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, if no new MP, why no allow clones?
- Thread starter ronweathers
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Forget hackintoshes, imagine how much money Apple could make if it opened up OSX to work on any PC period? I mean if you can dual boot a MAc, why not a PC? One can dream . . . . .
They may make some money/sales but the support would break the bank. The previous clone attempt proved it.
PC hardware varies to the extreme. It is impossible to provide top support for hardware that is unpredictable. Your personal hardware may be great but most is a mish-mosh of junk. Its no fun and not cheap to sit on a phone to support crappy hardware.
support would break the bank?
just put a thing right on the box that says "only apple-branded hardware is officially supported. OS X may work with 3rd party hardware, but such use is unsupported. buyer beware"
gee, that was tough to solve.
the problem is that apple's hardware is NOT better enough to justify the higher costs, and they know it.
the compatibility problems wouldn't be very great, and they know it.
it's all about hardware sales with a huge premium for apple.
and app store/itunes store sales, of course.
just put a thing right on the box that says "only apple-branded hardware is officially supported. OS X may work with 3rd party hardware, but such use is unsupported. buyer beware"
gee, that was tough to solve.
the problem is that apple's hardware is NOT better enough to justify the higher costs, and they know it.
the compatibility problems wouldn't be very great, and they know it.
it's all about hardware sales with a huge premium for apple.
and app store/itunes store sales, of course.
Its not a matter of whether the hardware is better. Apple's hardware is defined and joe-shmo's is not. Apple is in the business of making money, so what? Some don't know the difference between value and cost. Cheapest cost is usually not the best value.
I love it when people come in here and think they know better
Windows is so hopeless BECAUSE it has to cater for stupid amounts of combinations of hardware.
OS X doesn't therefore its much more tuned and stable than windows is.
Apple will *NEVER* release OS X to be installed on anything and everything and frankily when their bank balance is a few billion times more than yours is I'm quite happy to assume they know best in the business world...
Another reason would be the 'public image', if people saw OS X running on ****py unsupported hardware they'd assume it was Apple's fault as 99% of the population don't know there DDR from their SATA.
Should ban these kind of threads, pointless waste of bandwidth.
Just FYI, I contemplated building a Core i7 Hackintosh, I bought a slower more expensive Mac Pro because I didn't want the hassle.
Mac Pro = Turn on, use it, turn off again.
Hackintosh = Worry about updates bricking it, component stability and god knows what, I can't be bothered with it all so I bought a Mac Pro.
And before you go saying "it's not that bad, just a few tweaks here and there" I don't care, I do *no* tweaks, and also I used to overclock hardware for a hobby. I knew the Conroe C2D and X1900XTX inside out.
My hackintosh usage is identical to your Mac Pro usage.
I don't worry about stability, updates, or anything else. Is it more time-consuming than using my Mac Pro? A little bit, but right now I'm willing to spend the time. Maybe later I won't. Who can say?
I love it when people come in here and think they know better
Windows is so hopeless BECAUSE it has to cater for stupid amounts of combinations of hardware.
OS X doesn't therefore its much more tuned and stable than windows is.
Apple will *NEVER* release OS X to be installed on anything and everything and frankily when their bank balance is a few billion times more than yours is I'm quite happy to assume they know best in the business world...
Another reason would be the 'public image', if people saw OS X running on ****py unsupported hardware they'd assume it was Apple's fault as 99% of the population don't know there DDR from their SATA.
Should ban these kind of threads, pointless waste of bandwidth.
Just FYI, I contemplated building a Core i7 Hackintosh, I bought a slower more expensive Mac Pro because I didn't want the hassle.
Mac Pro = Turn on, use it, turn off again.
Hackintosh = Worry about updates bricking it, component stability and god knows what, I can't be bothered with it all so I bought a Mac Pro.
And before you go saying "it's not that bad, just a few tweaks here and there" I don't care, I do *no* tweaks, and also I used to overclock hardware for a hobby. I knew the Conroe C2D and X1900XTX inside out.
Bang-on!
People fail to realize that the main reason people hate Windows, is primarily due to the fact that it's designed to run on nearly any hardware. The combination of crappy 3rd party drivers and an impossible QA task make it a flaky, BSOD (aka kernal panic) mess.
BTW, I too use to be a hard-core water-cooled PC builder and over-clocking enthusiast, and it was a fun (but not cheap) hobby. I spent more time tinkering with my computer than using it though. I also spent more money on my last PC than I did on my current Mac Pro. High-end PC hardware and cooling doesn't come cheap.
Now, I'm the other way around and the headaches associated with instability and poor drivers are long gone. Building your own rig and overclocking it is something every hard-core enthusiast should do... But really... use Windows for this kind of thing.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/7E18)
Easy there big fellas. It is a very different world now compared to when some of the first clones came on line. I think a lot more savvy system builders would jump in the clone space and the Mac software and hardware worlds would be better of as a result. Stop pointing to the past and look forward to how it could be if clone builders were in the marketspace. Sure there may be a few kinks getting geared up, but that is the nature of any change. Plus the benefits from competition and subsequent choice far outweigh the downsides. And, for those choosing to remain purist, then you can still buy from Apple, but I guarantee even you will still benefit because it is unlikely that future MP updates would take 400 plus days.
Easy there big fellas. It is a very different world now compared to when some of the first clones came on line. I think a lot more savvy system builders would jump in the clone space and the Mac software and hardware worlds would be better of as a result. Stop pointing to the past and look forward to how it could be if clone builders were in the marketspace. Sure there may be a few kinks getting geared up, but that is the nature of any change. Plus the benefits from competition and subsequent choice far outweigh the downsides. And, for those choosing to remain purist, then you can still buy from Apple, but I guarantee even you will still benefit because it is unlikely that future MP updates would take 400 plus days.
I believe it does support 5.1 sound systems. At least its selectable for the speakers. I think maybe perhaps which types of 5.1 systems are supported, such as optical out.
My hackintosh usage is identical to your Mac Pro usage.
I don't worry about stability, updates, or anything else. Is it more time-consuming than using my Mac Pro? A little bit, but right now I'm willing to spend the time. Maybe later I won't. Who can say?
All very well but do you have a 3 year warranty that doesn't require you to spend time working out which bit has gone wrong?
I use my machine for critical work and as such putting my work in the hands of what is essentially a bodge isn't mine or other peoples cup of tea.
People who buy Mac Pro's are NOT the people who are looking for maximum bang for buck.
In late 2011 i'll be upgrading this Mac Pro with a budget of about £3k, even tho in theory I could build a dual CPU rig with £1.5k...
Clones are crap. The ENTIRE reason OSX works so well is it runs on specific hardware specifications. Allowing clones puts apple in the sap spot as Microcrap, bloated, buggy, slow and constantly crashing because they would have to write software and drivers for every possible piece of hardware and configuration on the market.
Clone licensing doesn't have to be all or nothing. Apple could choose to license only a few or even just one manufacturer to make systems licensed to run the Mac OS, with strict specs on the hardware and quality control. I think the point of the thread is that if Apple is no longer interested in serving the workstation end of the market, why not open it up to someone who will, rather than simply let it languish and die?
I think you don't understand one bit how Apple operates. First, there are no market _needs_. You are confusing _need_ and _want_. But Apple doesn't look at what the market _wants_; they look at what people will want when they see it and what will make Apple money. The market didn't _want_ the iMac. But then people saw it, and they bought it. The market most certainly didn't _want_ the iPod. Then they saw it, and they bought it. Same with the iPhone, and the iPad. If the market wants something, and Apple can't make money building it, they won't build it.
Apple doesn't sell anything blindly. They just don't make their decision based on the opinion of posters on MacRumors; they look a lot lot further than you think.
One, you make an unwarranted assumption that Apple is not interested in the high-end market. Second, repeating what I posted earlier: What's in it for Apple?
Poor little windows. It really is a shame that windows suffers with such a small market share. Please . . .
Apple is a for profit business. Apple is in it, like any other company, to make money. If they stop making money on the high end market, don't be surprised to see it fade. lets' hope that doesn't happen. I love my mac pro and hope to purchase the 2010 model. However, it would not shock me if Apple starts phasing out the MP in the years to come.
It's not the money it's the size of the case. Offer something about 2/3rds the size, room for two internal hard drives and let me choose my monitor. So simple even a caveman can do it.
No, but if my machine goes down I'm not much inconvenienced because I still have a Mac Pro to back me up with.
300D: have you tried Windows 7? I've had it for six months now and haven't had a single crash. It runs pretty fast, too. I prefer OS X, but Win7 isn't bad.
These days, you really need a second computer to help you diagnose a problem when it occurs (i.e. web access to hunt patches/solutions), and allow you to get something done if the main system has an actual hardware failure (waiting on parts/tech to install them).
Brands/DIY and OS's don't really matter for such issues.
Where you around in 1995-1997? That is exactly what nearly put apple out of business. gnasher729 has said it multiple times, whats in it for apple? If you had your area of the market cornered almost to yourself and were making billions of dollars profit, why would you give yourself competition that would inevitable lead to hugely reduced profits (R&D of new products), the need to reduce production costs (quality) and your market being flooded with cheap crap (reputation)?
There is zero logical reason Apple should ever allow clones again.
How many other companies have an 8 core computer as part of their primary lineup? Even Dell's dual-xeon option starts at a pathetic 2.0ghz and comparable configurations are more expensive than a MacPro.
Yes. Its buggy, slow, unreliable and just a wanna-be version of OSX and no matter how you look at it its just a tweaked version of Vista.
Thats why I have a $100 "emergency" PowerMac G4 sitting in my closet. It hasn't been used in 2 years and my G5's uptime is up to 45 days (far longer if you don't count software install/update reboots).
Thank God your opinions aren't facts, or otherwise this world would be much more messed up.
nano: I already had the Mac Pro not as a backup machine, but you're right, I could use it for that if I need to. I have a couple of other machines lying around too that I could use for that purpose, though.
I think it's an open question how interested Apple is in the high-end market. I make no assumption either way, but I think until we see the next Mac Pro release, the jury is still out.
So, as I said, "if" Apple is not interested in the workstation market, license it out selectively to a partner who is interested in that market. What's in it for Apple if they do this? Hardware license fees and OS license fees. What's in it for Apple if they ignore this market? People building hackintoshes and, who knows, maybe or maybe not loading them with purchased copies of the OS.
OTOH, I'd be much happier if and when I see the proof that Apple really is interested in continuing to serve the pro market. Being a video pro, that would be a solid update of FCS optimized to make full use of updated pro machines. Sure, we all assume (or at least hope) that we'll get the answer any day now, but the question remains unanswered.
Finally, it is obvious that the pro market is no longer the major focus of Apple Computer, Inc. that it once was. Apple, Inc. has evolved into a much broader player. That's all well and good and what stockholders should expect of the company they own. Fine, but I've got my own business to run, and it currently depends on a key supplier (Apple) that chooses not to inform me of its plans regarding the professional equipment and software I depend on. Professionals like me are a very different market from the customers for the iProducts that now dominate the Apple line. But we're clearly a shrinking share, and it remains to be seen where we will be in Apple's plans. So I'm not bashing Apple, just seeking a business partner I can rely on. Waiting, but my supply of patience is not unlimited.
I'll try again ... IF (that's "if" not stating this as a fact) Apple is no longer interested in the high end workstation market, why not license carefully-selected partners to make only high-end workstations meeting specific hardware specs? As opposed to leaving the pro market entirely, or ignoring it to the point that pro users have unmet needs - so that they end up building hacks or switching to Windows. Nothing in it for Apple in that case.
I said nothing about opening the floodgates to all comers building crap. I said nothing about licensing others to build consumer-level machines that would compete with any of the lines that Apple chooses to continue to serve. The whole point would be to license others to serve specific markets, and only those markets, that Apple finds unprofitable to serve itself ... while picking up additional OS and hardware license fees for nothing.
Everytime one of these threads about Apple hatin on the Pro market i laugh my ass off.
Apple is not de-prioritising anything. They update their products when components are available in the right quantity and the right price to make an improvement over the product they have.
If you were a real pro, ie. a user of a tool rather than a tool of a user you'd just buy what's available at the time you need it. Rather than prattling on about how your vendor doesn't love you anymore or give you advance notice of a product that would kill current sales.
Apple's pro line is highly profitable, they may not sell them in the millions like iPhones, but it's an integral part of their business, get over yourselves.
Apple is not de-prioritising anything. They update their products when components are available in the right quantity and the right price to make an improvement over the product they have.
If you were a real pro, ie. a user of a tool rather than a tool of a user you'd just buy what's available at the time you need it. Rather than prattling on about how your vendor doesn't love you anymore or give you advance notice of a product that would kill current sales.
Apple's pro line is highly profitable, they may not sell them in the millions like iPhones, but it's an integral part of their business, get over yourselves.