Most/all cheap 15+ inch PC notebooks have a screen resolution that is the same or less than the 13" MB. What exactly is the point for having a larger computer if there is no actual benefit over a smaller one?
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.
Psystar Files for Bankruptcy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Most/all cheap 15+ inch PC notebooks have a screen resolution that is the same or less than the 13" MB. What exactly is the point for having a larger computer if there is no actual benefit over a smaller one?
They have plenty in the form of all the other PC corps + Microsoft etc.
I'd like to see better and innovative products coming from these corps to make Apple lift its game.
Just plagiarizing from Apple is not competition.
Erroneous
Basically, the only way you're gonna get that engine is if you buy the bimmer and trash it or pay a fortune for a replacement engine. Meanwhile, Apple hasn't sued anyone YET for putting their software on someone else's hardware for personal use.
Basically, the only way you're gonna get that engine is if you buy the bimmer and trash it or pay a fortune for a replacement engine. Meanwhile, Apple hasn't sued anyone YET for putting their software on someone else's hardware for personal use.
I'm talking about pure money here...all marketing aside.
And come on, you can't compare a new computer to a refurbished one for pricing..that's completely unfair...regardless if it's Mac vs. PC.
I would never buy a $366 desktop. But I tell ya what, I got my brand-new non-refurb Dell 530 quad core 3gig RAM, 500gig SATA 7200RPM drive and dvd burner for $449 without a monitor...and that price was January 2008.
Most PC land people understand the "get what you pay for" motto...and in PC land, a desktop under $400 probably spells bad news unless it's an incredible 1-day sale or it's a refurb. Most PC folks that I know spend between $500 and $800 on a computer system that includes a 20" or larger LCD monitor...and those prices have been accurate since at least summer 2008.
Macs can and do cost 2-3x more...especially the laptops. My $449 desktop is unavailable in the iMac model so I would need to get a nice $2700 Pro...even if I could get an iMac, it would be at $1200 bare minimum and that is more than 2x my Dell. My $275 Dell Netbook is completely unavailable at Apple. And altough I do not own my own laptop, my friend's $700 HP laptop is definitely cheaper than the $2000 Macbook Pro and/or the $1300/$1600 Macbooks.
I'm not hate'n. I'm just pointing out the pricing.
Oh really? Then by that logic (assuming I agree with it which I don't necessarily) Apple is guilty of abusing their monopoly because they harassed someone who was JUST MAKING WHITEBOXES for crying out loud and harassed them all the way to the point of bankruptcy. Bill Gates was found guilty of including IE for free with all Windows OS! OMG! What an evil guy he is for including one of his own products FOR FREE with one of his own products. Look, I'm no Gates fan. The point is what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Again, all this poor company did was make FREAKING WHITEBOXES! By Apple's abusive logic scores of computer nerds who build their own machines should be sued into oblivion as well. But please do in your response--if you have one of course--tell me how Apple was not being abusive with its monopoly by suing a small company out of business for making whiteboxes.
Yeah, but what kind of margin are those companies making off those prices? Very little.
Because they were trying to make money by supplying OS X with their "whiteboxes" and they didn't have permission to do so.
Apple DOES NOT have a monopoly. They control less than 10% of the OS market. Just because they only allow their OS on their hardware does not make it a monopoly. As the judge said, you can't have a monopoly on your own product. Apple is/was suing to protect intelectual property and trademarks. Very different things.
What Microsoft was found guilty of wasn't incluiding IE for free on its installs but rather threatening to pull Windows licences from retailers who installed Netscape rather than IE. That was an abuse of their monopoly (over 90% marketshare).
I thought we were off the margin topic...I was just replying to the post.
We are. I fully accept that you are going to pay a much larger price for a Mac laptop than a PC one but for many of us its is well worth the expense. I have a MBP and a Lenovo Thinkpad (given to me by my school). I work on both of them extensivly and I can tell you I prefer the MBP in almost every way. The trackpad alone is enough to make me pay the premium.
Different strokes for different folks.
Remember it took a few months before Apple went after Psystar. I doubt we will have to wait for very long.
haha i love the fact that they assume that the bankruptcy is to "delay the proceedings" and not that they actually dont have any money left to further keep things going.
So, go buy an Apple box. I do.
But, why are some of you so happy, that those who have other hardware needs, but still want to run OS X, are denied the opportunity?
OK, so selling a legal whitebox on its own is OK, and selling a copy of Mac OS is OK, but selling a whitebox with a (fully legal) copy of software automatically makes the whitebox and/or the software illegal? This makes sense how? is this like in Temple of Doom where they put the rocks together and they glow when they are together but not when they are apart? Is it something magic like that? I'm just trying to understand how selling two things together becomes illegal when either can be sold legally on its own.
also, have you read this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
This doctrine applies to a used copy of software. In this case presumably a new copy of software would enjoy at least the same rights. Again I don't see how including a whitebox with your order suddenly makes it an actionable offense.
Perhaps worst of all, however, is the knowledge that you same people would be totally with me if it were Gates/Ballmer pulling this type of stuff and not Jobs. Please try to have some objectivity. I'm typing this on a Mac. I love Macs, I just love objectivity and fairness more.
I'm bumping this because, though I disagree with certain key points you've made, I think even the bits I disagree with are well put compared to the all-too-typical, shooting-from-the-hip posts we sometimes see.
However, I think it's unfair to equate the term monopoly with any company like Apple that holds only less than 10% market share. If you don't know which company breaches anti-trust laws the most & tries to stifle competition, try googling for MS & anti-trust.
Also, ever wondered why HP, Dell or any one of a number of PC hardware makers don't design their own OS, rather than complaining about lost sales because of Vista's pre-SP1 shortcomings, as happened recently?
Apple's business plan may not be palatable to all, but how else do you think they can afford to constantly innovate, develop OS X, work on new products, etc.? Yes, their relatively high profit margins, some 30% as opposed to the average industry standard of about 10%, allowing them to hire some of the best engineering talent out there.
What you're suggesting would certainly guarantee that Macs would have to be sold at much lower prices &, yes, there would be short-term monetary gain for all consumers. However, long-term, we'd all lose out. How many years do you think it'd take before Apple's share price tumbled to record lows & inevitable cutbacks turned them into just another PC company producing mostly generic hardware?
What I would like to see Apple do to grow market share is either to go into very selective partnership with a quality PC maker to sell OS X computers that won't cannibalize Apple's existing range, for eg., mid-towers (not comparable to serious workstations like Mac Pro), or simply striking a better balance in a downhill economy between profit margins & steady growth. I grant the former is highly unlikely. If Mac sales continue to dip however, which recently they've done significantly so, I think (at least I hope) we may see slightly cheaper Macs in the coming months.
Total rubbish? Why bother posting a comment like that if you've got such little experience with (or even just looking in a shop...) hardware.
Do you really need someone to describe the benefits and differences of screen sizes to you?
My opinion on this monopoly thing people have mentioned a fair few times - last time I looked, the bureaucrats in charge of deciding these things and fining these corporates are even more clueless than your average tech enthusiast.
Slightly on topic, I liked what psystar were doing, simply the idea of osx on non-apple hardware. Maybe there's no other realistic way to push for and advertise this, but running out of money (or losing before) court was pretty inevitable
Apple uses no desktop processors, so no, we will never see Core i7. Also, GAINESTOWN.
Funny, since Windows has 88% marketshare, I'd say it's LESS than 95%, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that only about 25% of them GIVE A CRAP and the rest couldn't care less about their computer if it WORKS.
Good luck affording one.
Please, PLEASE link me to a 24" LED-backlit H-IPS panel. Oh, it needs to have speakers, a microphone, and a webcam. Can't do it, eh?
Please find a dictionary and look up the word "monopoly". You have absolutely no idea what it means, and it has no place in this thread at all.
Eloquent addition.
This is quite odd. Could you confirm that, should Apple ever become dominant anywhere, there'd magically be some sort of moral objection to stuff that it was quite OK for it to do the week before? Do you think Apple is avoiding becoming dominant in any marketplace because it thrives on activities that would suddenly become verboten?
First sale does not give you the right to modify someone elses product and resell it in a way that their licence agreement strictly forbids. It doesn't apply in this case.
I, personally, don't have issues with anyone trying to protect their intellectual property. They created it, they own it and they have the right to dictate certain rules for its use.
Psystar could sell OS X & a Box without an issues but as soon as they opened the box and used modified software makes it an actionable offense.
Also using the excuse that you love macs isn't going to make your comments any more reasonable.
seems like the people getting screwed here are the ones that bought a computer from pystar. When the next OS update breaks the OSX installation, who will they turn to get it fixed? pystar got their money, apple doesn't need to support them, I guess they are on their own to research and get their hackintosh fixed.
but I guess they knew what they were getting themselves into. Plus it's not like they paid a lot of money for it.
but I guess they knew what they were getting themselves into. Plus it's not like they paid a lot of money for it.
Hey, no problemo. I'm sure that you supported Bill gates then in the 90's, right? That's all he was doing. If you didn't support him then you are a hypocrite now.
Exactly...every consumer has their own taste.
My work pc is a Thinkpad but I use it on my docking station.
What about Gainestown? Apple doesn't even use the best Gainestown anyways (3.2GHz).
And of course Apple will never use Core i7 - they like selling underpowered hardware for "premium" prices.
Apple sells like 8 million Macs a year compared to 260 million PCs lol.
If you can afford a Mac Pro you'd be able to afford a 3.2GHz Nehalem.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176104 H-IPS for $550.
Monitor most people actually care about (24-inch): http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...etail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-7345 $299 from Dell, could get even lower