Even if there is no advantages the fact is 2.93 is still not highest end. Isn't it funny though that Apple sells the Dual 2.26GHz for MORE than than the Single 2.66GHz even though the 2.66GHz cost more than 2 2.26GHz?
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
Yes. All the professionals who use Macs are retarded ignorants who know nothing, only you are the god of knowledge and know everything. You're smarter than them because you buy cheaper computers. Bravo.
Sorry, mate, but they are two different processors - the single 2.66 is a 3xxx and the 2.66 in the dual is a 5xxx (can't remember the specific models off the top of my head.) Two processors from two single-CPU towers will not run in a dual-CPU-mobo configuration.
While I can't speak for him, I personally don't think the request itself is unreasonable. However, he is right in that we can't expect each product to be perfect for every person. We have to look at whats out there and make the choice that best suits us based on what is most important. You're personal requests can't all be fulfilled by any one company so you have to choose the order of importance. For me, its easy: 1)OSX, 2) Power, 3) Price. Since this is my order, I bought the Pro. If your order is different, you might not end up with an Apple product at all.
I see a big difference between feeling that the hardware lineup from Apple is unnecessarily limited and expensive and feeling that the buisness practice is illegal, which is what many are claiming.
I never suggested anything of the kind.
Oh, give me a break already. I'm not asking for the Earth, Moon and stars. i'm just asking for more modern hardware. Apple can support whatever hardware they like. The real question you should be asking is why they don't bother supporting better hardware.
Moreover, as desktop hardware components are invariably cheaper than laptop components, even if Apple were not to pass the cost savings on to their customers (actually, *especially* if they didn't) their own profit margins would only go up. As I see it, it is fundamentally in Apple's own best financial interests to offer the type of hardware I'm talking about.
The fact that they don't is a disgrace, and the fact that well-intentioned people such as yourself are willing to just unquestioningly go along with this is... I dunno what to say at this point. I mean... how to say this in a ostensibly family-friendly forum... are you that in the dark about the hardware side of things? Or about technology in general?
What I'm talking about has absolutely nothing -- zip, zero, nada -- to do with third parties (such as PsyStar) selling hardware and putting Apple's OS on it. I'm not questioning the violatory nature of PsyStar's actions, nor Apple's efforts to go after them. All I'm saying is Apple should be offering better hardware.
Ironically, and I can't believe how I actually have to point this out to people, but if Apple offered a few more (not tons, just a few more) options in their line-up and (as I said above) offered them with desktop and not laptop hardware, it is entirely possible that companies such as PsyStar would never have come along in the first place because the niche they're trying to fill would likely then not even exist.
I'm not in the dark at all. I more than admit that the hardware offerings that Apple gives us are not the bleeding edge of what hardware offerings are out there today. The difference is that I'm in a different situation than many users out there - I don't need bleeding edge hardware and I don't much care what the cost of my machine is. I want a pleasent computing expereince, where the tasks that I need to do can be done in an intuative way. For me, that is best accomplished by OSX.
I'd love it if Apple were to offer better hardware at a better price - I'd upgrade my current systems in half a heartbeat. However, the fact that that offer isn't on the table simply means, to me, that I'll settle for the offerings that Apple does make in the mean time. To use the much overused car analogy, I drive a BMW - it doesn't have the fastest engine out there and it isn't the cheapest but I enjoy driving it and that is what matters most to me, personally.
Very likely. However, I have to assume that the executives at Apple have concidered this and found their current business model to be the best for their goals. This forum tends to be filled with armchair CEO's who believe their particular idea is whats best for Apple but the fact of the matter is that Apple (based on cash reserves and stock price) is clearly doing something right. I'm not suprised that they are reluctant to change that.
Well as OS X can only be legally installed on a mac which already has OS X the os x disks that are sold should be viewed as 'upgrade' disks, not representing the total cost of the os. Last time i checked an upgrade to windows costs less than the 'full' release.
OS X is not a single product and as such does not have a set cost, you buy the mac and can then pay to upgrade components, including the OS at a later date.
The apple and MS business model are vastly different and trying to compare the two in such a way just does not work.
Nope, sorry, completely and utterly wrong and predicated on a false basis.
1. Violating the EULA (which I'm not even discussing here) is NOT "illegal". It's not a criminal act. It's a civil matter.
2. Mac OS X Puma / Jaguar / Panther / Tiger / Leopard retail discs have NEVER been upgrade discs. They are full-install discs. Period. (Yes, it's true, they let you do upgrade installs. However that's technically a secondary feature.)
3. Mac OS X *is* a single product. But just like the chair you are sitting in at your desk, there are multiple components.
4. I'm comparing the difference in system purchase cost with Leopard Boxed Retail Install costs. The difference is huge.
Yes, it does have a set cost. It's $129!
Where are you getting this from? I have not mentioned one single word about Microsoft, and I have not even said one single thing about Apple selling their OS independent of selling hardware.
Just because you can create a fresh install from a disk it does not make it any less true. OS X is a component of a mac. The whole issue of not being allowed to install it on just any hardware is based on this.
I brought up windows as an example because Microsoft's business model classes the operating system they sell as a separate product, their business is to sell windows.
Apples business is to sell macs, later versions of os x sold are simply upgrades to the mac you already bought, just as buying ram would be.
Violating a legal license agreement is a violation of copyright law and contract law. It is illegal. It is a fallacy that something has to be criminal to illegal.
That is just semantics. They are licensed as upgrades. You are required to have a previous license to OS X in order to install a retail version of OS X. Just because Apple does not feel the need to enforce this through software measures does not change anything.
I don't understand the point of this argument from either side.
That is the cost to upgrade a previous installation of OS X. It is not the value of the OS on a per system basis.
As one legal battle with Psystar ends, probably another one is in the making. Quo computers certainly expect to be sued by Apple:
Quo Computer to start selling Mac clones
I guess that in future more such outfits will be prepared to take Apple on in often lengthy & expensive legal battles, so it'll be interesting to know who's backing these clone makers.
I really don't know if there are any backers. The whole thing just doesn't make sense.
Apple has money to run these lawsuits forever. These lawsuits take a long long time from start to finish, but Apple's lawyers don't actually have that much work to do. And in the next lawsuit, they have already done most of the work. So if anyone thinks they can do this as a business and make money, they need their heads examined.
But if there is a backer, like some "real" PC manufacturer, who wants to test the water if they can install MacOS X on their computers, they would have to back that kind of business until such a court case actually finishes. If Psystar had backers, they got nothing for their money. And for someone who _has_ money, this would be a very dangerous strategy, because when the company they back is done for copyright infringement, Apple will go after the backers.
PS. It is now publicly documented knowledge that the CEO of this new company believes that Apple will sue them. Legal consequence is that they have to carefully collect any documents, emails etc. that might help Apple in a lawsuit, and any destruction of such evidence would be spoliation and used against them.
And putting Windows on hardware sold by Apple makes it effectively a Windows machine. What's your point?
But what does that have to do with what we're talking about?
I'm not talking about upgrades. I'm talking about the OS as a product itself. Obviously you're not getting it, so just never mind already.
Well, the fact that the ability to install Windows is touted as a feature of Leopard (boot camp) would seem to imply both:
1) The primary OS is still OSX, and
2) OSX and the Mac hardware are meant to be one and the same.
After all, one can not install Windows on Apple hardware without first running the Boot Camp utility.
Exept that OSX isn't a product in and of itself. It is included, without excpetion or option, on every Mac sold by every retailer who sells Macs. The retail OSX boxes are all upgrades for the Mac software included on your Apple hardware. There isn't a need to call it an upgrade because there is no full retail version sold- the only full retail versions are shipped with the Mac.
We're not talking about copyright law. In fact, we're not even talking about contract law. So please quit trying to cloud and confuse the issues here.
They are NOT upgrades! You only need have Apple hardware to be able to use them in compliance with the EULA. Again, why are you getting into this? This isn't a part of this sub-discussion. I understand that it's a part of the overall thread simply because of the nature of PsyStar's actions. You'll also kindly take note I'm not saying -- and haven't maintained -- that PsyStar should consider themselves at liberty to violate Apple's EULA. But never the less, this is NOT a part of my discussion here. At all.
This isn't part of the discussion. It's being brought up for reasons I can't even begin to fathom from other people, so don't feel you're alone!
That may be what it is often used for, but that's not what I'm referring to, and it's not what I've been referring to since the very beginning of this.
Apple has said the value of Mac OS X is $129. They have said this because that is what they SELL THE FREAKING THING FOR in the context within which they SELL Mac OS X. Therefore, an individual copy of Mac OS X is worth $129. Period. If they decided to sell it starting tomorrow for $99, or $199, or $10,000, then that's what it would be worth. Period.
What I'm getting at -- and this is only in response to someone else trying to say you can't make comparisons -- is that if Apple says Leopard is worth $129, but the difference between what it costs to build a system with certain specs and buying the nearest-neighbor model from Apple, even when you take into consideration such things as aesthetics, case design, etc., is well above $129. And yet, you have people who are perfectly willing to live with the fact that, in effect, Apple is grossly overcharging them to allow them to run Leopard. Again, I'm only using these things for a basis for financial comparison. I'm not trying to argue PsyStar's case, nor anything else. I'm just trying to expose a particular fallacy.
The price of $129 is the super extra special deal for valued customers who have given lots of money for computer hardware to Apple and who are upgrading from a previous version (plus the occasional user whose hard drive crashed and who lost his previous version, so Apple allows them to do a clean install).
Apple doesn't offer anything to people who want a clean installed operating system and not give Apple any money for hardware; if Apple had such an offering, it wouldn't be for $129. So that part of your post is based on nothing but pure and wilful ignorance. And it is quite common that the price of an OS license depends on the power of the machine you wish to run it on, at least that is what Microsoft has been doing in the past. So I would say that the value of a MacOS X license for an eight core Mac Pro is considerably more than the $129 that you pay for an upgrade.
As I said before, pure and wilful ignorance.
You may not care, but you have to ask yourself - "What type of customer am I?"
Some of the most vocal proponents of clones are what the market would call "computer professionals" who prefer to build customized models and depend solely on themselves for all aspects of support. If something breaks, they diagnose the problem and fix it themselves. If they have a software issue, they research the fix themselves. They know more (or at least feel they know more) then the people who sell the hardware and software, so they are only interested in vendors as a supplier of components - nothing more.
Such customers are "Self Service" and they care only about price and performance because they depend on themselves for everything else related to using the system.
Apple Stores are packed full of people who have little to no computer experience and are looking for a "turn-key" system that works from the moment they plug it in and walks them through setting it up. They depend on the people who sold it to them to help them effectively use it.
Such customers are "Full Service" and they understand that all this extra service and support overhead costs money and while they certainly don't wish to be fleeced, they understand the concept of "you get what you pay for" and they see this across many industries and markets - not just computers.
"Self Service" customers don't care about the longevity of their suppliers. They were loyal to them solely because they offered the best price or performance and as soon as some other supplier exceeds that, they will move on. And if their suppliers collapse, they will seek another supplier.
"Full Service" customers do care about the longevity of their suppliers because they entered into what they expected to be a long-term support relationship with them and they need them to be around for the long-term. A "Full Service" customer is going to be more inclined to work with a large, established vendor like Apple. It's why most of the Fortune 500 buy from Dell, IBM or HP and not the strip-mall down the street, even though they could get much better pricing for similar performance. They'd need to run much larger and elaborate internal support organizations and the cost of those quickly overwhelms the initial savings in acquisition costs.
Psystar appealed to those who wanted a Mac for a lower price and were able and willing to work to make it happen. But Psystar itself faced competition from cheaper options (BYO Hackintoshes, the new EFI-X dongle, etc.) which drew from their available "Self Service" customer base. And yet their own tenuous financial and legal position made "Full Service" customers loathe to patronize them and Psystar eventually had too little market to remain viable and they're now in the process of (most likely) liquidating.
And that same issue will face other cloners who might wish to follow in Psystar's shoes. Unless a major OEM (Dell, Sony, HP) with strong retail presence and cachet clones a Mac at a lower price, the retail market will be loathe to buy from it and the "computer professional" market will only patronize them if they are the cheapest or offer the most performance.
If there were backers behind Psystar, it is possible they moved to Quo. Once they realized they backed completely incompetent people to run their business (no records of any kind) they cut off the funding, leaving Psystar out to wither away with no evidence and no means to continue.
Moving to Quo might be the chance for them to get everything, paperwork wise, right - since the CEO knows they will be sued - in order for the trial to finish ... it's risky, but it's possible. The timing is right.
It wouldn't be if Mac OS X isn't on the box at all.
No. Windows XP can't deal with EFI. Windows Vista still can't deal with GUID. Boot Camp is Apple's tom-foolery to get around the problem. Nothing more, nothing less.
What part of this don't you get? It IS a product by itself because copies of it are SOLD by themselves. Period, end of story. I'm not talking about EULAs or anything else. Can you -- or can you not -- go to an Apple Store or an Apple retailer and buy a boxed copy of Mac OS X?
"Upgrade installs" can only be installed in the presence of prior versions. In some cases, depending on the software in question -- I don't want to get distracted on this point, but -- the software maker has allowed the customer to effectively do a fresh install provided they had a valid serial number and/or could insert a prior floppy or CD or whatever. But in the main, "upgrade installs" require the presence of the installed software on the system in question.
The "upgrade installs" that Apple puts out are the model-limited OEM copies. Those can ONLY be installed on the specific model of computer, and even then they're not true "upgrade installs" either because they can be installed on a Mac with a completely blank hard drive.
The "retail box" copies of Mac OS X that Apple sells can be installed on any supportable Apple-shipped Mac system. They can be used to set up a system with a completely blank hard drive, or they can be used to do an in-place upgrade. But in no event is the ability to use the retail box copy tied to the existing presence of Mac OS X on the computer in question.
Moreover, if you're trying to say that the shipped-Mac itself is a "full retail", then I don't even understand what you're trying to say by that. The Mac on which said factory-installed copy of Mac OS X is located is HARDWARE, not software. It's not *any* kind of install; it's a physical device.
There might be some truth to this. I also noticed that Quo is not using anything "Apple" branded in their OSX products. Apple could get Psystar on trademark violations since they called their systems "OpenMac." Quo won't have any risk with this and the case will be more focused on the install of the OS itself.
How is it ignorance? In what way is it ignorant? How about instead of just attacking the messenger you actually defend your own view?
Except that it is. Always and without exception. Thats their business model.
So, its not a feature then? Leopard creates a virtual BIOS so that Windows can install and run on hardware that otherwise can't run it. Its a feature of the OS.
I really think we are getting into two different viewpoints. I can see where you are coming from about it being a full version based on the capabilites of the disks themselves. My view is that since the purchaser of the retail box must have already had a version of OSX (courtesy of the hardware) any subsiquent purchase is simply an upgrade to that original purchase. Since Apple doesn't sell a stand alone copy of their OS, other retail models of full version vs upgrade version don't really apply well.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.