OSNews

Here's a radical idea (to Apple users, at least): maybe they're more concerned with how the computers work, than how they look?

True! :-)

I think most people prefer functionality over looks. Just look at what 95% of the world's car buyers buy -they buy a car that suits their needs (esp. family cars) instead of something that looks good.

The same goes for homes. Most people buy/rent a home that suits them functionally, not one that looks good. Sure, it's an added bonus, but hey, most people in the world live in shacks these days.

Money is usually the limiting factor. I'm not going to pay 6 times as much money to get the same kind of performance that I have in my non-Apple x86 just because Apple offers a pretty case.

Sure, but few people buy a car that they think is ugly, unless they absolutely have to. In fact, lots of people buy cars precisely because of how they look (otherwise quite a few American models would have died the deaths they deserve long, loooooooong ago...) And no one I've ever known bought a house they thought was ugly, even at the risk of paying tens of thousands more.

Using your logic - we should be all driving Lada, Skoda and Volga. New Zealand has a tonne of them (due to unpaid butter by the Russians) - so we got a heap of them in New Zealand in lieu of payment. Going by your logic, people should be happy with the Lada. It was functional, it was ugly as sin though, it but it was still functional, did the job and was relatively cheap in price. Explain to me why, therefore, your argument doesn't work when it comes to Lada?

It doesn't work because people look at more than just the 'specifications' - end users I talk to, who aren't Mac users, are concerned about how much space it takes up. They are concerned about the noise, what it looks like in their office. Sure, functionality is there, but the vast majority of people purchase things on more than just functionarlity. Add to that the marketing wizz kids who also market a lifestyle one can obtained through the purchase of the product - purchasing is alot more complex than your arguments put forward.

As for my case, I own an iMac and a MacBook, and yes, functionality was the primary concern although at the same time, a laptop that doesn't look as ugly as sin also comes into play. Its a balance - you seem to go assume that it is either all functionality or all appearance - well, like I said, its more complex than one extreme or the other.

Edited 2009-02-08 19:44 UTC

Except most of those cars don't fulfill most peoples definition of functional. They're small, they handle badly, they break down a lot and they don't get great mileage. All of those are functional considerations, unrelated to how the car looks. There's more to functional than can it theoretically get me from A to B.

"sing that logic we should all live in ugly houses and drive ugly crappy cars.
Your tools should work and look good and be a pleasure to use. Maybe some find comfort in things being uninspiring and dull though... kinda hides their own inferiority maybe?"


Hey wait - MOST OF US ARE LIVING IN UGLY HOUSES !!!

I am not kidding you, while I don't know where you are posting from, but as a matter of fact many Americans don't even live in houses, they live in sheds (= trailer park). And even the Brits do that to a degree. This came really as a shock to me when I learned about that as a European. This got to be the end-all of (civilized) existence in my view. I don't even understand how America didn't instantly fall victim to communism, seeing how many of them are living in sheds. I have never heard about a socialist trailer park, that's for sure.
Now, It's not only trailer parks, I know the majority does not live in trailer parks. But take ANY US city. People live in slightly better sheds made out of wood, with no insulation, no basement, etc... all you apparently need is a big garage (for your again big ugly SUVs and pick-up trucks) -- wow, so much for taste. 95% live in ugly AND crap houses. Just take any which US TV series and check the streets and houses out. Where I am from, I have never even seen a wooden box like that, anywhere. And if you go elsewhere in the world, even in wealthy countries, people live in council buildings from the 50s, 60, 70s that are plainly butt ugly. Go to Britain - double glassing hasn't yet arrived there! You can buy a house for 4 million pounds and it does not come with double glassing - I must know, because my neighbour did just that, and I bet you I can walk a mile in this rather expensive area and will not find a house with double glassing. (One of the many reasons why I don't consider Britain to be part of the "1st world".) Go out into the world and learn about roofing, too. Haven't seen a single decent roof in the UK or US either.

So if you happen to live in a "nice" house, you are privileged.

Now, why are computers ugly? Because the PC is a modular system, and function dictates form. There is for example something that is called the 5'25 drive bay - did you notice it? Apple managed to sell you the G4 (with the handle) at midi-tower size and you COULD NOT add anything AT ALL into a case big like that, because "it looks better" - Why was it so big? It does not take more 3rd party hardware than that Mini-Cube. Now, if someone pays double for a machine that is largely rendered useless for what it is supposed to be, I call them fools, no matter how "good" it looks.

And more generally, on the looks: Who ever said Apple PCs look good? - Yeah, I remember them saying that, but I also remember how in no time everyone felt embarrassed for being associated with one of those egg shaped G4 coloured laptops, or those coloured G4s with integrated screen. So for many Apple PCs, people did not think for more than 12-18 month that they look good. And just to remind you, they weren't even good. The CRTs in those things were crap, and even worse, you were stuck with it.
Take those (alloy?) thin Pro books from the same area - they looked good - but the casing was so fragile that it would bend and twist on any occasion - do I want to spend 3000 USD on a machine that I can't touch or else it bends and twists? The next (smaller) one after that got hot like an oven - you can read that up on Eugenia's own review of the device here. It was basically a construction failure, ok? And you try to make a point on looks, wow.

In that, a real PC is a design classic. I still see tons of old PC laptops around, but I haven't seen an egg shaped Apple laptop in a full decade, not a single one.

So, if that all didn't answer your question, 97% cannot afford pretty houses, cars, or PC for that matter. Why do you think Apple is called the "niche" manufacturer for the past 20 years? But at least 97% are smart enough to actually get something for their money -- which leaves 3% for Apple.

I live in the UK and have double glazing thankyou.

If your buying a 4 million pound home that doesnt then I can only assume its a listed building (meaning you can only make changes to it that retain the exterior facade)

Either the building is listed or your 'friend' has more money than sense and should really look into what is is getting for his 4 million

You will find buckingham palace DOES NOT have double glazing for this reason

are you saying that the entire city of London, all of London for that matter, consists of listed buildings?

If you spend 4 M on a house, you can afford another 10K to have proper windows fitted in accordance with historic looks/preservation requirements.

It is not only listed houses, it is 90% of the houses. That also includes recent buildings (recent as in 60-70s), as well as recent refurbed buildings (Public, governmental, schools, etc, etc..).

Why do you think I am receiving cold calls for buying double glazing in London? Because it makes sense. Actually, they should make a bundle with mixing water taps to go with those windows - another reason why the UK cannot be part of the first world. And I will not let you off on the water taps - they are fitting NEW buildings with separate hot + cold water. Another very, very British thing. And while you are at it, get some water pressure on those pipes, so that those taps actually serve a purpose. Anyway, I think I need to quickly trip off on that. So the Brits may well have a mix-tap in the kitchen - but not for the bathroom sink, even if it is new. Now lets think about that. What are you gonna do with boiling hot water in the bathroom? Burn your face? Burn what else? - Exactly, you end up using cold only, at least if you are normal like I am. Our landlord recently refurbed our bathroom and he replaced the old sink from 50-10 years ago with a spanking new sink - WITH SEPARATE HOT AND COLD WATER!!! It is idiotic, ok? I asked a letting agent about what the story would be with those retarded taps. He told me I cold run it into the sink and mix! Yes, the first one in the morning washes his skanky feet in there and then I come along, wash my face, brush my teth, etc, etc... I am constantly amazed how ignorant the Brits are, given how much they travel.

If you want to learn something about the British attitude towards living standards, watch one of those many home-refurb-TV shows. So there is this guy who buys a studio flat for the purpose of refurbing it and of course selling it at a higher price again right away. He spends 10K on a big TV/Stereo system and also on a modern kitchen in a 1.5 bedroom studio. The architect supervising the refurb on behalf of the TV production reckons that he may chose to get double glassing instead of spending 10K on a flat screen, etc. -- Well, our young aspiring property owner didn't go with that, he said whether double glassing is good/necessary, is a matter of "opinion". No fool, it's not!!!! Especially not in Britan, where the average year temperature is 8C. This is Britian, live with it. This is how you tick as a nation when it comes to stuff like that. Why don't you go down Oxford Street and report back to us how many houses (above the ground floor/shop window level) have double glassing? NONE. You can carry on walking down to Holborn, Barbican, all the way until you get stabbed in Hackney, without running into double glassing

PS: Congrats on your double glassing - you must get all the chicks with that

PPS Most of the double glassing in more modern Brit houses, say the entire more recent development of the Canary Wharf area (80s, 90s), are of an appalling quality - as a landlord, I would be deeply ashamed of fitting such crap to a new building.

PPS get proper doors, door locks (inside the flats and for the main doors) as well!

Oh, you've no idea. We've got a park about a half hour from here, the most tore up, depressing place outside of city housing projects anybody's ever seen. Speaking of which, if you think the trailer parks are bad, this is what real poverty looks like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini-Green

My computer is under my desk in a place I can't see it.

Also, uninspiring and dull can be a sign of no-flirs "professionalism". Many engineers would get more prestige from having a lab power supply and some circuit boards on their table, as opposed to a "slick" mac. ;-)

If you want to argue, just say 'ugly cars'. 'ugly crappy cars' says that they're of inferior quality and therefore you're not making your point.

I don't really see your logic here, people that buy "luxury" products that like Rolex, Bentley or Ferrari that cost more only because they look good seam to me more likely like they want to hide their "inferiority" in some way. Really creative people usually don't need that kind of compensation, probably because their lifework speaks for itself... Like not one professor from my University has a fancy car although they could afford it, unlike some students.

Edited 2009-02-08 18:09 UTC

Your Honda [I own one so I'm not knocking them] can go nearly 200 mph?

That's impressive.

Your Honda ... can go nearly 200 mph?

That's impressive.

Non-argument. When does anyone need that kind of speed and is simultaneously allowed to drive at that speed on a public road?

Luxury cars, watches, computers, whatever serve only one purpose. It's all about "Look at me. Look what I can afford. Be impressed by my status."

Some buy into it, some don't.

Are you allowed to drive it at that speed? Do you need to?
For most people the answer is a resounding no.

Yeah I really need 200mph in the city just for screwing up the environment and oh yeah so other people can envy me.

But seriously do u think buying a Bentley has nothing to do with status symbols? Just functionality(like speed)? If you do I must say I can't follow you, at least not with my reasoning, and I keep my passion for people and my work, products don't get me exited as they used to when I was a teenager.

Sorry Bucky, but no. Using that logic, function should take precedence over form for things that are supposed to be... ya know, "functional." But hey, if you want to choose a car or computer based on whether or not it clashes with your purse, then go right ahead.



If you're going to resort to simpleminded pop-psychology, you might want to try actually making sense. If someone has an inferiority complex, then they will MORE likely to choose something solely for its appearance.

After all, the Maclot obsession with superficial aesthetics is just a (marginally) grown-up version of the "I can't wear that to school, all the cool kids on the playground will make fun of me" mentality. But with "playground" replaced by "coffee shop" - and "cool kids" replaced by "smarmy hipster cliques."

This argument can never be won, because different people purchase different flavours of the same items, depending on their priorities. Basically it's like arguing that red is better than green.

Everything that you buy is bought because of the way you anticipate it will make you feel. Cars, clothes, tools, food, everthing.

Some people feel good buying a beige super computer or an IBM ThinkPad, or a Toyota Camry. Others like their computers to look good as well.

It's as simple as that.

Some people feel good buying a beige super computer or an IBM ThinkPad, or a Toyota Camry. Others like their computers to look good as well.

Who says that a beige super computer doesn't look good? Lenovo Thinkpads look business and in the right setting they can be quite convincing.

Toyota Camry? No idea why cars get keeping dragged into threads about computers

Why does white plastic casing equate to looking good?

"Thinkpad si teh ugly" in the maclot is a lot like the "windows BSOD eats your brane" in the linux camp - the reality of the situation has come and gone, but some folks have a hard time letting go of the past. There's still some gristle on the bone left to contend over, I guess. Once, circa 2000-2002, the thinkpad was dog ass ugly, looked like a lunch box, and made form-before-function pretty boys weep in the darkness. Now it's simply the best laptop made, subjectively, and is sweet looking as well - many Apple zealots hate IBM for this.

Probably because their 'value proposition' over Apple is 'low cost' so it make sense to use cheap case to lower price..

Personally, I find them a lot prettier than the standard Apple case.... And probably better quality also.

Pirated? Where did you get that idea from?

Apple sells boxed versions of Mac OS X, both via their own channels as well as via retail channels that they don't own. These copies are bought by PearC/PsyStar, and re-sold. There's no way for Apple to control who buys what - and there's no obligation for PearC/PsyStar employees to wear big "I'M A CLONE MAKER" sign.

Perhaps apple should just raise the retail (as opposed to OEM/upgrade) price then? Certainly easier than suing anyone...

If PearC/PsyStar were simply reselling copies of OSX that would notbe an issue.

The problem is that they sell OSX preinstalled in their computers. When you install OSX, you have to sign and agree with the EULA. Which is where the problem lies...

I don't think Apple cares about people meddling with hackintoshes at home, they mind however... when someone wants to make a business based on breaking their EULAs.

A quad core apple with 8 GB RAM and 1 TB disk + 9800GTX for 1.143,96 €??

Where??

Depends, the most low-end iMac in the Apple webstore costs EUR 999, so at EUR 499 for their most low-end model, it does make sense.

You might want to compare the Mac Mini with their offering, but going Apple then gives you much less PC for the same price.

Depends, the most low-end iMac in the Apple webstore costs EUR 999, so at EUR 499 for their most low-end model, it does make sense.

You might want to compare the Mac Mini with their offering, but going Apple then gives you much less PC for the same price. "

I'm not seeing the All-in-One with a 20 in LCD Display for 499 Euros. I'm not seeing the FW400/FW800 as with the iMac at 999 Euros. I'm not seeing the built-in Wifi as with the iMac at 999 Euros.

What I see, if we compare as much as possible:

Add FW400, Add Bluetooth, Add a better GPU [no eqivalent listed]

No monitor.

In fact, I don't see 499. I see 633.86 Euros and more.

Where is this monitor that gets me the system for 499 Euros?

What's that? It's not included?

Stop comparing apples to pears to oranges to peaches.

Get on par or save it.

Don't care.



I don't use Firewire. If I did, IEEE 1394 cards are ridiculously cheap. Go ahead and add a whole $10 to the PearC price. That didn't have much of an impact, did it?



It's a desktop. Don't care.



I have monitors coming out of my ears. I really don't need another one.

Believe it or not companies like PearC & PyStar are actually catering a market that Apple just don't care about: people like myself who don't give a flying monkeys about the stuff you've listed, would quite like to run OS X but have absolutely no intention of paying Apples high prices for stuff we don't need.

Well, there's a scoop Thom : Vanders want's to run OS X over Syllable. Whoa, "BIG" news :-P

Why would I want to run OS X? It's a nice OS. So is Syllable, so is Ubuntu. Even Windows XP isn't all that bad when you get to know it (although it isn't my cup of tea).

"Man runs more than one OS, not a fanboy: Film at 11!"?

Hardly anyone wants Firewire or bluetooth. With Apple you always have to pay for stuff you don't want and you often can't get the stuff you do want.

Obviously you have never seen the prices apple charges in the euro zone, this thing basically is cheaper than the Mac Mini while being the missing Link (upgradable mid range desktop without monitor) which Apple refuses to produce.
So the price of this machine in the euro zone definitely is competitive!

Put it under your desk in the dark and no-one will notice.

It's not the copyright laws that cause the difference. It's about applying it in law systems based on English laws and applying it in law systems based on Roman laws.

It is about the "licensed, not sold" issue. If a consumers owns a copy of a computer program, he is allowed to use it on any computer he wants. If Apple owns the copy of a computer program, and the consumer has received a "license" to use Apple's copy, then Apple can say that you are only allowed to use it on a Mac.

Now the difference between EU and USA is that under the Roman law priciples most EU countries have:
1 - A sale is an agreement.
2 - An agreement has the same legal value as a written contract if it can be proven.

That means that if I buy a copy of MacOS from PearC, along with a computer, I own the copy, as I have a sales agreement with PearC. All I need to do is show my invoice, and then I can safely legally use MacOS without worrying about licenses.

To stop this, Apple must prove, that PearC did not own its copies, but PearC will just show an invoice that it legally owns the copies and so on.

To make "licensed not sold" succeed, you need to carefully avoid entering sales agreements in the entire chain from manufacturer to consumer. That basically means every change of the posessor of a copy needs a special agreement from which it is clear it is not a sale.

Edited 2009-02-08 17:47 UTC

This is my guess as well. It's exactly comparable to selling pc's with a pirated copy of windows - i.e. screwing your gullible customers. It would be safer to sell these without any OS, with "tested to work with mac os x, buy your copy here" label/implication somewhere.

Except, if the agreement is made in an unlawful way, it becomes void. In many countries, strong cases can be made for sale and licensing agreements having to be handed over and agreed to PRIOR to purchase/agreement, else they are meaningless.

Just because you agree to something doesn't mean you're ALWAYS bound to it - luckily for us consumers who DO give a shite about their rights.

Edited 2009-02-08 18:53 UTC

The article blurb mentions how a EULA can't be enforced unless given to the buyer before they actually pay for the product. Since PearPC people buy the copy without actually seeing the EULA before hand, maybe that is their loophole?

there was a court order here in austria that said "customers buy software to use it, not to read EULAs"

even if the eula was available pre-sales it's still hard to enforce it in court.
vendors can give customers more rights than they have by law, but the can't take rights from them. but thats exactly what apple wants to do

That applies to users, not to vendors.

This german company is a vendor... ergo they are in for a world of hurt.

it is extremely unlikely that a EULA would be legally binding in Australia. Australian consumer laws expressly prohibits Third Line Forcing (ie forcing a legally purchased product to be used in a certain way). For example Ebay was forced to drop compulsory use of paypal. Also car companies must honour a warranty as long a the correct servicing was performed by any registered motor mechanic.

Apple keeps full ownership of the software and they license it to the buyer of the license.

You are a buyer of a license, not a buyer of software. You can do whatever you want with the license, not with the software.

No, this is not true. If you read Softman in the US, you will find that the seller of software does in fact sell a copy, the sale transaction is a sale not a license, in the eyes of the courts. Also, it is apparent seller does not keep full ownership, if he did it would be on his books (not the purchasers books) as an asset. There would be continuing obligations from the buyer to the owner. And so on.

You cannot make a sale a license simply by what you call it, nor can you maintain something as your property after you have sold it simply by asserting it remains yours.

NO!

As I explained, this is the part that does not work in law systems based on no Roman law. In a Roman law system, you enter an agreement with a seller about the terms, you give the money, he the product. The contract (any agreement, including a sales agreement is legally the same as a written contract!) is then closed, under the terms of the sales agreement you have become a buyer.

No EULA agreement on installation can change the fact that you have just bought something. That's plain nonsense.

What I'd like to see is them remove the protection and a disclaimer of, 'if you're not running it on a Mac, you're on your own" along with a blanket kibosh against OEM bundling.

It would keep the enthusiast community happy, Apple happy etc. etc.

I can't work out the reason for the paranoia to be quite honest - do they really think that the 'unwashed masses' are going to go out and go to all that effort to choose the right hardware to run Mac OS X? please, its already shown that the average person goes in and buys their computer like a toaster - very little time is spent on the internals nor does the average end user understand or care about the internals.



In New Zealand it has always been a funny situation where custom made have always worked out to be more expensive than ones bought through one of the major retail chains. I've only built one computer in my whole entire life, and that was a AMD Athlon many years ago (with one of those god awful VIA chipsets - before the nForce arrived on the scene).

There is the 'thrill' I guess from building ones own PC but when push comes to shove and I am forced between saving a few hundred dollars or getting my jollies from building my own computer - I make my decisions based on the almighty dollar.

Edited 2009-02-08 20:11 UTC

thats wishful thinking
osx has yet to proof itselfe as a stable os when random hardware is thrown at it
and it has to be seen if people are as attatched to osx as mactards are when they didn't have to sink 1k€+ into it

---------edit--------
i nearly forgot to tell you: there is no inovation in osx
apple is just copying like the rest of the industry
but i have to give them credit for coming up with strange names for average technology

Edited 2009-02-09 01:09 UTC

True, but I'd venture a guess that most who either build or buy a hackintosh already know this. Imho that's exactly the stance Apple should take, drop the restrictions and just support their computers only. If you have a problem on your own hardware that is not a Mac, you're on your own, but if you can get it to work good for you. That is exactly the line Apple should take, and add a clause in the license that OEMs may not bundle OS X if they're that worried about Mac clones. Wishful thinking, I know.

Support wouldn't be a problem if a major maker like Dell was involved. You don't need to go to MS or Red Hat to get support for their products. There are already plenty of companies that provide support for Apple products.

Pretty squarely so, though OSNews has made it quite clear over the years that the focus of the site has expanded. Everyone not living under a rock knows that.


Psystar pays *retail price* for "Apple's work".

You seem to think it is OK for you to ignore Apple's desire to tie OSX to their overpriced hardware, but if someone else does it for people, paying Apple their hefty price for the OS as part of their cost of doing business, then it is somehow evil.

I was originally going to make this post longer but realized when typing that last sentence that your complaint isn't really even worth responding to.

Enjoy your hypocrisy, and have a nice day.

You make it sound like you can just put a OSX DVD in your drive and boot off it. Even if you had a PC with EFI support and everything was an exact clone it would NOT WORK. You _need_ to have decryption happening to circumvent the protection. That is what the problem is.

As for hardware being overpriced, that is obviously your opinion since it's completely wrong and based on prices of sytems from 10-20 years ago, you need to get out from under that rock. The hardware/software pricing of their systems and OSX are tied, there is a reason Apple sells OSX at a much cheaper price than Windows versions.

You're reasoning that it should be OK is and that some countries allow it is what will kill Hackintoshes meaning Apple will use a tougher mechanism.

Again, feel free to run it on your own system, my problem is with companies making money off it.

Why don't you just distill your argument down to "I deeply believe in the DMCA, and the republic for which it stands"? It would save a lot of typing.

...there is a reason Apple sells OSX at a much cheaper price than Windows versions.

Maybe OS X is cheaper than Windows, because Apple is smaller than Microsoft and has less people working on OS X. Maybe it's cheaper because it doesn't (have to) support a lot of hardware. Maybe it is cheaper because a lot of it is legally based on other peoples code.

Again, feel free to run it on your own system, my problem is with companies making money off it.

Well, they are not making money off OS X, they buy it at retail price. Arguably, they do ride on the coat tails of the fascination that people have for Apple and OS X and that is what makes their cheaper x86 boxes desirable and salable.

[EDIT: When I write Consumer Protection Law, I actually meant civil law. Sorry for any confusion.]

Excuse the length of this post, but this really rubbed me the wrong way.

I strongly object to this depiction of German law and Germany. I have no clue how consumer protection law in the USA or abroad is, but Germany's consumer protection law puts the consumer first*. And consumer, that's everybody of us, most of the times.

German consumer protection law does not say "ignore limitations", it says "unilateral, post factum alterations to contracts are null and void". With regards to this issue that means, sellers cannot shove more conditions or limitations on purchasers after the deal. Bringing in more limitations by an EULA only visible after the purchase is such a post-factum alteration.
Even more so because unless you are buying from the manufacturer directly, your business partner will be some retailer. Unless the retailer explicitly details the same limitations in the contract between consumer and retailer, all contractual limits put on a contractual good by the manufacturer are only binding the manufacturer's partner, the retailer. The merits of this approach should be immediatly evident, but I'll spell it out for you: you are bound only to the terms of contract you knew when you agreed to the contract.

OK, software is somewhat more difficult, because you actually don't purchase anything but lease the non-expiring usage rights for a one-time fee. But leasing contracts are still contracts and don't allow the vendor to add limitations to the lease afterwards either. Microsoft learned this quickly and now simply ships its products clearly showing the EULA or a reference to it on a part of the package, that is accessible before the deal. The retailer only has to point to the EULA and its own common trade terms and the consumer knows what's the deal and can make an educated decision.
"We only show you our terms after you agreed to the contract." schemes deliberatly try to keep the purchaser from making an educated decision and are considered fraudulent and "sittenwidrig" (ger, "immoral", "against public policy", "against conventions") in German jurisdiction. Rightfully so, I'd say.




We are not talking about counterfeits here, we are talking about resale. Are you opposed to the idea that people buy from second tier distributors? Or are you just opposed to services by third parties? Under these circumstances I wager that your life is not easy. Or are you limiting yourself to Apple, because, you know, Apple is special.



* And there is a sizeable minority that thinks consumer protection is not good enough yet.

Edited 2009-02-09 11:17 UTC

In fact, it's the reverse, it is macs that are the x86 clones....!

Sssshhh!!! Don't wake the Mac fans. They would be heart broken to find out that new Mac's are in essence beige boxes. Don't shatter the Mac's are special myth.

but there's no Windows PC with EFI out there

Edited 2009-02-10 00:23 UTC