easily understand the need for a real Mac Clone. Now with the Intel processor in the Mac, these do not have to be authorized Mac Clones. Even though Apple does not manufacture any hardware anymore (other than a few Intel Mac Pros are assembled in California) they still think of themselves as a hardware manufacture, rather than a software company. Some of this hardware that they sell may not evenbeen Apple designed. My intel Mac Pro has all of the signs of having an Apple modified Intel CPU board with FW800 added.

With Intel Mac Clones not being openly authorized by Apple, they will only have a limited ability to operate. I would rather Apple spends their resources on making their product better than just holding back the Mac capable arena. As with software a little competition with hardware can make the Mac or other computer better. Legal fees are just methods of adding wealth to lawyers, not to the common computer user.

Don't assume that you have all of the needs of the average Mac computer user. You have your needs which many be similiar with many other 's needs, but they are still yours. Also sometimes you just want to purchase your wants. How else could Apple & other computer companies get some to upgrade their computer, iPod or iPhone after just of few months of use.

Bill the TaxMan

[dfs]

In general, Apple is very smart to market such a limited number of Mac models. Remember the Bad Old Days before Steve came back, when they were marketing so many that nobody could keep them straight? This had a lot of bad effects: for inst., if public interest in one model took off, they had so many of their production lines tied up with other models that they couldn't meet the demand for the popular one. But there's one important argument for a headless mini-tower. Take my case as an example. I already have a very nice 23" Cinema Display. Now suppose I want to buy a new Mac. What can I do? Walk away from the display and buy an iMac? No thanks, why pay for something I already have and therefore don't want? Run my current display as a second monitor off the iMac? Nope, the iMac doesn't come with a video port to let me do that. So I'm faced with a choice between a Mini, way too slow and underpowered for my needs, and a Mac Pro, way more powerful than what I need and more expensive than I want to pay. No, what I want is a headless Mac with approx.the same computing power as a high-end iMac, but I can't have one. It's almost like Apple is punishing me for having bought the Cinema Display. Anybody else in the same position?

[heisetax]

I don't really want to see so many duplicate models as Apple once had. Butl they need to fill out their line. As you & so many others have mentioned, where is the min tower Mac with a few slots PCI express slots future proof your computer as well as to allow more changes than is allowed with the Mac Minin or the iMac. There's probably more holes in the product line, but this is the biggest.

I'd like to see a Mac tower that had 1 or 2 of the older PCI slots as well as at least 4 & preferably 6 PCI express slots. Things like built-in memory card readers in towers as well as in a laptop.

The card readers in a laptop brings up something that is missing. I make my income from using the numeric keypad. When I use y PowerBook or Intel MacBook Pro I have to carry a separate numeric keypad or a keyboard. With the wired keyboards I can use old or new Apple or one of the great 3rd party models. But these laptops have bluetooth built in so why not cordless? Apple's older white plastic slow action keyboard has a bluetooth model which came with my Intel Mac Pro. Numeric keypad, but slow action. Then comes the first Apple keyboard that I actually like, & I've had Macs since the first Mac 128, the new aluminum keyboard. But then when we see the bluetooth model it is just a copy of the already lacking laptop keyboard. This problem can be solved in a combination of the following 2 methods. Make a bluetooth model of the full extended aluminum keyboard. Thet would work for Intel MacBook & Intel MacBook Pro User's alike. But for the 17" model User's, Apple could be like HP & other Windows laptop manufacturers & have a built-in numeric keypad. With the 1" thick Intel Mac Pro 17" model there is not room without deleting the speakers. Deleting the speakers is okwith me. Speakers just cause customer unhappiness if they hear s sound when you are inputing data Apple could make a thick model to allow for these additions. But they have, at least in their eyes, with only a 1" thick model. With the advent of the Intel MacBook Air model, the possibility of a thicker model has been changed fromprobably never to never. And to think HP even has a 20-21" model that contain 2 2.5" hard drives & a true millions of color displlay, unlike all others, Apple included, models.

We need a few more models that adds needed useful missing features. My list is what I'd like to see. Your list may be empty or be much larger than mine. It may inlude some, all or none of the items I'd like to see Apple make. Some of this will be done by the unauthorize Mac Clone market that will continue to surface. Some will just be left undown.

Bill the TaxMan

[zarmanto]

heisetax said:

( ...far too much to quote, much less actually respond to... )

Rant much, TaxMan? I'm not going to spend the next two hours doing a point-by-point, because you're obviously very rigid in your opinions. Rather, I will simply refer you to the very last line of my previous post: "So ultimately, everything is simply a matter of perspective..."

( For instance... from my perspective, a longer post does not necessarily make a better argument... but you appear to believe otherwise. ;) )

[zarmanto]

dfs said:

Run my current display as a second monitor off the iMac? Nope, the iMac doesn't come with a video port to let me do that.

Actually, there is a mini-DVI port on the iMac, much like the ports on Apple's laptops; you can indeed plug a 23" Cinema Display into an iMac by purchasing the appropriate adapter dongle. (Noting that this is obviously not the solution that you really want... but your post made it appear that you might not know about that port.)