Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple

[IJ Reilly]

Indeed, but I guess much depends on what it is people want to know. I think time certainly reveals most of the fundamentals, eventually (for eg., does God exist? Is death the final end or just another beginning? When will the economy make a full recovery? etc.). But we're probably better off not knowing some things before (one's) time, so to speak.

Exactly the response I'd expect from a giant cockroach.

 

[gnasher729]

I still do not understand why everyone is siding with Apple on this issue. The bottom line is Psystar did break the current laws; however, Apple does have a monopoly on their OS and while they might not be legally bound to allow their prosperity software to run on other hardware, it would certainly be a good move for competition and might bring the price of Apple hard ware down. I don't think cheaper Macs would mean less profit for Apple, as they would simply sell more.

There has just been a court decision throwing out Psystar's case because Psystar and their lawyers did not even manage to make a "plausible argument" for Apple having any monopoly. In other words, your claim that Apple has a monopoly is so far off the mark that a court cannot even bothered looking at that claim.

And you don't quite understand the meaning of competition. "Competition" doesn't mean any company would have any obligation to help their competitors. And with Microsoft claiming that they outsell MacOS X in the operating system market 33 to 1, and with Apple being massively outsold by HP and Dell, why do you think Apple should help any competitor?

 

[matticus008]

Psystar never requested a legitimate license to use OSX so its irrelevant if was was refused or not.

According to their own pleadings, Psystar did recognize the existence of an official licensing program in the past and specifically failed to inquire as to obtaining a license themselves. They then proceeded, without authorization, to do the very thing for which they had previously shown awareness of the need for permission.

Had they requested a license, however, they would have been denied, which would have gotten them in deeper trouble, just like when you do something your parents specifically told you not to do. Not only are you on the line for the act itself, but also for the separate act of defiance.

They could have waited as long as they wanted to since this is a civil suit.

No, only up to three years.

Apple does have a monopoly on their OS

No. A single brand almost never constitutes a market. Everyone has a "monopoly" on their own products, but it is not in fact a monopoly.

might bring the price of Apple hard ware down.

No. Apple would still have to defray the actual costs of the OS, while other vendors would be free to ignore them. Apple could never match the ultra-cheap end of the market, and they have already achieved parity with the mid- to upper end.

I don't think cheaper Macs would mean less profit for Apple, as they would simply sell more.

Why? A modest reduction in price is not going to capture a greater portion of the market. There is no evidence to suggest that there are people who would have purchased a Mac but for a $50 price difference. There are sales and refurbs for that.

Regardless of the hue and cry, it's their choice what to sell, just like it's your choice whether or not to buy. They don't have the right to take your money when you say "no deal", just like you don't have the right to take their products when they say "no deal", whether you offer to pay or not. It's not complicated, and it doesn't have anything to do with taking "sides".

 

[GaryPDX]

...Yes, it would be nice if Apple provided a non-workstation, non-laptop-parts non-glossy option. But they are not obliged or provide it. Nor, as far as I know, are they obliged to allow others to do so.

The Mac platform (as a package) is the option. There are alternatives to it. The alternatives may not be ideal, but they are there. But some people, for whastever reason, refuse to accept that as a valid option.

Actually, I want Apple to release something headless and at least partly user-upgradeable. I want them to release the option that so many are clamouring for. (Or maybe even allow cheaper but licensed clones)
Because I'm sure that for every person who only goes Hackintosh in the lack of a viable alternative, there are probably several people who would still probably go Hackintosh because it's either cheaper or that it still doesn't scratch their particular itch....

Mac Mini?

 

[gregorsamsa]

Exactly the response I'd expect from a giant cockroach.

Whether you've merely heard of Kafka, or read him extensively, you'll probably know that the cockroach comes to a bad end anyway - so no self-preening cocks needed to seal my fate, thank you. I blame an accursed existence & the family of course (but best not go there).

I look forward to seeing sales figures for Macs sold during the next quarter & any comparisons with the same quarter of last year.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Whether you've merely heard of Kafka, or read him extensively, you'll probably know that the cockroach comes to a bad end anyway - so no self-preening cocks needed to seal my fate, thank you. I blame an accursed existence & the family of course (but best not go there).

Where cockroaches are concerned, I try to avoid going there entirely.

I look forward to seeing sales figures for Macs sold during the next quarter & any comparisons with the same quarter of last year.

A bold prediction: Mac sales growth rates will be much lower in the current quarter compared to last year, perhaps half -- but the industry as a whole will be flat to down.

 

[gregorsamsa]

Where cockroaches are concerned, I try to avoid going there entirely.

I meant go there metaphysically, so my apologies for expecting a cock to grasp that.

A bold prediction: Mac sales growth rates will be much lower in the current quarter compared to last year, perhaps half -- but the industry as a whole will be flat to down.

One way to deal with a recession is, of course, to lower prices, but I guess you might also find a way to justify Apple actually increasing theirs & then blame any significantly falling sales on the recession. I'm beginning to wonder if Apple can do no wrong whatsoever according to some opinion here?

EDIT: FWIW, to anyone passing through, my reference to "cock" (here & previous post) no longer makes sense because Reilly's "cock" avatar has reverted to old.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I meant go there metaphysically, so my apologies for expecting a cock to grasp that.

So did I. This discussion is entirely metaphysical as far as I'm concerned.

One way to deal with a recession is, of course, to lower prices, but I guess you might also find a way to justify Apple actually increasing theirs & then blame any significantly falling sales on the recession. I'm beginning to wonder if Apple can do no wrong whatsoever according to some opinion here?

I don't see a lot of lowering of prices in the face of a recession, but I can see where Apple kept the white MacBook in the lineup at a (gasp) lower price, when they'd surely rather have dispensed with the old models entirely, so there's some economic pragmatism for you. Keep in mind also that the new laptop had to be in the design and manufacturing pipeline for many months prior to the onset of the worldwide recession, so they were essentially stuck with it.

 

[gregorsamsa]

So did I. This discussion is entirely metaphysical as far as I'm concerned.

Good, but then why avoid going anywhere in a purely metaphysical way? I mean, how many other metaphysical boundaries have you placed around your existence?

I don't see a lot of lowering of prices in the face of a recession, but I can see where Apple kept the white MacBook in the lineup at a (gasp) lower price, when they'd surely rather have dispensed with the old models entirely, so there's some economic pragmatism for you. Keep in mind also that the new laptop had to be in the design and manufacturing pipeline for many months prior to the onset of the worldwide recession, so they were essentially stuck with it.

But seriously now, I struggle to imagine that you sincerely think maintaining white MacBooks has much to do with "economic pragmatism" & not more so with simply selling off old inventory at higher than refurb prices. Frankly, I'll be extremely surprised if Apple are still selling white MacBooks, other than refurbs, this time next year.

 

[TiggsPanther]

Mac Mini?

For one, it's so overdue an update it's harder to justify getting one in many circumstances. It's still a good piece of kit but no longer as good value-for-money, other Mac lines have been updated twice, and the price is not any lower.

For another, although I'd personally be OK if they merely refreshed the Mini, I did mention in my post that people are after a user-upgradable non-laptop-parts Mac. As good a piece of kit as the Mac Mini can be, even when up to date it's still effectively a sealed-box headless MacBook. So it doesn't meet the need that many people (on this sort of site) would want.

 

[rickag]

What's the philosophy? Do you really think that Apple wouldn't release such a product .... if it made them more money?

It's ironic that many people on this forum (and others!) accuse Apple of being greedy... yet simultaneously accuse them of turning down the cash because of some alleged control freakery mission.

Apple, Steve Jobs and the bean counters watched on as sales of the original iMac overtook their other desktop systems. The G4 iMac easily outsold the G4 towers (that people here, including Clive@5 longingly hark back to). Then, the Apple team can't have failed to notice that notebooks increasingly became the flavour of the month. Now, many of the major PC companies are selling AOIs and Dell is even selling bamboo coated mini-desktops.

Yes. Some people want a mid range, mid priced, upgradable tower. However that slice of the pie is getting smaller as we speak. You don't need to be a philosopher to see that.

I don't have the time to recover the quotes Jobs has made concerning computer design. But there is a history for Apple's design of computers. It stretchs back to the days the Woz was involved and butted heads with Jobs. Yes, Apple does design computers based on their philosophy of what a consumer computer should be. Sometimes it works, iPod/ iPhone. Sometimes it doesn't, the Cube.

....
At the same time, their philosophy has always been "anti-beige," if you will. Mid-towers are very beige.
... I don't foresee them ever launching anything similar to a mid-tower. I could fathom another mockery of the tower (G4 Cube) or something else that totally fails to address the actual demands of those begging for something else (MacMini) but I could never see Apple launching an xMac tower.

If Jonathan Ive put his mind to it, I'm confidant an Apple mid to upper end consumer tower wouldn't be "the beige"

I also don't "foresee them ever launching anything similar to a mid-tower", ever. Apple seems to believe a consumer computer should be as close to an appliance as possible. Buy it, use it, replace it when necessary.

Companies can't afford philosophies, at least not in the way you describe it.

That may be true, but many of Steve Jobs quotes show that when designing computers, Apple does indeed have philosophical beliefs in what a consumer needs or wants.

To be clear, what I am challenging is the basis of the certainty that you (and others) know more about selling computers than Apple does. And again, if Apple was performing poorly in this market, as they have at other times, then the second-guessing might well be justified. But with Apple substantially outperforming their competitors by a wide margin, I think it takes more than anecdotes or beliefs to support an argument that they could do even better, if only they'd do it your way instead of theirs.

Of course it isn't a certainty that Apple could increase their rate of market share growth. But the cost and risk to Apple in introducing a mid to upper end consumer tower is negliable. It would be low risk with potential high pay out, who knows, but I doubt we will every find out.

I find it perplexing that so many people dismiss the effect a mid to upper end consumer tower would have on Apple's growth, yet this debate has gone on for years, goning on decades, in virtually every mac centric website. Petitions have sprouted up, even Mac magazines have brought it up. And until computers become so powerful that Mac minis and iMacs can run all software efficiently and effectively, without worrying about rapidly changing technology, this debate will continue.

 

[Sun Baked]

I meant go there metaphysically, so my apologies for expecting a cock to grasp that.

Are you grasping at something besides straws.

aka,

(nothing better than a public ego stroking on the webcam)

 

[gregorsamsa]

Are you grasping at something besides straws.

aka,

(nothing better than a public ego stroking on the webcam)

Well if all the smilies & winks passing between Reilly & I still doesn't make it obvious enough for you, try reading the posts between both posters & then you might realize the intended exchange of humour. Or, you can continue shooting blanks, in which case you might as well be talking to yourself.

Besides, who asked you to butt in when the non-Mac oriented nature of our banter finished long ago? However, if you simply don't like people criticizing Apple (which I certainly do in said posts), then just say so. Let's hear your side of the argument, if you have one.

 

[piot]

I don't have the time to recover the quotes Jobs has made concerning computer design. But there is a history for Apple's design of computers.

Yes, of course Apple has a design philosophy. But is that what you meant with your original quote?

.... but I fear Apple's decision to forgo the mid to upper end tower is a philosophical decision and not an economic one.

The design philosophy was definitely not "beige" when Apple introduced the blue and white G3 towers. That carried over to the silver G4s. The G5 towers (later Mac Pros) introduced a whole new design ethic. Sadly, for many people on this forum it announced the demise of the now elusive mid-range mac tower.

My contention is simple. It iS an economic philosophy. It has nothing to do with design or technical reasons. It has nothing to do with "let's just piss off the geeks".

When Apple's quarterly results used to give more detail on Mac sales it's plain to see that most Mac desktop buyers... were buying iMacs ... and only 25-30% of Mac buyers were buying notebooks. Today consumers are buying notebooks in increasing numbers. Tomorrow that will be most consumers. PC makers are now selling iMac clones, Mac mini clones and the latest flavour of the month the Netbook(!)

If you want to look for Steve Jobs' quotes... look for the "where the puck is going" one. Steve and Apple may be a little hasty in leaving behind certain technologies that are on their way out.... but that's as it ever was.

 

[rickag]

Yes, of course Apple has a design philosophy. But is that what you meant with your original quote?



The design philosophy was definitely not "beige" when Apple introduced the blue and white G3 towers. That carried over to the silver G4s. The G5 towers (later Mac Pros) introduced a whole new design ethic. Sadly, for many people on this forum it announced the demise of the now elusive mid-range mac tower.

My contention is simple. It iS an economic philosophy. It has nothing to do with design or technical reasons. It has nothing to do with "let's just piss off the geeks". It never was and never will be to piss off geeks.

When Apple's quarterly results used to give more detail on Mac sales it's plain to see that most Mac desktop buyers... were buying iMacs ... and only 25-30% of Mac buyers were buying notebooks. Today consumers are buying notebooks in increasing numbers. Tomorrow that will be most consumers. PC makers are now selling iMac clones, Mac mini clones and the latest flavour of the month the Netbook(!)

If you want to look for Steve Jobs' quotes... look for the "where the puck is going" one. Steve and Apple may be a little hasty in leaving behind certain technologies that are on their way out.... but that's as it ever was.

Sorry if I was misunderstood to mean Apple's design philosophy was ever to "let's just piss off the geeks".

As to why the last few mid range towers Apple offered failed to capture any traction, we need to look at the price comparisons with the iMac. For the exact same price one could buy an iMac with a built in LCD screen worth up to $200 at the time, or an tower with the screen replaced with slots and drive bays. This made the comparison very very unfavorable for the towers. Apple didn't price them favorably for what many people believed was fear of losing sales of iMacs. The last such instance I believe was the 1.8GHz tower priced at $1499, the exact same price as the 1.8GHz iMac.

If the public is so enamored with the desktop AIO design, explain how come the rest of the industry hasn't changed to this design exclusively, as Apple has, and why they are not selling for Dell and HP? It has been years and the public is still virtually ignoring this desktop AIO design for Apple's competitors.

The flip side of that puck you mention is that the presence of PCI slots allows even the less technologically inclined to keep up with the puck in the rapidly changing world of technology. Just ask all the people who bought iMacs within months(re: hundreds of thousands of them) of Apple dropping firewire from iPods. They had USB 1 and firewire. USB 1 was woefully inadequate for syncing and there was no tech to replace it, effectively limiting from buying new iPods. This is only one glaring example where a $10 card solved any problems Windows users with only USB 1 could solve, yet iMac owners couldn't. So the moving puck argument cuts both ways doesn't it?

 

[Sun Baked]

As to why the last few mid range towers Apple offered failed to capture any traction, we need to look at the price comparisons with the iMac. For the exact same price one could buy an iMac with a built in LCD screen worth up to $200 at the time, or an tower with the screen replaced with slots and drive bays. This made the comparison very very unfavorable for the towers. Apple didn't price them favorably for what many people believed was fear of losing sales of iMacs. The last such instance I believe was the 1.8GHz tower priced at $1499, the exact same price as the 1.8GHz iMac.

At that time it was exactly the same machine as the iMac, repackaged in a new case. They used the consumer iMac chipset in that short lived machine.

So with Apple's expensive LCDs in the store, it cost about twice as an iMac for the headless iMac.

---

If Apple switches the iMac to the desktop CPU at least, and moves stuff around to make the HD as easy to change as the MacBook, it'll decrease the performance gap a bit between the iMac and Pro.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Of course it isn't a certainty that Apple could increase their rate of market share growth. But the cost and risk to Apple in introducing a mid to upper end consumer tower is negliable. It would be low risk with potential high pay out, who knows, but I doubt we will every find out.

You are only guessing about this. Apple is not. All others things being equal, I will go with Apple on this one.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Sorry if I was misunderstood to mean Apple's design philosophy was ever to "let's just piss off the geeks".

As to why the last few mid range towers Apple offered failed to capture any traction, we need to look at the price comparisons with the iMac. For the exact same price one could buy an iMac with a built in LCD screen worth up to $200 at the time, or an tower with the screen replaced with slots and drive bays. This made the comparison very very unfavorable for the towers. Apple didn't price them favorably for what many people believed was fear of losing sales of iMacs. The last such instance I believe was the 1.8GHz tower priced at $1499, the exact same price as the 1.8GHz iMac.

If the public is so enamored with the desktop AIO design, explain how come the rest of the industry hasn't changed to this design exclusively, as Apple has, and why they are not selling for Dell and HP? It has been years and the public is still virtually ignoring this desktop AIO design for Apple's competitors.

The flip side of that puck you mention is that the presence of PCI slots allows even the less technologically inclined to keep up with the puck in the rapidly changing world of technology. Just ask all the people who bought iMacs within months(re: hundreds of thousands of them) of Apple dropping firewire from iPods. They had USB 1 and firewire. USB 1 was woefully inadequate for syncing and there was no tech to replace it, effectively limiting from buying new iPods. This is only one glaring example where a $10 card solved any problems Windows users with only USB 1 could solve, yet iMac owners couldn't. So the moving puck argument cuts both ways doesn't it?

The imac had mate screens back then and the desktop where priced $1200 and up also the mini had good video for a low end system at the time now the $800 mini should have a video card with it's own ram and the $600 needs to much better then gma 950 and 1gb of ram.

Need to have at the mini 2 - 4gb ram + dvdrw in all systems.

 

[rickag]

You are only guessing about this. Apple is not. All others things being equal, I will go with Apple on this one.

No, I'm not. Apple has in the past had mid to upper end consumer desktops, they already know how to do it, and do it well. It's just in the last few designs that they were not priced competitive when compared to the dual processor pro towers and the iMacs.

Introducing a consumer mid to upper end desktop tower represents little to no risk, first because it can be discontinued very quickly.

I would say the risk of introducing the iPods, iPhone, iTunes, the Cube, iLamp, Newton, Pippin, Mac mini, AppleTV, etc. represent exponentially greater risks. These required large investments in design, both in the exotic motherboards and enclosures for the computers, placing a high premium on size and quiet operation. And even larger investments in introducing completely different products in different markets traditionally not entered into by computer companies as in the iPod, iPhone, AppleTV. The risk of moving the operating system to Intel represented a greater risk, both in investment and resulting anxiety by users and developers.

So yes, introducing a mid to upper end consumer desktop represents little or no risk, especially for a company continually taking much large risks economically and with their business plans.

 

[IJ Reilly]

No, I'm not. Apple has in the past had mid to upper end consumer desktops, they already know how to do it, and do it well. It's just in the last few designs that they were not priced competitive when compared to the dual processor pro towers and the iMacs.

Introducing a consumer mid to upper end desktop tower represents little to no risk, first because it can be discontinued very quickly.

If Apple invested in the design, manufacture and marketing of a product they discontinued quickly, this would be seen (correctly) as a failure. See, G4 Cube.

But again, you are assuming that this product pencils out for Apple, but that they aren't selling it for reasons that have nothing to do with profitability. Fundamentally, this makes no sense at all from a business point of view. To hold this view you'd have to assume that Apple isn't very good at making a profit. At one time, when Apple was rudderless and bleeding cash, this might have been a opinion with some reasoning behind it. These days, it's a reach. A huge reach.

 

[rickag]

If Apple invested in the design, manufacture and marketing of a product they discontinued quickly, this would be seen (correctly) as a failure. See, G4 Cube.

They were a failure because of the unrealistic price points. The Cube introduced at $200 more than an equivalent iMac and required half height cards, that is a bad deal and consumer knew it, unless they placed a very high premium on size and a separate monitor. You can include the single cpu 1.8GHz G5 tower in the list also by the way. Both it and the iMac were identically priced @ $1499, making the tower a very bad comparison to the iMac, because the iMac came with the equivalent of a $200 screen, which was swapped out for a couple of bucks worth of slots and bays.

But again, you are assuming that this product pencils out for Apple, but that they aren't selling it for reasons that have nothing to do with profitability. Fundamentally, this makes no sense at all from a business point of view. To hold this view you'd have to assume that Apple isn't very good at making a profit. At one time, when Apple was rudderless and bleeding cash, this might have been a opinion with some reasoning behind it. These days, it's a reach. A huge reach.

Where did I say that Apple isn't good at making a profit? In fact I'm an AAPL stock holder. Please quit changing the subject. I said it is a low risk option for Apple to introduce a mid to upper end consumer tower and explained why. You go off on a tangent about the bad old days, which is unrelated to today, different products, different operating system different hardware.

And yes, it does seem to be more a philosophical decision on Apple's part to maintain the AIO consumer desktop model and not introduce a mid to upper end consumer desktop tower. Why do you have such a problem with this idea?

http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Diagnostic_Port.txt&characters=Steve%20Jobs&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium&showcomments=1

 

[IJ Reilly]

The reason for any given product's failure is immaterial. You were basing your argument on the "lack of risk" of developing a product which was discontinued quickly. I am pointing out that this is a real risk. Costs have to be sunk, and a failure in the marketplace is bad for the company's image as a whole -- as the Cube experience so amply illustrated.

I am not changing the subject at all. It's easy for arm-chair CEOs to declare that Apple should develop a given product, but they are not in possession of the information Apple has, on which actual decisions are based. The reason I bring up Apple's recent success is that they have proven themselves to be very adept at bringing profitable products to market. Don't kid yourself, maximizing profit their only "philosophy" when it comes to new products. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with that concept.

 

[gnasher729]

I am not changing the subject at all. It's easy for arm-chair CEOs to declare that Apple should develop a given product, but they are not in possession of the information Apple has, on which actual decisions are based. The reason I bring up Apple's recent success is that they have proven themselves to be very adept at bringing profitable products to market. Don't kid yourself, maximizing profit their only "philosophy" when it comes to new products. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with that concept.

I think it is not so much the lack of information that is the problem, but the bias. I can very much understand that people would want for example a mid-range tower Macintosh, or a MacOS X version sold for generic PCs. The problem is that they think first of what is good for themselves, and then find arguments why it must be good for Apple as well. These arguments are biased.

Any product decision would take into consideration: What is the cost of introducing a new product (including the effect of thinning out your development resources). What are project sales, production cost, gross margin. How will it affect the brand - if a product cheapens the brand, that is a big, big, big negative. How will it affect sales of other products.

Take the MacBook Air: I don't think Apple sells too many (I am sure it holds its own, but is likely not the big money maker), but it has an immense positive effect on the brand. There are thousands who love the MacBook Air, go to an Apple Store, and leave with a MacBook Pro or MacBook. A mid-range tower, on the other hand, could have an effect on sales that is negative if all is added up.

Fact is that Apple beats all the PC companies by not playing by their rules and not competing where they are strongest. Dell can't _afford_ to compete with Apple because if they did, they would lose three sales to HP and two to Acer for each sale they take away from Apple. A mid-range tower on the other hand would force Apple to compete by Dell's rules.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I think it is not so much the lack of information that is the problem, but the bias. I can very much understand that people would want for example a mid-range tower Macintosh, or a MacOS X version sold for generic PCs. The problem is that they think first of what is good for themselves, and then find arguments why it must be good for Apple as well. These arguments are biased.

I agree. There's a real tendency on the part of some to assume that what's good for me is good for Apple. Also underlying this argument is the apparent assumption that Apple either (1) doesn't really know how to maximize their profits, or (2) has some sort of illogical, nefarious plot to deny certain people the Mac of their fondest desires.

When you look at the PC market as a whole, I think it becomes readily apparent that this is one extremely tough business, which Apple has recently navigated with amazing success, both in terms of their market share growth and margins. You can bet your eye teeth that every one of the Windows OEMs would like to emulate Apple's model, but they simply can't, because they are engaged in a race to the bottom with the other OEMs (a race in which not incidentally Microsoft is the only real winner). I can see why Apple has no interest in climbing down into that particular mud wrestling pit.

 

[rickag]

The reason for any given product's failure is immaterial.

How convenient for your argument, I say baloney, the reasons are very relevant.

You were basing your argument on the "lack of risk" of developing a product which was discontinued quickly. I am pointing out that this is a real risk. Costs have to be sunk, and a failure in the marketplace is bad for the company's image as a whole -- as the Cube experience so amply illustrated.

You fail to grasp the point made, which was that Apple is not risk averse, as the Cube, iLamp, etc prove.

I am not changing the subject at all. It's easy for arm-chair CEOs to declare that Apple should develop a given product, but they are not in possession of the information Apple has, on which actual decisions are based. The reason I bring up Apple's recent success is that they have proven themselves to be very adept at bringing profitable products to market.

In one post you want it both ways. Apple has failures, and in your mind the reasons are not relevant, then you say "proven themselves to be very adept at bringing profitable products to market.". Which is it? Well, of course it is both but you only use one argument at a time to prove your points. Truth is that Apple is not risk averse and has proven it over and over again, both with success and with failure. Now, ask yourself honestly, how risky would the introduction of a mid to upper end consumer desktop tower be. Truth is, almost none, especially when compared to other risky products I point to previously.

So, what is the real reason Apple isn't offering a mid to upper end consumer desktop tower. It isn't risk aversion. It isn't cost to develop. It must be something else. I suggest to read the article I posted a link to, it may not be completely accurate in all aspects, but it does provide insight into the Apple culture.

Don't kid yourself, maximizing profit their only "philosophy" when it comes to new products. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with that concept.

No, maximizing profits is not Apple's only philosophy when it comes to new products.