OSNews

Competing on price is still competing, Kroc. It's just not the kind of competing Apple people like.

I think Apple is sorely needing an expandable PC that is not the full blown Mac Pro. I want a Mac where I can add a second hard drive, for RAID, and have the option to upgrade the video card. I can't do that with the iMac or the Mac Mini. That said I wouldn't buy from PsyStar. It's very tempting to build my own but in my experience PCs from manufacturers like Dell, HP or Apple are quieter than these generic boxes. Being quiet is another important feature.

I agree that people should use the hardware they want. I don't agree with EULA's neither.

But buying from a company like PsyStar is not the way to do it; and I object to the comparisons on price being made (as pertains to features).

Apple only offer computers with a minimum of x number of features. Other manufacturers offer computers with less than x features, and therefore lower cost.

If you spec a Dell with exactly equal features to a Mac (x=x). The Mac is the same, if not cheaper price.

But since you cannot spec a Mac exactly equal to a cheaper Dell (with <x features), a comparison cannot be made. The Apple looks "expensive" because you cannot have <x features. However this is a false analysis.

People seem to have a real difficult time grasping this. Some people also don't want to buy flat-pack furniture.

Edited 2008-04-29 14:00 UTC

Apple doesn't need it and if you do you can get it elsewhere. Next thing you'll say BMW needs $12000 car to compete with Hyunday. Yea right!

So what is the problem with being cheap. If I want a cheap MAC machine, at least I should have the option to get one.

Isn't this how Linux compete by providing cheaper alternative?

"So what is the problem with being cheap. If I want a cheap MAC machine, at least I should have the option to get one. "

Your logic is a bit flawed. Using the same logic then you should be able to get a cheap Rolex, or a cheap BMW, or even a cheap Vista. Every company, at least here, has the right to produce models or not as they see fit. Anything else is a cheap knockoff. You can choose to buy what the company sells or you can buy another brand. In some cases the knockoff can be illlegal.

At the moment if you want to run OS X you have to buy a Mac or risk doing something that may not legal. That is for the courts to decide. I would think that in most countries Apple is probably on good legal footing.

I have a Power Mac G5 and an IBM here in my computer room. The IBM is much better engineered than the typical PC on the market today. But the G5 is head and shoulders above the IBM in its engineering and design.

While I can applaud what Psystar is trying to do I would tell prospective buyers caveat Emptor.

Competing on price is still competing, Kroc. It's just not the kind of competing Apple people like. "

Wait... Let me get this straight... Offering a product that is broken by default for a lower price is competing?

Let's see, with the PsyStar you get

1. A computer PsyStar doesn't want you to upgrade the hardware on (from their FAQ).
2. A computer PysStar doesn't want you to upgrade the OS on (from their FAQ).
3. A computer that may or may not be crippled should you choose to upgrade it.

So... Everyone is up in arms about Apple's lock in and yet will champion the cause of a company that is breaking Apple EULA and using the EFI V1 - V8 emulator without consent of its author--all for a product that is BROKEN from the get go.

Yes, that sure sounds like competition... Sounds more like fanaticism to me. If you're that hard up on cash that you can't buy an Apple, build your own Hackintosh, it's not like it hasn't been documented to a T.

How good is Apple hardware today, my MiniMac mobo died after 30 days, Did Apple even apologize or compensate for this, nope, just changed the mobo like nothing had ever happened. My museum Macs still boot though after 15 years.

My own crap made PCs generally last 3-8 years depending on board brand and 3 years for drives, I'd expect the same from Psystar if I dared. Apple buys it parts from the same pool as everyone else but maybe steers clear of the lowest quality suppliers. Oh and I'd really love to know why an Apple DIMM upgrade for my MiniMac is worth $300 for a 2nd Gig.

All some of us want is a good deal more Mac choice at the lower middle end for expandability, like we had before.

Reminds me of all the stuff you see in Bestbuy or Circuitcity these days, put some gold plating on cable connectors and charge the punters 10x the usual price for same thing. There's a big enough pool of people that don't know better that you can keep on $ raping them till the cows come home.

I've been through four complete replacements and four repairs for a MacbookPro. Apple hardware is certainly getting less reliable, and "Rev.A" still plagues them. Price has come down though especially since the switch to Intel. PPC hardware always had a wee premium.
For all the trouble I've had though, I made the right choice - because Apple support is not Dell support

You want compensation IN ADDITION to the under-warranty repair?

What the hell are you on?

The PC I'm running now is fast-approaching eight years old, having various parts upgraded or added over the years, and still going strong. This specific machine did cost quite a bit, and was somewhere in between medium- and high-end when built, so that could be it too...

I have older PCs that would still work today if I didn't take them apart for parts. And assuming I actually wanted to run a Pentium II.

Unfortunately, I've never had any Macs, so no idea how well-built those are... all I know is the Macs they had at my schools crashed like there was no tomorrow. That is... until OS X came out. Now, I'd like to get a Mac, but three problems:

1. They're way too expensive.
2. What? Only shiny white? Bleh, where's black?! Yes, paint job matters to me when it comes to electronics.
3. Where's the customization? I like to be able to upgrade my system over time, and would sacrifice the "legendary" Apple look if they would allow you to buy such a machine without asking you to send an arm, a leg, and a testicle their way.

It seems that with Apple, you either go pretty decently-priced and non-customizable, or expensive (I would say overpriced) and customizable.

LOL!
That was the worst comparison I've ever seen in the last decade. ))

Comparing an eight core with 32gigs of ram, 4tb of storage, hardware raid.. etc... to a ... cheap clone ?

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Try again

Do you own one?

How many people own a HP blackbird?

The fact that I own or do not own such system has got nothing to do with it. It was a bad comparison. What were you trying to prove? That Apple hardware is expensive? That Apple should sell OSX? What?

I don't own such system (I have a Mac Pro and a Macbook Pro if that helps you). However, you clearly said: "Maxing out a Mac Pro costs 32k, maxing out a Pystar costs 2k".

So.. how are both things the same thing and how does this translate to the "Apple has expensive hardware" thing?

Do you own a Ferrari? How many people own a Ferrari?. Oh god, the most expensive Fiat costs 20k yet there are 1.5 million dollar ferraris out there.

The comparison was bad.

Edited for typo.

Edited 2008-04-29 14:30 UTC

However have you considered that the high price of Apple PC's is exactly why they are still in business?

Seriously, look at the price of PC's - they cost more to build than they can be sold for. Even the few little guy screwdriver shops know this. They sell computers they build at cost and get their real money on upgrades, installs, and service calls. Dell & HP make their money from consumer PC sales on the extended service contracts.

Apple is the only one that actually has a real business model by simply using quality parts then charging enough of a mark-up to make money and continue to innovate. Because of that Apple will still be around decades from now whereas PsyStar even if they don't get sued will end up out of business simply because their price point is too low to keep up with demand on orders.

Rob

for bluetooth, buy a dongle, works a treat!

These machines are all well and good, indeed they are cheap with not bad specs BUT by not being able to upgrade the OS you are potentially leaving some LARGE security holes open.

How many people here still use XP SP1? I would suspect very few

I think its great that someone is trying to sell these machines. For YEARS people have been complaing that they wanted middle machines between the mini and the Pro. This shows apple that there is a market, people who are willing to spend money in.

This company will not sell the PCs for long, Apple couldnt allow the precident to be set BUT lets hope apple fills the void it left

What I want is fairly simple and not out of the ordinary...I want iMac level hardware without the attached screen. I have a 23" widescreen monitor that I already purchased. A mac mini has a driver limited gma950. It's limited because I can only devote 64MB to it, not like in windows where I can devote A LOT more.

The same with my macbook. I can't boost the video memory in OSX, but I can in Windows.

So I want an ATI video card in a mac mini, or an iMac without the screen.

Here's what I don't need, quad processors, 8GB of RAM, hardware raid, a big ass case.

A mid range headless iMac or a beefed up mac mini in a nice looking case would be great. If I can change the video card in my mac pro, i would expect to be able to do the same thing here.

I want a core 2 duo setup, not the xeons.

I think apple should cater for a midi-mac market because I think they have a market available to them and potentially a way into business.

In my case, our work recently updated our PCs, I was the one who put forward the proposals for the hardware/software combinations. OSX was an easy sell despite some 'migration' being required (our MD has a powerbook which helped) BUT the hardware wasn't. We already have sufficient high quality monitors (imac out) and due to the work we do and the need for dual displays, onboard graphics is unfeasible (mac mini is out) That left us with the Mac Pros. These were (are) greater than our need and I could not justify the associated cost. If there was a midi-mac with upgradable graphics then I think we would have purchased them. This gap in their lineup cost apple the sale of a few systems from our company.

I appreciate a few machines isn't many BUT i'd be surprised if we were the only business in this position.

However I do agree with your point that people would complain that they couldnt plugin <random graphics card> and it didnt work because of lack of drivers. This criticism can be aimed at any non MS os however. Yet Linux seems to be gaining more and more mindshare as an acceptable alternative in business. Apple are equally well placed to take advantage of the 'not vista' mindset going around. I feel a midi-mac could harness this market without apple having to lose the 'mac platform' that is proving so successful

Or at least try.

At the moment all I'm reading is speculation from geeks who are unqualified in US law.

That's the problem people bought into the hype that apple is different. They are not, at the end of the day they sell pc's like the rest of them. They are already competing. They are competing with the winpc market and eventhough apple is slowly chinking away at the winpc market they are still losing the by a large margin. The fact that Apple is what it is where its at is becasue they ARE competing. There commercials clearly are a retake on the Pepsi challenge (without the challenge) and clearly show that Apple already has a competitor. Apple strategy in this competition is to make users think that they are not running commodity hardware with nice packaging.

My argument looks like I'm for what Psystar is doing, but its the opposite. Apple can't get competition becasu they already have competition in their market. A Mac clone is pointless because at the end of the day its justa pc with some firmware. Just like Dell, or Sony, HP, have the right to include services and software in their offerings that don't work anywhere else, so does Apple. OSX is how Apple competes, its an exclusive piece of software that they include with their pcs as a service.

Being profitable, is not losing.
Apple are not after a marketshare game. If they wanted marketshare and nothing else, they would licence OS X.

Not really, because there is no guarantee that people would flock to OSX if Apple licenses it. What would differentiate Apple from every other Johnny-come-lately that ships OSX? What you meant to say is that its not about money, if all Apple wanted was money, then yeah they would license OSX. In-fact they would have licensed the classic apple OS a long time ago and MS would probably not be on the map as anything other than a software company that sells office. Many vendors, including MS tried to get Apple to license their OS. Apple refused. At the time they were the only real game in town and could do things like that. Things are different now but they still hold true to same ideals. They want to control the whole user experience, they want to be able to add a feature to the OS without worrying if some third party pc maker's hardware supports the feature. They want to ensure that anything with the Apple logo on it has Apple quality (whatever that means to you). Apple wants to gain marketshare and sell products on their own terms, not by pandering and being held sway by hardware makers and businesses the way MS is.

Shipping, handling and fuel costs? :-)

Actually...no. I spoke to an Apple rep some time ago asking about this price discrepency when the 17" Powerbook was first released. The price was over AU$1500 higher in Australia than in the US. When I asked him about it he said very bluntly something to the effect of.."We charge what the market will accept".

That was the last time I considered buying an Apple product.

I cannot understand why Psyster thinks that they won't be sued into oblivion by Apple in the very near future

Because Apple know they would lose the suit. That simple. Look up Data General 1984. Find out about post sale restraints on use. Look up competition law on linked sales.

Apple is going to have to argue in court that they should be able to prevent, by a condition of sale, someone from installing OSX on essentially identical hardware just because it was not bought from Apple. This is the test case: you put the same standard components used by Apple, but which you bought from Fry's, into a box, and install a retail copy of OSX on it. Your honor, this is a violation of the Eula, we want damages for breach of contract.

No way, and they know it. They will not try. They are holding their breath right now, and hoping Psystar blows up for technical reasons.

Its virtually the same hardware but for the fact that you have to hack around the firmware that prevents you from running the software in the first place. There is nothing stopping you from doing this for personal use but for commercial use, I think Apple could argue that they are circumventing some sort of drm on the system and profiting from it, which is illegal in some areas. Most of the time you can get in trouble just for distributing the the drm circumvention, if that is the case then the EFI hack may have to get the boot as well.

Its pretty clear the Apple uses the firmware to lock the OS in, so the argument that their drm is being circumvented and profited from would probably be valid. Apple alos has a friend in its corner whe it comes to the firmware hack. The original EFi hack author has now included in his license that his work should not be used commercially with or without modification and that he should get credit for his work if distributed. That means that future versions of the firmware will not be distributable and basically any new version of OSX would most likely not work when Apple releases a firmware update. Now the argument about the EULA also applies here as well, is it valid. IF no then neither is the BSD or GPL and that could be disastrous for the opensource community.

Edited 2008-04-30 12:49 UTC