[mdawson]

Quote

Grapho wrote:

>

Quote

Yet, people on the other side of the Psystar argument seem fixated on the MacPro for no good reason other than it's cost, totally disregarding it's purpose or it's market.

Basically because the people that defend Psystar are cheap. But then, you have been involved in enough discussion on this topic to know that yourself. I am hardly wealthy, but I do not find Macs to be excessively expensive especially given that I know full well what the equivalent of a Mac Pro would have cost 10+ years ago as I mentioned in my original response.

The cheap PC crowd are not interested in performing valid comparisons. They view the Mac Pro, which happens to have PCI-based expansion slots, as every Mac because the bargain basement crap they buy also has such slots as a result of being nothing more than stripped down mid-level systems sold at small profit margins. They could not care less that:
bq. 1. The average home user will never utilize expansion slots; 2. Apple does not and has never produced generic boxes or purchased the key components (e.g., logic boards and cases) off-the-shelf and either stripped them down or beefed them up to serve specific markets; 3. Bargain basement PCs are often not a match for to the average iMac let alone comparable to a Mac Pro, and; 4. Relying on the general ignorance of the public-at-large when it comes to technology makes it easy to pass off impassioned, skewed BS arguments as fact.

[mac_luva]

Hey everyone. What this whole thing boils down to is this: Disgruntled hobbyists/windows users want Apple to license their OS so they can buy REALLY CHEAP hardware loaded w/MacOs X. These are likely the very same people who think Apple sucks. Wow, how conflicted they must feel! They want so badly to use MacOS X, but don't want to pay the price of entry!
I just KNOW Apple has been preparing for this day for YEARS so I'm reasonably confident that they will prevail. I'm sorry, but this means no SUPER CHEAP macs w/equally CHEAP PARTS / TOWERS for said bargain hunters. Oh well, thems the breaks! @ mdawson - keep up the wonderfully intelligent arguments! I enjoy reading your eloquent rebuttals to the poorly conceived arguments of the sour grape tasters! CHEERS!

[mdawson]

Quote

MacFan007 wrote:

>

Quote

Apple has lost me when they decided to make Mac Mini as the low end and nothing else up to MacPro. I do not like iMacs or Apple notebooks because they are so expensive to repair. Lot of iMacs are turning out to be lemons, and expensive to repair. MacPro is a great machine for those that need that kind of power. I do not.

Your first statement here is patently false. Just because you do not like the iMac does not mean that there is nothing between the Mac mini and the Mac Pro. Apple is the only PC OEM that has seen continuous sales growth quarter to quarter for upwards of 5 years now. Of the desktop sales, it is a safe bet that the iMac makes up largest proportion by a wide margin. Obviously, Apple as the only PC OEM that designs computers as a matter of practice got it right in terms of what most home users actually need in a computer. You may feel that you are not in that group, but you are in the minority. Most people think they need a tower, but nothing could be further from the truth.

As to repairs, all Macs are expensive to repair because all Macs have Apple-made logic boards. Dell, Gateway, HP, et al., buy everything pre-fabricated in bulk. Even if they modify pre-fabricated boards, it is still relatively simple for them to buy the same ATX/BTX motherboards you can buy off-the-shelf and replace damaged motherboard in any of their systems. Apple makes their motherboards and unlike the Wintel OEMs, it is highly doubtful that Apple just has surplus motherboards laying about.

Where the iMac and repairs are concerned, define ?lots of iMacs?. If iMacs were so prone to failure, they would be making the news. The PC press is not jumping all over Apple, so obviously any issues with iMacs are realistically no different from hardware failures that occur within any other Mac product line, or for that matter, any given PC line made by any manufacturer. If iMacs were so flawed, even if the Mac press were to remain silent, which is highly unlikely, you can damn sure believe the PC and general tech press would be yelling about such issues from the mountaintops. Numerous complaints on forums hold little to no merit in terms of what is actually occurring relative to units sold.

Quote

MacFan007 wrote:

>

Quote

I recommend Apple's 3 year service contract to people who buy new Apple products. I have been told by some users of Apple service contracts, that, Apple uses numerous excuses not to honor contracts. Blaming problems on the users of their products. By the way there is a problem with mag connector, it is too short and people pull cable to disconnect it whereby they break or puncture cable which causes electrical shorts.

While there have been complaints along the lines you mentioned, it is obviously not the norm. Apple has had the highest ACSI customer satisfaction rating of any PC OEM for several years running. As of this past August Apple has achieved the highest ACSI rating in PC history and leads the runner up by a wide margin. Given that, if Apple were in the habit of producing bad systems and not honoring warranties, what does that say about Dell, Gateway, HP, Sony, et al.? Again, for every complaint you find on the Web about Apple?s products and services there is likely to be many more people that are very happy with their Macs and Apple?s service. The difference is that the only people posting on help forums are those with something to complain about in the first place.

Quote

MacFan007 wrote:

>
It is not true that this machines would cost $ 10,000.00 if they were produced in America. American car manufacturers produce cars of similar quality at similar prices as do foreign manufacturers.

Well as far as your American car manufacturers argument goes, the $25B bailout bill for Ford, GM and Chrysler that passed under the radar a little while ago shows how well those companies are doing compared to their foreign competitors. Secondly on that note, all of those companies have over the border production in order to cut costs. A number of people think they are being ?patriotic? by buying American cars, but ask the auto worker whose job has been outsourced to places like Mexico just how loyal those American companies have been to them.

As to Apple?s prices, inflation adjustments are only available through 2007, so I will use 2007 prices for comparison. The first Power Macs were introduced in 1994 and the low-end Power Mac 6100 started at $1,700 ($2,350 in 2007 dollars). That is nearly twice as much as the entry-level 20-inch iMac and approximately $50 more than the high-end 24-inch iMac available in 2007. On the high-end, the Power Mac 8100 started at $4,250 ($5,875 in 2007 dollars). The following year a pro user would have paid $5,300 ($7,147) for a new Power Mac 9500. That is more than 2-1/2 times the price of the standard Mac Pro. Now tack on the expense of American labor that makes more in a few days than the average Chinese factory worker makes in a month.

Apple has significantly brought down the cost of Macs over the past ten years. American labor commands higher wages and in order to support those wages, the products have to cost more on the market. Just as Grapho stated, people demand cheap and that cannot be accomplished in a nation where unskilled laborers make more than some professionals elsewhere. Hell, when I worked at the local Mopar warehouse as a summer fill-in with a number of other college students, the annual equivalent of the hourly wages we were getting as new hires was no more than $3K shy of what recent graduates in my original major, electrical engineering, could expect; and that is assuming that no overtime was worked. Some of the students working that summer broke $10K in three months and this was back in 1989.

Apple has a number of factors that can make any given Mac justifiably more expensive than an equivalent Wintel PC:
bq. ? custom designed motherboards; ? custom designed cases of molded aluminum?aluminum is significantly more expensive than sheet metal and plastic; ? hardware R&D; ? operating system R&D ? Apple software development; ? etc.
Yet Apple now offers more for the same or less than and equivalent Wintel PC.

It would be wonderful if Apple could have all of their production in the US, but you have made it clear that you are unwilling to pay for a Mac at the current price level. When you demand cheap, then you get to live with the consequences of reducing costs to get you that cheap market price.

[rhemy1]

The question I'd like answered is, what exactly is Apple? A hardware company or a software company? What there market? Can Chevy say that you can only use chevy parts when repairing their cars? Can Microsoft say that you can only install internet explorer on there operating system? I find it strange that a company can really be in two different markets but only aline them with one another. Isn't that what the railroad barons did? I hope psystar wins this case and the judge lets the case occur.

[rhemy1]

The question I'd like answered is, what exactly is Apple? A hardware company or a software company? What there market? Can Chevy say that you can only use chevy parts when repairing their cars? Can Microsoft say that you can only install internet explorer on there operating system? I find it strange that a company can really be in two different markets but only aline them with one another. Isn't that what the railroad barons did? I hope psystar wins this case and the judge lets the case occur. If they dont I guess that means that Microsoft can only allow people to use internet explorer with their software. After all there are actually three markets when it comes to computers. There is internet, hardware, and the operating system.

[mdawson]

Quote

rhemy1 wrote:

>

Quote

The question I'd like answered is, what exactly is Apple? A hardware company or a software company?

Apple is first and foremost a hardware company. Nearly every other project in which Apple is involved is subsidized by hardware sales.

Quote

rhemy1 wrote:

>

Quote

What there market?

Apple does not have a market. They are one of several competing companies in the personal computer market, but they are unique in that they are the only OEM that develops their own operating system.

Quote

rhemy1 wrote:

>
Can Chevy say that you can only use chevy parts when repairing their cars?

No one is talking about parts. Aside from the motherboards and cases, there are no Apple parts. Apple uses the same periphery components as every other PC OEM and Apple in no attempts to dictate what parts anyone opts to use with a Mac. It is Apple?s custom designed computers and operating system that sets them apart from the rest of the personal computer industry.

rhemy1 wrote:
>
Can Microsoft say that you can only install internet explorer on there operating system?

Yes, by not making a version of Internet Explorer for any operating system but their own. Which, by the way, is exactly what Microsoft does.

rhemy1 wrote:
>
I find it strange that a company can really be in two different markets but only aline them with one another. Isn't that what the railroad barons did?

A company can be in as many markets as they choose. Therefore, you either do no know what a market is or, like Psystar, you choose to intentionally misuse the term to support your flawed argument. Apple primarily sells products in three markets: the Mac hardware and software in the personal computer market, the iPod in the portable digital music player market and the iPhone in the cell phone market. Apple has every right to make proprietary software for any product that they sell just as,
bq. Garmin makes system software exclusively for their GPS units; Sony makes system software exclusively for the PlayStation; ATI makes drivers exclusively for their graphics cards etc.
A company cannot engage in collusion with itself so it is impossible for a company to be guilty of anti-trust by simply controlling its brand.

The robber barons of the late-19th and early 20th-century did not simply control their brands. They instead had monopolies in their respective markets and abused those monopolies to retain their monopoly status just as Microsoft did on the x86 platform that Microsoft does not own.

rhemy1 wrote:
>
I hope psystar wins this case and the judge lets the case occur. If they dont I guess that means that Microsoft can only allow people to use internet explorer with their software.

Then you are hoping for the demise of Apple and every company?s right to control their brand. And again, Microsoft already does exactly what you are stating.

rhemy1 wrote:
>
After all there are actually three markets when it comes to computers. There is internet, hardware, and the operating system.

Wrong. Currently, there are four computer hardware markets: personal computer, server and supercomputer; a separate peripherals market also exists. The personal computer market has numerous market segments such as home, professional, business, gaming, etc. The Internet is a network platform, hardware constitutes components sold within a market or platform and an operating system is software designed to support and control hardware within a given platform . The software market includes all software and like any other software, operating systems, which are a part of the system software market segment , support and operate upon specific platforms .

So, once again, you either do no know what a market is or, like Psystar, you choose to intentionally misuse the term to support your flawed argument.

[lwdesign]

"The question I'd like answered is, what exactly is Apple? A hardware company or a software company? What there market? Can Chevy say that you can only use chevy parts when repairing their cars? Can Microsoft say that you can only install internet explorer on there operating system?"
-----------
Unfortunately this is a very ill-considered argument that shows almost non-existent experience with the real business and consumer world. You can use any part in a Mac or a Chevy that will work with these machines. The problem is that the parts in either case need to be specifically and critically manufactured to meet Apple's or Chevy's specifications or they won't work at all. Try throwing a crankshaft from a 1963 Ford into a 1990 Chevy and see what happens. The right make, year and model are vital if you hope to make the engine turn over even once. Chevy recommends that you only use Chevy-certified parts, and you'll kill any warranty if you don't use them. It doesn't mean that you can't use brand X parts.

Same goes for Apple, but there is only a small number of manufacturers who make parts for Macs that follow Apple's specs. The Macintosh is a collection of highly specialized parts designed by Apple to work with OS X. You can't expect to throw just any old part in a Mac and expect it to work. Same goes with any Windows, Unix or Linux capable machine. You have to pay attention to the precise specifications of parts that will work with each machine or you're in trouble.

It is not a flaw that Apple creates the hardware and software for their computers. It's their choice to manufacture whatever they want and sell to whomever they want in the quantities they want. The United States is a free country, thankfully, where companies thrive or die based on the quality and popularity of their goods and services. Apple is a successful company because millions of people like what they make. I don't always agree with what they do (like non-replaceable batteries in iPods, iPhone and MacBook Air) but IT IS APPLE'S RIGHT to make their products exactly as they want to in this free market country.

But seriously, take a look at it. Macs can run OS X, various flavors of Unix and Linux and Windows. Apple even includes Boot Camp so that you can load these other OS's. That's choice man! You want to drive a Mercedes, get used to buying Mercedes parts to keep it running.

Apple doesn't have to conform to what you think is the right way to do business. I'm very pleased that Apple DOES make both the hardware and operating system. It's meant a far better user experience for me as a computer user for the last 18 years. So to put it bluntly, if you want a superior computer system, suck it up and pay a bit more for the Mercedes of computers. If price is your only objection, switch to a PC now! Why put up with all this angst on how Apple is so bad. Heck, Dell will sell you a desktop computer for $299 (I saw this in a catalog just today)--and you can use all kinds of 3rd party parts in it to your heart's content.

[rhemy1]

Okay I have a few problems with your replies.

1). Microsoft does not only allow internet explorer to run on the windows os. Using Apples playbook, that would mean that microsoft could claim to actually be in the business of internet browsing. they only spend billions of dollars on the OS to support their browser, so that is why you can not put any other browser on their operating system. Also as with apples ihone, microsoft believes that there should be no duplicate functionality on their os. Since you can surf the web with internet explorer, consumers dont need firefox or safari. It only serves to cause confusion for the consumer.

2). Apple knows exactly what they are doing. Funny you should say that they are a hardware manufacture, yet there commecials speak more about the software they sell than the actual hardware in the product itself. Apple is playing in everyones sandbox and yet have no direct competition due to them tying there services together across different markets. Mac osx is the real cash cow, not the hardware they sell. So they compete agains t other hardware manufactures unfairly. Apple should not be allowed to leverage mac osx in this way. It was one thing when the hardware was fundamentally different. But now that the hardware is nolonger different. The hardware does not require its own particular os to operate. It can run windows or mac osx. Why do they forcibly tie osx only to their hardware. the company should be split up down its various markets.

3). The Chevy example is relevant. After all chevy can simply say that it is in the business of making and selling car parts. They just also happen to make chevy cars. Just like apple is a hardware manufacture who also happens to make software ofr there hardware. Mac osx is a PART of the hardware, especially when it is tied so strongly to the hardware itself.

4). It's apple's anti-competitive policies that got them in trouble in the EU, when they started selling itunes songs that could only play on ipods.

5). Who is to say that is the end of Apple if they open up the software to run on multiple devices. They opened up itunes and the ipod to windows machines and look what happen. They dominated that industry.

Not only would more people be welcomed into the apple community, but they could also charge more for the operating system. Making up the profits they earn from the hardware. On top of that some people would still buy the hardware because apple makes beautiful items.

I find it funny when people talk about how much better apple hardware is over pcs, but then when people say apple should open its software to pcs, they go berserk talking about how it will be the end of the company.

A free market needs competion to weed out inferior products and services. If the hardware is good then it will survive. Apple has a million more ways to earn a great deal more money without working against free market principles.

[TheUpbeatPenguin]

"Not only would more people be welcomed into the apple community, but they could also charge more for the operating system. Making up the profits they earn from the hardware. On top of that some people would still buy the hardware because apple makes beautiful items."

Incredibly specious argument.

First of all, if OS X ran on any old PC, Apple would suddenly be stuck with a huge support problem. One of the main benefits of OS X is that it is guaranteed to be able to exploit the hardware it runs on to its maximum potential. This is one of the reasons why the operating system is licensed only to be run Apple-branded hardware - for example, if Dell could sell computers with OS X installed, as well as tons of other consumer PC manufacturers, there would be a huge number of different hardware combinations and there would be no way to guarantee that OS X would run at all. This is one of the larger flaws in Windows.

Second, Mac OS X is a largish chunk (in the vicinity of $300 USD if I remember correctly) out of the purchase price of a new Mac. "Retail" copies are, for all intents and purposes, upgrade discs, and are sold for less. Apple assumes that you've already paid for the required hardware and have an OS installed on a Mac already. Even if you don't have OS X installed now, when you got your Mac you did, and to Apple that counts as an upgrade too.

In addition, if OS X suddenly ran on cheap consumer PCs, people would buy it regardless of how it looks. Most computer purchasers are not terribly computer savvy - low price will trump looks and performance. There's also the fact that those cheap PCs running, say, Vista Home Basic will still be cheaper than one running OS X anyway, and again, non-techy people are not usually well-informed and will buy whatever is less expensive nearly one hundred percent of the time. Apple hardware would still probably run OS X better than anything else, and look nice besides. But only those aware of that fact would be buying Apple hardware. This would be bad for Apple as the majority of their revenue comes from the sale of hardware.

There's also the fact that OS X would have to come with basic drivers to run in a basic capacity on generic hardware. Component manufacturers would need to start producing compatible drivers for OS X as well.

"It's apple's anti-competitive policies that got them in trouble in the EU, when they started selling itunes songs that could only play on ipods."

When the iTunes store debuted, the whole fiasco surrounding the original Napster was still fresh in everyone's minds, for one. The "mp3" extension carried a negative connotation at the time. Apple created the AAC format partially to avoid this, as well as in an attempt to make a better format. Sure, it was part of a marketing scheme to make a proprietary format, but there was no way Apple could have known that the iPod would have ever become as popular as it did. In addition, there really was not any other music store to turn to, and in order for it to be legal, Apple had to restrict use of the downloaded music somehow - the mp3 format didn't provide a mechanism to do this, but AAC did. The fact that protected iTunes store downloads are in protected AAC format are a holdover from back then, and the DRM-free tracks are still in AAC format because of the quality advantage over other formats. (I am still surprised at the fact that iTunes does not normally support the OGG format without a plugin, though.)

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing more than once, but expecting a different result each time. Apple already tried licensing OS X to other computer manufacturers and it hurt them pretty badly. Doing the same thing now would be quite literally insane.

Message was edited by: TheUpbeatPenguin

[Grapho]

>Mac osx is the real cash cow, not the hardware they sell.

With this one line, you just indicted that you understand NOTHING about Apple or how they conduct their business. You know their is such things as different business models. Why should you or a judge, or a Psystar lawyer decide what Apple's business model should be like. Only so you can get a cheap Mac clone. In that case, lets dictate how Aston Martin builds their cars because I should be able to get one with out shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars for a car. Lets do it for Lamborghini, Ferrari or Maserati. You name it. Not only that, but lets also make them conform to using Chevy parts while we are at it.

Has it ever occurred to you that Apple makes software to sell hardware. iTunes and the music store are created to sell iPods, the App store is created to sell iPhones and yes, OSX is created to sell Macintosh computers. Do you get it? Even iLife, FCP and any other software is not made to sell software, but to give the Macintosh an augmented value. Avid pulled the plug on QuickTime through some Microsoft coercive investments, Adobe Premier was not very good to compete with Avid, so what did Apple do instead of simply sit idle and watch the Macintosh video market erode with the explosion of internet video looming on the horizon? They made FCP, and guess what the majority of people within this industry are using today. Was their primary motivation to sell video software, not really, they wanted to sell Macs to the video software folks, and apparently it worked, and they not only buy software, but more importantly, hi-end Macs.

The EU case has more to do with DRM imposed by the music industry then Apple attempting to not compete. If your argument had any validity, Apple would not be selling DRM free music from what ever label permit it. If the labels allowed it, this would not be an issue at all.

History as proven how vital hardware sales are to Apple, if you don't know what happened with the Mac clone market back in the 90', you don't have a clue what could happen again. Apple is not Microsoft, why should they have the same business model. Besides, Apple seems to be doing quite well with their current status. They should not be forced to change only so that cheap crappy PC can be allowed to run OSX, so you can buy your cheap crappy PC for $399. Besides, if you do exactly the same thing you did in the past, why should you expect deferent results? Don't you think Apple wants to make money. You presume to know more about business then Apple executive team, yet you can't afford a Mac?

What makes the Mac so spacial is the integration of both software and hardware, this is EXACTLY what does not make Windows so special, and the primary motivation for people like you to decide to dump Windows in favor of OSX.

I agree that a free market needs competition, that is why Windows is being weeded out my OSX and you and other "bargain" shoppers are so interested in getting half of Apple's solution.

When I walk in to Microcenter I am confronted with computer stuff, software, hardware, and as a consumer I have a choice of deferent platforms. THIS IS COMPETITION. Apple competes head to head with Microsoft, it has since Microsoft's inception. The free market is working, and from all indication, it's finally turning in Apple's favor. Why should they change if they are currently selling more Macs then ever.

If their is no more choices for OSs then what we have now, you have Microsoft and their TRUE anticompetitive practices to thank for that. BeOS, OS2 and others could in effect be competing against Windows and OSX, but they withered and died. But don't try to sell me on Apple not competing in the OS arena, because they do and they have. At that, very well apparently, since they are the only commercial OS developer left standing besides Microsoft Windows.

Your argument boils down to not wanting to spend money on a Mac, well then don't get a Mac. Linux might be your best choice.

[rhemy1]

1). I have lots of mac products
2). By cash cow I don't mean profit wise. I mean it is the driving force behind sales
3). Apple doesn't have to support non mac installations.
4). Pystar got mac OSx to work. Apple didn't have to do anything
5). Vista is installed on a variety of pcs at different specs and sometimes it doesn't provide the best user experience. Shouldn't user have a choice.
6). Sorry I hope mac loses and the company is forced to seperate the company along market lines. Yo don't have to be big to anti-competive

[Grapho]

rhemy1 said:

1). I have lots of mac products

Macintosh products, or Apple products?

Quote

2). By cash cow I don't mean profit wise. I mean it is the driving force behind sales

Sure, so why do you think they put so much work and attention to detail, to help Psystar?

Quote

3). Apple doesn't have to support non mac installations.

By law, they do, look it up. If you sell something with a legal license, you have to support it. Right now, you are right, because Psystar does not have a legal license to sell OSX installed on their hardware.

Quote

4). Pystar got mac OSx to work. Apple didn't have to do anything

Psystar didn't get anything to work, the work was already done, so they are not only infringing on Apple but also on the Open Source community that did get it to work in the first place.

Quote

5). Vista is installed on a variety of pcs at different specs and sometimes it doesn't provide the best user experience. Shouldn't user have a choice.

The choice not to have the best user experience?, sure why not, but not with Apple branded OS. Besides this not best user experience niche is already being meat by Microsoft :-)
6). Sorry I hope mac loses and the company is forced to seperate the company along market lines. Yo don't have to be big to anti-competive
You mean Apple loses, their is no such thing as a company called Mac, unless you put a Freddie in front of it, and yet, I don't think they sell computers.

[mdawson]

I find it amazing that the Psystar supporters cannot form a valid argument to save their lives. They also have a penchant for demonstrating that they are not only totally ignorant of anything and everything about Apple, but of personal computer history in general.

Quote

rhemy1 wrote:

>

Quote

Microsoft does not only allow internet explorer to run on the windows os.

If you actually knew anything about Internet Explorer, you would not have posted such a categorically incorrect statement. Microsoft dropped the UNIX version of Internet Explorer at version 5.01. Support for the Classic Mac OS was dropped with version 5.1.7 and for OS X with version 5.2.3. Microsoft cut off all IE development for other operating systems more than 5 years ago.

Quote

rhemy1 wrote:

>

Quote

they only spend billions of dollars on the OS to support their browser, so that is why you can not put any other browser on their operating system.

So it is OK for Microsoft to ban software development for their operating system if the software competes with a Microsoft application, but it is illegal for Apple to enforce the license for their operating system that forbids undermining Apple?s hardware sales by installing OS X on unsupported competing PCs. Wow. That must be a great stash that you are smoking.

First of all, there are several other browsers available for Windows and as nearly all Mac users, unlike Windows users, that do not and cannot live in a vacuum we are well aware of that fact. Microsoft can in no way prevent anyone from developing software for their operating system. Microsoft embedded key components of the browser in the operating system thus illegally using their monopoly to give Internet Explorer an unfair advantage over any competing products. Illegal embedding of code notwithstanding other browsers do and have always existed for Windows.

Apple, unlike Microsoft or any other PC OEM, has wholesale ownership the Macintosh platform. Therefore, Apple has the exclusive right to dictate how the components of the platform operate. Mac users buy and own their purchased Macs. Therefore, Apple is not within their rights to dictate what software is used by someone that buys a Mac, how the buyer conducts business using their Mac or even what operating system the buyer ultimate opts to use, nor does Apple attempt to do so. On the other hand, you can only buy a license the operating system and must therefore use it within the terms of the licensing agreement. Apple does, always has and will for the foreseeable future retain exclusive ownership of the Mac OS.

Quote

rhemy1 wrote:

>
Since you can surf the web with internet explorer, consumers dont need firefox or safari. It only serves to cause confusion for the consumer.

WTF ? So having a choice of browsers is unnecessary because Microsoft develops and embeds it into Windows in an attempt to stifle completion (read: monopoly abuse), but Psystar, you and others like you have the right to force Apple to allow you to use whatever hardware you wish to run an operating system developed exclusively for their hardware? Your iWant? egoism shines here.

rhemy1 wrote:
>
Apple knows exactly what they are doing. Funny you should say that they are a hardware manufacture, yet there commecials speak more about the software they sell than the actual hardware in the product itself.

Once again you demonstrate you utter ignorance of anything Apple. Not a single Apple commercial is and, to the best of my recollection, not a single Apple commercial ever has been about software. Apple has ads to promote the Mac, iPods and the iPhone, period.

rhemy1 wrote:
>
Apple is playing in everyones sandbox and yet have no direct competition due to them tying there services together across different markets.

Apple has competition in every market they participate in. The fact that you do not understand the concept of a market does not change that fact.

rhemy1 wrote:
>
Mac osx is the real cash cow, not the hardware they sell.

As Grapho stated, this one statement demonstrates the grandeur your ignorance. Apple makes next to nothing from the Mac OS. Development of the Mac?s operating system is and has always been subsidized by the sale of Macs because Apple is and has always been a hardware company. Were that not the case, OS X would cost as much as the complete versions of Windows. Actually, the basic fundamentals of price determination would dictate that OS X would cost significantly more than the complete version of Windows due to market share.

rhemy1 wrote:
>
It was one thing when the hardware was fundamentally different. But now that the hardware is nolonger different. The hardware does not require its own particular os to operate. It can run windows or mac osx. Why do they forcibly tie osx only to their hardware.

Firstly, no hardware requires a particular operating system in order to operate. Operating systems are made of operate on certain platforms, hardware is not made to fit an operating system. Microsoft does not make hardware, so they designed an operating system that runs on x86 hardware that meet a certain set of criteria. The Mac does not meet that criteria and that is why you have to have OS X and Boot Camp to facilitate a Windows boot volume in order to run Windows as the primary operating system. OS X was designed to work on Apple hardware and only Apple hardware. Running OS X on any other hardware requires hacking the OS.

Second, your argument that Apple?s hardware is no longer different is specious at best. Running on the same processor does not make a computer the same. If you had actually been involved with and kept up with computer hardware in the 1980s, you would know better than to make such a puerile statement. Apple gets their processors and periphery components from the same suppliers as many Wintel OEMs, but that does not mean that they are making the same product. Macs are now more similar to Wintel PCs, that does not make them the same.

There were hundreds of desktop computers sold in the 1980s running on any of less than 10 different processors. Few of those computers were compatible with one another despite having the exact same CPU. In fact, there were incompatible systems that used the ?same hardware? and were manufactured by the same company. So do spare us the BS about Apple?s hardware being just like any other Wintel PC.

rhemy1 wrote:
>
It's apple's anti-competitive policies that got them in trouble in the EU, when they started selling itunes songs that could only play on ipods.

Wrong again. Apple?s problems in the EU are cases against pricing in the various ITunes Stores throughout Europe and due to DRM, which is imposed by the labels.

rhemy1 wrote:
>
Who is to say that is the end of Apple if they open up the software to run on multiple devices. They opened up itunes and the ipod to windows machines and look what happen. They dominated that industry.

Oh I do not know, how about those of us that were paying attention 10+ years ago as Apple was being eroded by the Mac clone market. By bringing up the iPod and iTunes, you again demonstrate that you cannot form a proficient argument. The iPod is nothing like a Mac because iPod sales are distinctly separate from the Mac sales. What computer you use an iPod with has no bearing on Apple?s bottom line for portable digital music player market, because you still buy the profit earning Apple product: the iPod. iTunes is free, so allowing it to be dual-platform affects nothing beyond providing cross-platform support for their non-Mac product.

The Mac OS exists to run the Mac not to be sold on the open market to run on any piece of crap PC you opt to purchase. It is as its name implies the Mac OS. Windows is designed for an open platform in which anyone can create hardware. Microsoft does not own a platform nor do any of the Wintel OEMs. Microsoft depends on the OEMs to manufacture computers to run their operating system. The Wintel OEMs, through years of illegal coercion, now mostly depend on Windows licensing in order to have any hope of selling their hardware to the general public.

The Mac OS is a part of Apple?s platform and it is not designed to support any hardware that is not a part of the platform without Apple?s expressed consent. Apple gave that consent once and it nearly destroyed the company. The only company that makes hardware for Apple?s platform is Apple and that is the only way Apple can remain viable. Anyone can opt to design an operating system to run on a Mac unhindered by Apple, but without mainstream software to run atop that operating system, it is now a near futile venture outside of the *NIX OSes.

rhemy1 wrote:
>
I find it funny when people talk about how much better apple hardware is over pcs, but then when people say apple should open its software to pcs, they go berserk talking about how it will be the end of the company.

More proof that you do not get much of anything. The argument is not about whether or not Apple?s hardware is superior. Only the most zealous of Mac users would fail to recognize that there are other well-made, make that, well-assembled, PCs on the market, but that is not the point. The crux of the argument against running OS X on non-Apple hardware is about quality control. Apple has a level of quality control that Microsoft does not, never has and never will have, because Apple can test a version of OS X under development on every single Mac that that version of OS X is designed to work with. Microsoft cannot feasibly test the current version of Windows on every single Wintel PC available today, let alone over several years past.

Permitting OS X to be run on other hardware will result in OS X becoming as problematic as Windows due to a several orders of magnitude increase in unknown variables being introduced.

rhemy1 wrote:
>
A free market needs competion to weed out inferior products and services. If the hardware is good then it will survive. Apple has a million more ways to earn a great deal more money without working against free market principles.

Right, because your post clearly demonstrates that you understand free market principles. The personal computer market has plenty of competition because Apple is one player in the personal computer market* . Do you get that? Computer buyers have choices, no one forces them to buy a Mac and based on market share the vast majority of people buying personal computers do not buy Macs. So your lack of competition argument falls flat along with everything else you have posted.

[rhemy1]

Geez you people on the post are crazy macophiles. Please stop talking about mac being destroyed if they can't control their own os or quality issues that may arise from them licensing it to other people, or back in the 80's when mac clones were created, or acting like I think what microsoft does is OK (because i think both mac and windows should be more open systems), or whether or not mac products compare favorably to fancy cars.

Right and wrong is not determined by whether or not it is good for Apple Inc.



Since I'm so ignorant I will ask questions

From a company perspective, what is the difference between software as a product and hardware as a product (beyond the physical difference)?

If Apple can create a store called Itunes to dispense applications for the iphone os, Why can't microsoft create a store called iwindows and dispense programs for its pc os (there by limiting all browser competition (browsers are just programs like say "I am rich" from the itunes store)?

If apple can create an OS and limit it to hardware of it's choosing, why can't microsoft limit windows to hardware of it's choosing. What would be wrong with microsoft saying for now on, windows can only be used on gateway computers?

It's so funny to read agruments against the anti-competive nature of microsoft, yet apple is doing the same thing. I think they are both wrong. I think that companys should not be able to limit services across different markets. And yes that is what apple is doing. It would be like if every pc maker created there own browser and then said sorry guys you have to use the sony browser, or the toshiba browser, or the gateway browser to surf the web. We use our world famous browser to sell hardware. You have a choice though you just dont need to buy are computers.

If everyone operated how apple operated. I think it would be terrible for the consumer. Apple gets away with it because windows has so much of the market. But as they get bigger that model will definately begin to break down.

Microsoft may not be friendly, but it's business model is way more consumer friendly. I mean despite all their anti competive behavior i could still download firefox and use it on their software. Infact i can use a variety of media players and paint programs. They may not be readily available when I first bootup the computer, but i can find them and use them.

I think apple makes great software! :). I'm typing this on a macbook pro. However, I do not blindly agree with what Apple is doing with the OS. As i said before its one thing when the hardware is vastly different from your competitors- Macs could not run windows and vice versa, but with the introduction of x86 (orwhatever it's called) into the new macs. The hardware excuse is nolonger valid. As there are people who are able to get build computers that can run Mac osx. So, why can they not build computers that can do so?



Infact there are articles on macworld of people doing so. So why can't i choose to purchase hardware that can run MAC osx whether it is made by apple or someone else.

It would be different if the cd's that were bought in the store were actually only upgrade disk, instead of being the whole program. The fact that it is the whole program means that they are selling Mac OSx seperately. It is seperate from the hardware. So why can I not build competing hardware, and sell the hardware. And let people buy whatever they want to buy for the hardware i sell. If i can build a pc that can run MAC osx then too bad for apple. The item i build does not infringe on any of apples hardware patents.



And BTW apples commericals are all about software. they might refer to mac's and pc's, but the underlying ads have to do with the operating systems. I always found it strange that I hardware manufacture would compare itself to windows vista. I mean the commercials dont go like this:

Hello im a mac

And I'm a pc

I have an intel core 2 duo and am capable of running 2.5gh

I have an intel core solo and i am more mobile (whatever else).

on and on....

So, mdawson im sorry but you should apparently watch those commericals more closely and take a few marketing classes. Apple is smart. they understand that the consumer to which they sell their hardware doesn't really see any difference between the specs of a mac or a pc. They only truely care about the thing they interact with- the software. After all the tag line- "it just works." is not meant to describe the cd player or the keyboard- lol. It's meant to describe the software. In fact i dont even know what chips are in my iphone. And i, like many other consumers, really dont care. As long as it works, we are happy.