Macworld: Opening up Psystar's Open Computer ...

Up to Discussions in Story Discussion

79 Replies Last post: Aug 7, 2008 12:33 AM by blinkdt Go to original post 1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next

George76

168 posts since
Dec 22, 2006

45. May 7, 2008 6:00 PM

in response to: macandpc

Re: Opening up Psystar’s Open Computer

macandpc wrote:
As for games - most MAC users have no idea about the game world out there. All you need to experience it is go to a Gamefest and see the number of Windows PC out there.

Couldn't it also possibly be related to how pointless it would be to take a Mac to such an event? I'm not really sure what a Gamefest is but I'm assuming it's like a massive LAN-party where the focus is multiplayer games. Given the lack of games on the Mac in the first place and that even the few games that exist on both a PC and a Mac generally can't be mixed in multiplayer, it would be an awfully lonely place to take a Mac.

wgood

748 posts since
Nov 11, 2004

46. May 7, 2008 6:33 PM

in response to: Macworld

Re: Opening up Psystar's Open Computer

Reading these comments, it's clear that Apple needs to put out a "mythical midrange Mac minitower". I'd get one.

2Ghz Core 2 Duo MacBook • Airport Extreme (Gigabit) • 8GB iPod touch
http://www.wesg.ca - Macs and More

LuvWarrior

2 posts since
Mar 27, 2007

47. May 7, 2008 6:44 PM

in response to: Macworld

Re: Opening up Psystar’s Open Computer

I didn't notice you saying anything about getting the system discs with your order--in case you had to reload the system (no matter how hard they say it would be). Could it be they are using the same system discs for all the computers they are selling and that is one reason why the automatic System Update has been turned off? Just curious.

aceshelman

26 posts since
Apr 11, 2008

48. May 7, 2008 6:58 PM

in response to: lkrupp

Re: Opening up Psystar's Open Computer

lkrupp wrote:
There is no substantial market for a mid-range, headless tower Mac and I'm tired of hearing about it from self-appointed marketing experts who think they know more than Steve Jobs. Apple knows exactly what the market is for their hardware and builds machines to supply that market. Those who want Apple to become the next Dell by producing nondescript, bland, soulless, expandable grey boxes are just plain wrong. I don't want Apple to be the next Dell, the next Microsoft, the next anything. If I wanted that I would have moved to the wintel platform long ago. It would have been a much easier ride too.

The Psystar box will die a horrible death because nobody will want one except a few weirdos who like punishment. Notice that while Psystar claims to sell their cheap box with Windows, Linux, or OS X Leopard only the OS X Leopard part is getting any attention. Psystar is not advertising anywhere that I can see but they have gotten plenty of free advertising frin the more than willing Mac press for their abomination.

Two problems with your argumentative argument there, mister ikrupp:
1) The folks here asking apple to build a mid-tower aren't asking for a beige or black, soulless, dell clone. They're asking for something better than the utterly craptastic mini, but not an all-in-one, and they'd like it priced accordingly.
2) The success or more likely failure of Psystar's geeksome mac clone isn't going to be a reflection on how well a nicely positioned Apple mid-tower would do.

I'm a big apple fan and I think Steve is right about most of his/Apple's moves, but I know a -lot- of people with ipods iphones and macs who would jump at the chance to buy a mid tower.

HalanR

52 posts since
Aug 1, 2006

49. May 7, 2008 7:14 PM

in response to: George76

Re: Opening up Psystar’s Open Computer

"Given the lack of games on the Mac in the first place and that even the few games that exist on both a PC and a Mac generally can't be mixed in multiplayer, it would be an awfully lonely place to take a Mac."

Why not bring in a Mac loaded with Windows via BootCamp? Then it wouldn't feel so alone

Misery loves company, and it would be in good company with fellow Windows systems....

HalanR

52 posts since
Aug 1, 2006

50. May 7, 2008 7:50 PM

in response to: LuvWarrior

Re: Opening up Psystar’s Open Computer

" Could it be they are using the same system discs for all the computers they are selling and that is one reason why the automatic System Update has been turned off? Just curious."

No, to answer that question, just visit the Hackintosh or x86 forums. That's what many people aren't realizing. It takes a "hack" of OS X to get this to work on these so-called "clones". You're not just loading up a software CD, but you're then having to hack the system in order to make everything work. Then, when you do, more than likely, the next update will "break" it and you get to do it all over again. If you don't have the technical skills, how long will OC support you (without charging)? And how much time are they willing to spend with you on the phone if you don't know what you're doing. Check out the forums in the Leopard section of the OSx86 forums. On the last visit, it was THOUSANDS of messages of users trying to get their system and applications working. This may be a great option for hobbyists, but that's about as far as something like this will go.

Wanna run multiple OSes? Listen to what Rob had to go through on the FrankenMac. With a true Mac, it's built-in. I just can't see how this product will made any headway for the average consumer.

jawporta

3 posts since
Jan 6, 2005

51. May 7, 2008 7:30 PM

in response to: Macworld

Re: Opening up Psystar's Open Computer

Well since Apple is all but gone Glossy screen on their mid rage to cheaper computers I'm glad I have an option other than the Mini.

palane

224 posts since
Nov 18, 2004

52. May 8, 2008 5:33 AM

in response to: lkrupp

Re: Opening up Psystar's Open Computer

1. The question is not whether there is a market for an inexpensive headless Mac. Were this the case, Apple would have stopped selling the Mini long ago. The question is whether or not such a machine would be profitable. Consumer demand is quite distinct from self-appointed marketing experts.

2. The assertion that anyone wants Apple to become Dell is a straw man. The Mini is a compact, stylish machine. The Pro is a BIG, stylish machine. I've a feeling that Ives and the design wizards at Apple could rethink the desktop as well. 2 slots (graphics and other), desktop components. Call it the Mac Maxi.

+"There is no substantial
market for a mid-range, headless tower Mac and I'm tired of hearing
about it from self-appointed marketing experts who think they know more
than Steve Jobs. Apple knows exactly what the market is for their
hardware and builds machines to supply that market. Those who want
Apple to become the next Dell by producing nondescript, bland,
soulless, expandable grey boxes are just plain wrong. I don't want
Apple to be the next Dell, the next Microsoft, the next anything. If I
wanted that I would have moved to the wintel platform long ago. It
would have been a much easier ride too."+

gabeoravitz

1 posts since
May 8, 2008

53. May 8, 2008 6:03 AM

in response to: Macworld

Re: Opening up Psystar’s Open Computer

Carbon Copy Cloner doesn't render a bootable Hackintosh hard drive because CCC makes it bootable by EFI/OF Mac's standards. It doesn't clone the Darwin bootloader and especially the MBR required by the Open Computer's BIOS to boot a hard drive.

Regarding startup key combos, those require Apple's firmware as well. Darwin's bootloader provides the ability to access the same features by entering startup switches. (-s, -v, etc)

doh123

149 posts since
Feb 14, 2006

54. May 8, 2008 8:05 AM

in response to: Macworld

Re: Opening up Psystar's Open Computer

all the need to make is a Mac Mini Pro....

double the height of the current Mac Mini, has some decent video cards options (one slot) and a real hard drive... with the latest deskktop/laptop processors like the iMac.

bastion

1,169 posts since
Oct 14, 2004

55. May 8, 2008 8:08 AM

in response to: aceshelman

Re: Opening up Psystar’s Open Computer

aceshelman wrote:
bastion: Were there not 2 very different versions of that SDK? The initial weakling "web" SDK which pleased very few; and now the much more powerful "open" SDK? That SDK upgrade looks a lot like a reaction to the clamor for more, and more capable, 3rd party apps.

You're correct in recalling that there was a prior (web-based) supported means to write apps for the iPhone but I was talking about the second, native one.

bastion

1,169 posts since
Oct 14, 2004

56. May 8, 2008 8:14 AM

in response to: palane

Re: Opening up Psystar’s Open Computer

palane wrote:

The development team refused my request to sit in on their meetings, so direct evidence is hard to come by. Of course, there was a development kit from the beginning. How do you think Apple developed its apps? My belief in a causal relationship is based on the following:

(1) Apple publicly stated that web apps were the way for users to run software that didn't come installed. If the SDK was planned all along, this was deliberately deceptive to users. Apple may be secretive (see the Intel switch), but not mendacious.

There's nothing dishonest about that. When the iPhone shipped, that was the way to deliver 3rd-party software. You don't commit to the release of a work in progress until you're sure it's actually going to make release and you've got a reasonable time-frame in mind. That's been Apple's pattern as long as I've been a Mac developer and has only been more evident since Jobs' return. It has distinctly not been Apple's habit to announce something that's not even close to ready (since the MessagePad, anyway). I'd assert that the timing of the announcement is a strong argument against jailbreaking providing a significant impetus.

iJoe

2 posts since
May 8, 2008

57. May 8, 2008 9:37 AM

in response to: Macworld

Re: Opening up Psystar’s Open Computer

The important lesson to be taken from Psystar's Open Computer and the FrankenMac is that Macs are now so open they can be built at home from standard PC parts. Doing this violates the OS X EULA of course, and these systems certainly are not "production" quality like a true Mac. On the other hand, 10 years ago, who thought they would ever see this? I didn't, but I think it is great, and I am pleased Apple is not bringing down the hammer on these activities.

I also have to laugh at arguments about a new mini tower model might impact iMac sales vs mini sales vs MacPro vs blah, blah, blah... You people are missing the point.

I read once that less than 40%, or so, of PC sales are from major vendors like Dell, IBM & HP. Conversely, 60% of PC sales, which is a massive market compared to Macs, are either from white-box vendors or DIYers. This market drives the NewEggs and gazzilion other online and local mom&pop PC stores. Apple has snubbed their noses at this market for a long time.

I am not one to tell Steve how to run his company, but I hope he is considering the opportunities that are being missed. Should Apple sell Mac OS X as a shrink-wrapped, install anywhere, product for the white-box sellers and DIYers? Probably not. Could Apple license Mac OS X to Dell/HP/IBM/Sony for installation on selected products? Why not?

Before you "clones almost killed Apple" clowns come out of the closet, please remember this isn't 1995. Macs in the mid-90's were: a) insanely expensive and b) closed.

They are neither now.

macwilf

187 posts since
Jun 6, 2005

58. May 8, 2008 10:33 AM

in response to: iJoe

Re: Opening up Psystar’s Open Computer

iJoe wrote:

Before you "clones almost killed Apple" clowns come out of the closet, please remember this isn't 1995. Macs in the mid-90's were: a) insanely expensive and b) closed.

They are neither now.

Aye, sir and well said! I think too many are looking at Appleʼs past and trying to tell its future that way. Thatʼs a sure enough way to become surprised, I would say.
While they have the same goal as ever - which is to develop the best products possible for consumers - they are certainly not religious about how to achieve it. If they find it useful to license the OS X under certain conditions, be sure that they will, no matter what has happened in the past.

The question is whether they will find it useful, and yes, at a certain point I would not be surprised if they would do exactly what no one would think they would do.

Also, I find their silence in regards to Psystar intriguing. I think it spells a little surprise, one way or the other. And maybe that surprise wonʼt have anything to do with their lawyer team...

Let us see.

Grapho

1,263 posts since
Aug 30, 2004

59. May 8, 2008 11:08 AM

in response to: iJoe

Re: Opening up Psystar’s Open Computer

iJoe wrote:
The important lesson to be taken from Psystar's Open Computer and the FrankenMac is that Macs are now so open they can be built at home from standard PC parts. Doing this violates the OS X EULA of course, and these systems certainly are not "production" quality like a true Mac. On the other hand, 10 years ago, who thought they would ever see this? I didn't, but I think it is great, and I am pleased Apple is not bringing down the hammer on these activities.

I also have to laugh at arguments about a new mini tower model might impact iMac sales vs mini sales vs MacPro vs blah, blah, blah... You people are missing the point.

I read once that less than 40%, or so, of PC sales are from major vendors like Dell, IBM & HP. Conversely, 60% of PC sales, which is a massive market compared to Macs, are either from white-box vendors or DIYers. This market drives the NewEggs and gazzilion other online and local mom&pop PC stores. Apple has snubbed their noses at this market for a long time.

I am not one to tell Steve how to run his company, but I hope he is considering the opportunities that are being missed. Should Apple sell Mac OS X as a shrink-wrapped, install anywhere, product for the white-box sellers and DIYers? Probably not. Could Apple license Mac OS X to Dell/HP/IBM/Sony for installation on selected products? Why not?

Before you "clones almost killed Apple" clowns come out of the closet, please remember this isn't 1995. Macs in the mid-90's were: a) insanely expensive and b) closed.

They are neither now.

Why?

How could Apple benefit from licensing OSX to HP or any other OEM?

OSX exists to sell Macs
iLife exists to sell Macs
Final Cut Pro exists to sell Macs.
Apple business is to sell Macs not OS X. If Apple was more interested in selling OSX, then why does Leopard leave out all the Macs that don't have at least 867MHz of speed?

Apple makes software to sell Macs, not software. Sure, you can still buy the software, but every new Mac comes installed with the latest iLife, why? To help them sell it.

Apple is not Microsoft. Apple makes computers and OS X helps them sell them. Just because they can doesn't mean they should.

I know it''s not 1995, but Apples business is exactly the same, they make the best computer, with the best operating system, what has changed from that?

So I go back to my initial question. How could Apple benefit from this? Bigger market share, but much more smaller margins? If OS X is so much more coveted then any other Apple OS, then they should keep things just the way they are and sell more Macs and keep the hi margins and increase their market share, why should they mess that up?

You seem to think that Apple should emulate Microsoft's business, I simply don't agree.

Go to original post 1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next

Go to original post

Actions

More Like This