Re: Apple's return-on-investment (ROI) because of, e.g., support costs: If Apple relaxed its EULA for hobbyists such that it read something like, not, "Do not install on non-Apple-branded hardware" but rather, "IF you install on non-Apple hardware, you're on your own for support." Hobbyists (or at least their consciences) would be happy and Apple could actually make more than from just the sale of OS X; as has been reported in the Frankenmac column by Rob Griffiths, updating OS X on non-Apple hardware would likely break the installation, requiring enterprising 3rd-party folks to work out a patch - hey, isn't that kind of open-source coding exactly the kind of atmosphere that fosters innovation that Apple itself could benefit from? (Think Konqueror>Safari but not as grandiose.) I'm suggesting de-coupling OS X from Apple service obligations to enable hobbyists to do what they want to do - figure things out for themselves. How does this hurt Apple?
It can hurt Apple because ultimately, just as with home built Wintel PCs, some hobbyists will take it upon themselves to build non-Macs for friends and sully the reputation that Apple has built up over the past decade for having robust systems. The average computer user is not a technophile, does not keep up on the latest tech news and trends (including regularly participating on boards such as these) and is even more ignorant of how Apple differs from other PC OEMs on almost every level. The second something goes wrong, and it will quite often on unsupported hardware, consumers will think it is an issue with Macs when it fact the issue is that they do not own a Mac.
Apple has gone through licensing the OS to other hardware OEMs and the result nearly killed the company. Apple is and has always been first and foremost a hardware company and not a software company like Microsoft. For them to offer up the piece of the puzzle that makes their hardware unique is irresponsible, period. In the mid-1990s, Apple paid the price of having made such a decision when the clone market quickly began cannibalizing Apple’s bottom line.
Of course this does not diminish the fact that Apple needs to sell a mini-tower. Actually it proves it, because Apple is not directly getting my $$ for my purchases. I even buy my OS's used.
Ding, ding, ding. And we have a winner. Very good point. Where the price of the Mac Pro is more of an issue, the used Mac market comes to play and Apple makes no money in that arena. At this point, the professional Macs are so powerful that for a great many prosumers at least, waiting getting a 1-˝ to 2+ year-old used Mac tower that is priced in their budget is a real consideration.
By offering the professional mini-tower at a lower price point Apple would profit from those already doing as you do and gain increased profits from those that “settle” on an iMac. Realistically, there may be losses as some migrate away from the full-sized towers, but the mini-tower has the potential to attract more Switchers that
think that they need an expandable system even if they really do not along with “settlers” to balance or potentially reverse any potential losses on the extreme high-end.
As for my vote on Apple hardware or other hardware: I will never buy non-apple computers even if they go generic, because I've seen what cheaper than Apple hardware can do for the user experience. The problem is that most of the people who buy computers for their home doesn't know this, and Microsoft preys on this. I will give Microsoft props for one thing though: They know the value of the gaming market.
I would not go as far as to say that Microsoft knows the value of the gaming market so much as they happen to monopolize the OS market on x86-based hardware. It is in fact the PC OEMs that recognize that there is “gold in them thar hills” and catering to the gaming market required little modification to their existing business model. Wintel PCs are generally the same cookie cutter boxes across the board, with the difference between consumer grade, business class, prosumer/professional being a simple matter of what is added or subtracted from the prefabricated motherboards in the prefabricated cases. Take a system configured for the pro market, tweak some specs and add a kiss a-- graphics card and any Wintel OEM has a gaming rig ready to sell at a premium.
Technically, Apple could have BTO options that allow the Mac Pro to be configured as a gaming rig, and to some extent they do, but the problem is ultimately the graphics card market for Macs. The (very) few higher-end OEM graphics cards available for the Mac Pro are better suited to pros that need powerful GPUs (e.g., 3D modelers, animators, CAD, etc.) than gamers. Where after market graphics cards are concerned, the selection has shrank to less than a trickle making the Mac Pros less attractive as long term gaming solutions; that is, gamers that buy a Mac Pro now with a graphics card that is good enough will be hard-pressed to find decent upgrades as there needs increase over the life of the machine. Even if Apple is not too concerned with hard-core gamers, they do need to make serious inroads into convincing the graphics card OEMs that their products should be cross-platform by default—you know like just about every other computer peripheral that you can buy.
“Cannot run out of time. There is infinite time. You are finite. Zathras is finite. This is wrong tool.”
2.3GHz Power Mac G5/4GB/500GB HDD/OS X 10.4.11/30-inch ACD,
60GB iPod (Color)
