I'd like to see Apple survuve without relying on Windows. Something tells me they can't.
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 Sues Psystar over OpenComputer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd like to see Apple survuve without relying on Windows. Something tells me they can't.
You should take a look at sales numbers as compared to other computer makers, not the world wide market. When you have those numbers compare Apples sales to other manufacturers in the same price range. I think you will see that Apple out sells most PC makers in their price range .
Please don't poopoo segmenting the market by price. It's the same for many products sold that people consider "premium". Price matters, but so does perceived quality. Apple wants its products to be considered a premium purchase. That is the market they are seeking. In the early '90s they tried the other route and it nearly bankrupt the company.
If you want to play the numbers game overall, that's OK too. Apple has seen significant increases in sales as compared to other computer makers even with the recession the world is in. Apples market share continues to grow. it'll take time to regain the market share of the '90s, but if they keep up the pace they are going it will happen.
Nobody is saying it would suck to have a Mac Pro for $1000-$1500, just that it's not what Apple wants to do. Apple runs their own ship and it would appear that they are pretty good at knowing what is good for them.
Erm... yeah. And the above is only a small example of you complaining how small Apple's market share is; I just didn't feel like going back through all your long posts to try and find more examples.
As has been pointed out many times to you, Apple is not in it for market share. They are perfectly content with what they have, and how they are doing. In fact, they even understand that it's better to have a smaller market share, because that means less viruses, worms, trojans, etc to have to deal with, and they can spend more time focusing on more important things. I'm unsure as to why you are unable to grasp this fact.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but... not everyone cares what you personally want. Yes, even large companies such as Apple. There are other people in this world who are content with what Apple offers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all against Apple building a minitower; I could think of a hundred practical uses for it. But because they don't want too large of a market share, I find it unlikely that they will actually bring to market said minitower. They fear it might attract too many switchers, and then they'd have to worry about viruses, worms, trojans, etc; exactly what they're trying to avoid.
P.S. Considering they did eventually refresh the graphics card, they did not take literally forever.
I considered putting together a long list of the conflicting responses, but you have done an excellent job of illustrating the issue with minimal effort.
So? It doesn't mean we should applaud it as a virtue. Unless you think like a shareholder and not as a buyer of said products.
No, I think we can all agree on that. Hopefully, we can all also agree that one cannot argue that just because something sells wel, it's then good quality or even decent, or that there is "choice" for the consumers to make.
To make belief that conusmer wishes shouldn't matter and that not listening to consumers somehow is great from a conusmer point of view is quite a logical leap. A leap I disagree with.
I'm not sure I'd want a tower at all. I don't think I'm that kind of bloke, so to speak, although I do at times miss a bigger screen.
I'd like to see Apple survuve without relying on Windows. Something tells me they can't.
My point was, that if we took the argument to heart, Apple could easily do well on their iPods alone. They could nix the entire computer fraction, and all would still be well.
If you take a look at that argument in the context, you will notice that I said so, because the argument seems to be that they should ONLY cater to the most popular choice, the biggest consumer groups, or, in other words: The lowest common denominator.
This argument was brought up because the poster tried to make a "market research" argument to that effect, not realising we're talking of Apple here: A company who, for decades have been the niche-company. Yet, all of a sudden, people argue they should conduct all their business from market research resulting in products which have the lowest common denominator?
I hate to be cliche, but is that kind of like how I don't personally care one bit what you Apple religious types have to say? Touche.
Because obviously if he's not bashing Apple left and right he worships Jobs. Yeah. No in betweens. Get a grip.
If Apple sues Psystar, whichever company the courts decides wins win. If it's Apple, good for them. If it's Psystar, well, that will open up a number of interesting possibilities which have been discussed before.
This isn't really too surprising that Apple finally sued them. It will be interesting to see who wins and what effect it has on the Apple/Apple-knock-off market.
Right, I understand (I think). That is why I pointed out the Windows conundrum. The iPod sold well without Windows compatibility, but it only exploded once that compatibility was added. Sadly Windows has became that LCD. Apple touts Windows compatibility because if they didn't not as many people would buy into it. I don't think they should center their line around the cheapest product, a la Shuffle. I do think they should put something in between the Mini and Mac Pro (that isn't an AIO). Will they? Dunno, it is doubtful.
Neither argument is likely to hold up in court, since Apple is hardly the first company to operate in this matter and none of the authorized PPC cloners bothered to sue Apple when their System 7 licenses were revoked, even though most of them likely had a stronger interest in continuing then Psystar does.
On the plus side for Apple, when they successfully get the court to reject these claims, it will only strengthen their position.
Agreed. And unless they have a techno-idiot judge, the counter suit should get dismissed pretty quickly.
Point of Order:
At this point in time, Psystar is merely suggesting they may file a countersuit and saying that they plan to provide an "answer to Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit Tuesday."
In other words, the "Psystar countersues Apple" statement in this thread is incorrect and is a false statement. While Psystar might do that (in the future), Psytar has not filed any kind of countersuit against Apple at this point in time based on what news agencies are reporting (vs. blog reporting).
"Springer said his firm has not filed any suits with the Federal Trade Commission or any other government agencies." [Yahoo News]
At this point in time, Psystar is merely suggesting they may file a countersuit and saying that they plan to provide an "answer to Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit Tuesday."
In other words, the "Psystar countersues Apple" statement in this thread is incorrect and is a false statement. While Psystar might do that (in the future), Psytar has not filed any kind of countersuit against Apple at this point in time based on what news agencies are reporting (vs. blog reporting).
"Springer said his firm has not filed any suits with the Federal Trade Commission or any other government agencies." [Yahoo News]
That's it; insult anyone that disagrees with your viewpoint by proxy. Lawyers that have gotten Apple to settle in the past because they knew they'd likely lose believe they have a case; many people on here including myself have suggested the very same case as well, but we're all "techno-idiot(s)" because you happen to think Apple can do no wrong. Yeah, great response.
I know this site's forums are heavily tilted on the AppleFanboi side, but there are those of us that look at Psystar's efforts from a more objective viewpoint.
For an actual discussion that's a bit more, let's say, "balanced", there's a lively one going on here, along with a nice summary of the latest news:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/26/2148250
If you're not interested, for god's sake, please just ignore the above link and move on with your life. I post it for informational purposes only.
For an actual discussion that's a bit more, let's say, "balanced", there's a lively one going on here, along with a nice summary of the latest news:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/26/2148250
If you're not interested, for god's sake, please just ignore the above link and move on with your life. I post it for informational purposes only.
I'd like to see Apple survuve without relying on Windows. Something tells me they can't.
that's only because you need pitch black to bring out the shine in the star
Hold on a minute. I didn't accuse anyone here or anywhere else of being a techno-idiot. I was merely making the point that this case will probably get very technical in nature, and it will help both sides to have a judge that understands what is being said.
Will you stop with the accusations that anyone who is on Apple's side believes they can do no wrong. Apple can screw up, have recently, will again in the future - however, from a purely legal standpoint (not knowing all the FACTS of the case, as I'm not involved) this looks to go in Apple's favor. Psystar seems to be grabbing at straws.
I think Robert was implying a "Technology impaired" or "Computer neophyte" judge.
I don't believe he was trying to indicate you were a techno-idiot. You may be many things, but I would not classify you as a technical idiot.
imac.
the only difference is that it's not a tower. but a lot of midrange users see that as a plus cause they have no need to muck around with cables, connections etc. they just want to turn the dang thing on and have it work
the biggest problem with this whole thing is that instead of Psystar going public and challenging Apple's EULA and their right to restrict the machines that run OSX and THEN making the machines, they made the machines and now are trying to pull a "but it's a dumb rule and we don't want to follow it" type of defense.
add to that a computer that will cost you a fortune in getting it fixed because the company is only in one state. and don't give me that whole phone support thing. most folks don't understand computers enough to follow that kind of thing. and remote repairs don't work when you don't have a working computer.