Apple should make a small and pocketable full Mac, like the OQO or the Vaio P. 350 g would be awesome. No more than 600 g. Video-out and USB 2 ports for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations from NATIVE files. Thus, an Intel Atom is required instead of the ARM processor.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Disabling Support for Intel Atom Processor in Latest 10.6.2 Build?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Lol, who cares about Atom... just release the damn 10.6.2 already Apple!!!
Dual core atoms are pretty capable processors for light-computing. You know, browsing the internet, youtube, and typing up notes. Not too much beyond that. That's just what they were made for.
100% agree with you - it's sad that we appear to have an entire generation now who believe they had the god given right to be able to demand anything and expect that entitlement to be free of charge.
From a performance point of view I am glad they went Intel but as for these freeloaders well....
Apple is ahead of M$? I guess you have not been in many offices... Actually what is this based on? Also have you ever used a mac in a corporate enviroment? They crap themselves just as often as PCs. Though i must admit that macs are great at home.
I agree with the rest of your post which I'm not quoting but I'm not sure how this solution would benefit anyone. So, who develops the Mac compatible drivers, if any? Does Apple leave that up to the peripheral manufacturers? If Apple doesn't, then what happens when regular consumers who buy the software (or even pirate it) call up Apple and complain the 3rd party printer or scanner they bought doesn't actually have Mac OS X drivers? Or Journalists get their hands on this $3000 license and review it and say it's overpriced. Apple loses both ways here. And the hack community flourishes because they now have an "official" product which they'll pirate anyway.
Apple's profitable because there's so many variables that get eliminated by making the whole widget.
Apple's EULA in NOT A LAW. It's an agreement between you and Apple. If you decide to break that agreement that's your business. If Apple (not it's fanboy agent base) decide to challenge it (which they won't do, except to companies like Psystar) that's Apple's business. Apple is not stupid enough to become like the RIAA.
I've own Apple products for over 10 years and to be honest with you the only good thing about a Mac is OS X. Apple's PC's which is what they are, a Personal Computer, are overpriced hardware that is made from the same stuff all other PC's are made from. Without OS X, Macs would be just like any other PC on the market. It's the OS stupid!
Apple's attempts to block upgrading to 10.6.2 or any other future updates is futile. Anyone with an Atom based PC can upgrade to 10.6.x then just use the previous 10.0.0 kernel, and or wait for the hacked kernel to be developed.
Apple should spend more time working on fixing their half baked 10.6 OS and their funked up new iMacs.
I've own Apple products for over 10 years and to be honest with you the only good thing about a Mac is OS X. Apple's PC's which is what they are, a Personal Computer, are overpriced hardware that is made from the same stuff all other PC's are made from. Without OS X, Macs would be just like any other PC on the market. It's the OS stupid!
Apple's attempts to block upgrading to 10.6.2 or any other future updates is futile. Anyone with an Atom based PC can upgrade to 10.6.x then just use the previous 10.0.0 kernel, and or wait for the hacked kernel to be developed.
Apple should spend more time working on fixing their half baked 10.6 OS and their funked up new iMacs.
I ran a Mini 9 with Leopard but I'm hardly a Freeloader when it comes to Apple products. I own a iPhone, Apple TV, Time Capsule, Airport Express, iMac 20" and a 13" MacBook Pro! Owning a Hackintosh does not automatically mean you are robbing Apple of sales.
This is just like iTunes and the Pre syncing issue.
Although OS X is not free, Apple surely doesn't even break even with its development costs.
iTunes is designed at a loss to further sales of Apple hardware (iPods).
OS X is designed at a loss to make sales of Apple hardware (Macs).
Why should other companies selling hardware (netbook makers, Palm) benefit from Apple's software without incurring any of Apple's software development costs?
Although OS X is not free, Apple surely doesn't even break even with its development costs.
iTunes is designed at a loss to further sales of Apple hardware (iPods).
OS X is designed at a loss to make sales of Apple hardware (Macs).
Why should other companies selling hardware (netbook makers, Palm) benefit from Apple's software without incurring any of Apple's software development costs?
EULA's like theirs won't stand up in court. As exampled by a recent case where someone was selling their old copies of a well known software package on EBAY. The company in question tried to use both their EULA and the DMCA to prevent such sales.
Apple are within their rights to support or not support whatever CPUs they want (within the limits of their promises).
Running Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer is not "piracy", btw. For all we know somebody might have legally bought a copy of Mac OS X and installed it on a non-Apple computer.
It's a violation of the licensing terms, but only in countries where the licensing terms mean anything. It's not "piracy".
(Must have been quite a shock when more and more ships were attacked off the coast of Puntland and governments all over the western world realised that not a single "anti-piracy" law of the last two decades equipped anyone to handle the situation.)
I think that there is a distinction between a violation of the End User License Agreement (EULA) and outright software piracy which means you basically steal the product without paying for it.
Nevertheless, it does clearly go against the grain of the Apple Ecosystem - but it is a risk assumed by those who choose to build their own systems. You can't very well ask Apple for support when things don't work.
EU might be a country some day. They are working on it... But these days, it is not. EU has ease many things (like going from one country to another, one currency, etc.), but the Law situation in EU is not many different than it was before in many legal aspects.
Germany is still Germany, and it has its laws, and Norway is Norway and it has its laws, and so on.
Wow, reek of much fanboism?
While I don't believe Apple should enter the netbook market (at least not the portion of the market that deals with <$400 hardware), trying to brush off the netbook market simply because Apple doesn't partake of it, is naive at best.
Netbook sales *far* outpace regular notebook sales, and that percentage is only going to grow. And as each successful new generation of computer hardware comes, netbooks (just as all other hardware) will continue to become more and more powerful.
Even though, I did not write the previous post. I must say your answer is bougs. Market lead is defined by markets. You are right, Macs are not in good position in corporate environments.
However, Macs are number one in many different markets, for example: pre press, publishing, digital media, audio productions and home users.
Now, the fact that most computers (these days) are bought by corporations, certainly gives a Microsoft a lead in terms of raw sales and penetration. But it does not mean, Microsoft is number one in all markets.
Why should Apple make a killing on the iPhone without paying Nokia for its Millions of dollars spent on development?
Old Chinese Proverb: "He who steals from a thief, has a hundred years of pardon."
LTD wasn't brushing off the netbook market. Apple just doesn't see the necessity in participating in that defined segment.
x2. Not surprising at all that they want to stop people from violating the EULA and running their software on 3rd party hardware.
Plus the whole point of Snow Leopard is to be smaller, faster, more efficient, etc. hence the reason for eliminating PPC support. If they no longer plan on using the Atom processor, I'm GLAD they're removing the support for it, as it falls in line with that same ideology. Plus the percentage of Mac OS users who have an Atom based "Hackintosh" is minuscule in comparison to the total Mac OS market, so they're not losing any market share.
The margins aren't high enough though. That's the only thing that matters around here.But netbooks sell like hotcakes
No it will never be a country. And no, they are not working on it. Not everyone has the Euro....
This might help,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eu
Not even going to try to explain how EU laws work, Read this and then feel free to post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_European_Union
That was a completely different situation. Completely. Do not confuse things. The seller of those items was not violating EULAs, since he/she was not the End user and it was proved in court. The matter was about selling old (and used) software licenses, not about if licenses and EULAs were valid or not.
I purchased OS X but installed it on my own a hardware profile which better fit my needs as a user.
I also hacked my RAZR so I could put my own ringtones on it. And by "my own," I actually mean music that I created, not copyrighted music that I copied from my iTunes library.
I also purchased Vista, yet proceeded to install the hacked and modified "Vista Black" because I didn't want MS breathing down my neck with all the "Genuine Windows" and authentication BS.
Am I legally wrong? Yes.
Am I ethically wrong?
It's not a matter of entitlement or cavalierness. I fully acknowledge that I am not in compliance with the various EULAs in these scenarios. I just think they're ridiculous. As long as I am not truly damaging or abusing their products, I honestly don't see the ethical problem.
-Clive