[mdawson]

Quote

derekc wrote:

>

Quote

And even when you actually compare Apples to Apples regarding the hardware, tromboner messed up by doing the usual bonehead move of only looking at the shelf price. If you don't consider the Cost Of Ownership (COO) and Return On Investment (ROI) you could be shooting yourself in the head. In the case of computers, there are thousands of IT dweebs with holes in their craniums for buying 'cheap' Windows PCs then finding there is an order of magnitude (10x) more cost in time and money to support them than an equivalent number of Macs.

So true.

In 1997 GISTICS wrote a tech brief (1) about the return on investment of the Mac and Wintel Pc platforms. I just spent the past 10+ minutes digging through my basement to find my hard copy because it is not available on the Web anymore?well, at least I can no longer find it online; it used to be a free download. In the overview GISTICS states that their study is:

Quote

Based on research of 30,226 media professionals and more than 10,000 media-producing firms, this technical briefing examines all major factors related to the ways in which desktop computing platforms affect the productivity of creative professionals.

Under the main points GISTICS states the following:

Quote

? Of 3,762,922 creative professionals who use digital media in the North American Media Producer Industry, 49.8 percent use Macintosh platforms and 37.6 percent use Windows (all versions) as their primary system. ? Of the top 10 percent of income earners (Best Practice group), 63 percent use Macintosh, 20 percent use Windows platforms, and 17 percent use either UNIX work stations or OS2 platform. ? Due to a more efficient computing environment (i.e., integrated hardware and software platform, system resources optimized for media-rich processing, and third-party software), the Macintosh user gains per year an average of 234 more prime time authoring and composition hours than a Windows user. ? In a fully accounted 36-month cost-of-ownership analysis of a system purchase, a Macintosh user save $2,211 more than a Windows user. ? The PowerPC Macintosh user, on average, generates 7.14 times ROI over three years. Windows NT users achieve 2.02 times ROI in the same period.

Mind you, this report was published in the summer of 1997 when Apple was facing its darkest days.

Lastly, to sum up their key findings GISTICS stated:

Quote

Detailed ROI analysis reveals that a Macintosh-using creative professional produces $26,441 more annual revenue and $14,488 more net profit than a Windows user of comparable skill engaged in similar work. This revenue differential enables a PowerPC Macintosh-based studio to achieve payback on a new platform in 4.59 months. In stark contrast, a Windows NT-based firm requires 12.58 months to recoup its investment?eight months longer. Clearly, for profit-oriented firms, deployment of Macintosh technology constitutes a fiduciary responsibility. (emphasis added)

Again, this was a time when the price gap between a Mac and a (genuinely) comparable Wintel PC was quite real and large. Apple has since closed, and in many instances reversed, the price gap so one has to wonder how much better the ROI for Macs is now compared to 11 years ago.

1. Information quoted from ?Return on Investment: Fact-based assessment for technology deployment? Volume II, Issue 1, Number 1, Revision 4.8 GISTICS Executive Education Knowledge-Based Publication Series, Summer 1997.

[robgb]

+And every reliable
source on the matter completely contrasts that assessment and like
every one else that posts this untruth, you demonstrate that you either
have no real understanding of technology and business models or you
choose to intentionally spread FUD.+

You're absolutely wrong about this. Do a Google search on Apple's EULA (or EULA's in general) and you'll find that many legal experts (not just Psystar's lawyers) say that EULA's in general are legally specious based on the simple fact that while they preport to be an "agreement," no agreement has been made, since the EULA is not available until the software has been opened and actual agreement has been made. There is no verbal or written contract to enforce this imagined agreement.

But whether or not you accept that -- and there are certainly legal experts who don't -- there are licensing experts who say that parts of Apple's EULA are legally unenforcable. But then I suppose they could be wrong and it's up to the courts to decide.



+Dell is well-known for
their bargain basement pricing at every PC market tier, yet as a mass
producer of PCs, not even Dell can offer a system equivalent to any
given Mac Pro without it costing upwards of twice as much if not more.
Now we are supposed to believe that you as an individual magically
defied the underlying principles of basic economics and built a PC that
bests a Mac Pro for substantially less than 25 percent of a Mac Pro’s
cost.+

I'm sorry, did I ever mention Dell? No. I said, I've built a number of computers MYSELF and I can tell you, without hesitation, that I would not have to spend anywhere near what Apple charges for a Mac Pro. If you want to go through the parts and prices one by one, I'll be happy to do that privately.

+Because unlike the
companies that sell Windows and the various Linux distros, Apple is not
a software company and this matter has been covered to death by people
in this thread and elsewhere that actually understand the concept of a
business model. So keep reading the following until it sinks in, as
people like you seem to conveniently choose to ignore this fact regardless of how many times it is brought up:+

Wrong again. Apple IS a software company. Yes, their major focus is hardware, but they also sell their operating system, they sell iLife and iWorks and Logic and other software. The fact that they also sell hardware does not negate the fact that they are in the software selling business. If Windows were to start selling iPod clones or gaming machines would that make them still a software company? If YOU understood the concept of a business model, you'd realize that they indeed change. Apple's original business model was to sell computers -- but what do they make most of their money on now? iPods. Gee, what happened to their original business model?

+The Psystar needs to be put out of business because no business is entitled to sell another company’s brand
without their explicit consent. The Macintosh brand, computers that run
the Mac OS, is wholly owned by Apple, period. Psystar has no more a
right to sell the Mac brand, whether they call it that or not, than
General Mills has to market Pop Tarts.+

This is the biggest falsehood of all. Psystar builds computers, period. And from what I can tell, they build computers that will take ANY of the current operating systems out there. They don't advertise themselves as Macs. They don't pretend to be Macs. Just looking at a photo of one makes it pretty apparent that they aren't Macs. So they are in no way selling another company's BRAND. They are selling computers that accomodate whatever operating system the user chooses.

+And once again let us
bring up the Mac mini, because of course Apple intended for that system
to be a replacement for a tower. Like all trolls, your reference to the
Mac mini simply shows that you are reaching for straws to make your
already baseless case.+

If you read the post, rather than call me a troll, you might realize that the reason I brought up the Mac mini was to make the point that even though they are the least expensive Mac, they're still more expensive and not nearly as powerful as a PC. I never suggested that Apple expected minis to be a replacement for a tower, or even an iMac. They're obviously a lower cost "introductory" version designed to accommodate people who can't afford the big boys.

+So if a person buys a
Scion for $13,000 and enjoys the quality and reliability for which the
Toyota brands are known they are going purchase a $50,000 Lexus when
they are ready for their next car?+

Maybe not a 50k Lexus, but they certainly might buy a 25k Camry next time. People tend to trade up. It's human nature -- and far from ridiculous.

Apple products are not popular just because of their looks.

No, not JUST because of their looks, but that's certainly a huge draw. Do you know how many people I've run across over the years who were drawn to Macs because they look cool? But the bottom line is this. Macs are just another computer. They are no better or worse than PCs. Like I said, I own both. I love them both. They do different things for me. There may have been a time when Macs were better than PCs, but now that they're running on Intel, they're absolutely NO DIFFERENT than a typical PC. Which means it's ONLY THE OPERATING SYSTEM (along with the design) that makes them any different. Which, to my mind, makes them a software company. And we should be allowed to run that software on any PC we choose to purchase.

[robgb]

+I have to ask you one
question in response to this statement: How reliable by comparison are
your three machines? How much time do you spend in everyday maintenance
on each machine that takes you away from your productivity?+

I wish I had time to respond to more, but I just did a lengthy response to another post. As for reliability? I find the Mac no more reliable than a PC. I thought I would, but have found that Macs freeze and have to be shut down just as often as my PCs. I wish I could say they're more reliable, but, in my case at least, this doesn't seem to be true.

One thing I will say, however, is that OSX is superior to Vista. I can't stand Vista. But I'll put OSX up against XP anytime, except when it comes to memory allocation.

Like I said, I love them all. I see no reason to discriminate against one or the other.

[bmathers]

OK, These replies are obviously coming from long time MAC lovers, so I thought I might play devils advocate here.

I too own a few MACs (and I love them), so don't bash me too hard for this post ;)

These Pystar guys would have never done this if Apple hadn't tried to run them out of town on rails for offering the public a comparable computer for less then them. The plain truth is that OSX is based on an "Open" source OS (Net BSD), which is free. I don't mind paying Apple for all the great things that they have written for it to make it awesome. I DO mind however, paying WAY more for the hardware that they force you to buy with it (I can buy the hardware that's in a MAC mini for less then 500 bucks). When you pay for an OS lisences, you ought to be able to put it on any hardware you choose.

I don't want to buy a Psystar, but I would love it if Apple would let me buy my own hardware. Right now you can't (not without being a mad scientist). Maybe this is a step in that direction.

[wardoggie]

Actually, I think the responses are evenly split between long-time mac owners who remember the bad old days of clones and weekly "when is Sony/Sun Microsystems/SGI going to buy Apple?" rumblings and switchers who are used to doing things the Windows way (buy components and the OS and have at it) and want Apple to do things that way.
But I won't bash you too hard ;)

So, are you suggesting that "these Psystar guys" never would have filed a ridiculous (IMO) countersuit if Apple hadn't tried to stop them from violating licensing agreements and modifying Apple's intellectual property (OS X) without Apple's permission? If so, then I agree.

The plain truth is that Psystar could've started with the open source OS foundation and built a GUI and extensions to make their systems functionally similar to OS X, but they didn't. They hacked OS X (as many hobbyists do) and tried to make money that way (as many hobbyists DON'T). What they're doing and what hobbyists do both violate licensing agreements. The difference is one group chooses to fly above Apple's legal radar and the other keeps decidedly below Apple's legal radar.

Personally, I think Apple makes and sells systems, and that breaking the system down to hardware and software is where all other arguments break down. But whether you think Apple is hardware company that just makes software to sell its hardware or is a software company that also makes hardware, one thing is undeniable; Apple understands branding and allowing an unauthorized company to seize control of its brand by selling systems that may or may not be functionally similar to its hardware and software would be fatal. Apple might tolerate hobbyists building hackintoshes for themselves (and possibly a few friends), but Psystar offering them for sale on a widespread basis? That's a paddlin'!

As for whether or not a company's products constitute a monopoly, well my gut tells me it doesn't. But I think the legal system is a crap-shoot on matters like this, so who knows how this will end?
Message was edited by: wardoggie to correct errors caused by typing with a broken hand :)

[DisabledTrucker]

I get a real kick out of your morons bashing Psystar for fighting a monopoly and trying to explain their complaint as best they can, (okay so they have an idiot for an attorney in the wording choices he used). Apple DOES have a monopoly on the Mac Operating system, they also have a monopoly on their computers as well. You can't just buy an iMac with Winblows or *unix on it and you can't just buy a Dell with Mac OS. The way they are going about it is monopolistic in that the hardware is tied to the software and visa versa. As I have said before, I forsee Apple losing this fight at least on the standpoint of their operating system staying ONLY tied to their hardware. This could go either way though, Apple could either quit producing their operating system, (highly likely), or Apple could switch their hardware again so their operating system will not work on other hardware and windows will again only work in virtual space, (not as likely but, plausible.) Either way, this is most likely the end of Psystar at least as we know it today, if they win the likes of Dell are likely to grab them up, if they lose Apple most likely will get them.

[shdwsclan]

When apple was in the PowerPC domain, one could argue that apple was in an anti trust suit but mac os would run true P



The pc platform is OPEN.



By using the intel architecture, apple has opened itself up to several lawsuits

[robgb]

Apple sells SYSTEMS, yes. But they also sell OSX separately. You do not have to own a system to buy the software. Only to run it. And that's where Apple has problems.

[shdwsclan]

Unlike you, I am not a fanboy and see through apple's fan boys.



When apple was in the PowerPC domain, one could argue that apple was in an anti trust suit but mac os would run true on ALL PPC platforms. The PPC platform was jointly developed by Apple, Motorola, and IBM and apple's operating system would theoretically run on all three if they chose to produce machines. IBM did produce PPC machines a lot more powerful than the processors that were given to apple machines, but they were significantly more expensive.

Try like $5000 for a workstation. In that sense, even apple most expensive machine, such as the G4 cube was still $2k less than the entry level IBM PPC workstation.

The pc platform is OPEN, unfortunately.

It was made by IBM, but anyone who conforms to the architecture can freely develope hardware.

Those parties are Intel, VIA, AMD,Transmeta....etc...



By using the pc architecture, especially from intel, apple has opened itself to a barage of lawsuits that it will loose.



The TPM device can only be used in scurity purposes. It cannot, for example, as in Apple's case, be used authenticate a system for the specific use of making sure that Apple operating systems run only on Apple hardware.

The use of the TPM device in such a way constitutes clearly in anti-trust monopoly behaviour known as tying hardware to sotware.

If apple had not used this, then apple would NOT be guilty of tying, but they are guilty, for this ONE, SINGLE, FACT.



Pystar cannot use the Quartz defense, because Apple software will run on non-quartz hardware.

[shdwsclan]

You do not make any sense.



The TPM device used in computers is to only verify platform security and not to be used to prevent an operating system from running when there is no security problem.



If renalt is using an international standard, then, they, for example could not make they could not add a non-fuctional component that will prevent the car from starting when installing it on a foreign car in any way possible.



The TPM device is clearly made to do that. To stop Apple from running on other IA systems.



In the powerpc domain, apply would run on ALL ppc machines and they didnt need a TPM device because they were selling the CHEAPEST ppc workstation.

[Wondercow]

DisabledTrucker said:

>Apple DOES have a monopoly on the Mac Operating system, they also have a monopoly on their computers as well.
1) Legally they don't, rationally they don't, logically they don't.

2) If you choose to forgo the preceding then you must also admit that Ikea has a monopoly of Ikea furniture, Burger King has a monopoly on Burger King food, Ford has a monopoly on Ford automobiles, Kraft has a monopoly on Kraft foods, Sony has a monopoly on Sony products. Every company in the world is therefore a monopoly. This is a problem why?

>The way they are going about it is monopolistic in that the hardware is tied to the software and visa versa.
Tying the software to the hardware is not illegal nor "abusing monopoly power". There are many, many products that are proprietary and/or tied. I can buy Super Mario Galaxy but I'll also need to buy a Wii to run it. Do you support lawsuits against Nintendo to force them to "open the platform"?

>This could go either way though, Apple could either quit producing their operating system, (highly likely)
You think it's "highly likely" that Apple would stop making the Mac OS?! If everything else you've said wasn't proof enough that you're devoid of any knowledge about this topic, then this statement is a definite beacon--drawing attention to your ineptitude in all things Apple and law.

[mdawson]

We are pretty much on the same page throughout all of this Wondercow . You are correct, that in the strictest sense, Apple have never sold the Mac OS to anyone; that is, no OEM has ever permitted to simply buy an off-the-shelf copy of the Mac OS then sell Mac OS-based system circumventing the OEM licensing procedure.

[shdwsclan]

Technically, because of the hardware limintation of the TPM device, it can be argued that apple is engaging in tying, and only using the TPM to violate anti-trust laws.



In the powerpc domain, apple's system would run on any PPC machine, but apple also had the cheapest PPC machines....IBM's started at around $5k

[Wondercow]

shdwsclan said:

>. . . Snip. . .

Please join us back in reality; I'm sure there are people here who miss you.