OSNews

The concern that Apple fans have is that companies like Psystar will produce marginally compatible systems or produce systems which are less well-engineered and tested than Apple's products.

Apple has managed to maintain a much higher reliability than Microsoft by being able to fully test all shipped hardware configurations with each major software release. They don't have to worry about whether it will work on some random Gigabyte motherboard. They don't have to be concerned that some user will change some BIOS setting (they can't on an Apple) rendering the system non-bootable.

I like being able to buy OS X for $120. I don't want to have to pay $200 because Apple has been fielding calls from Psystar owners with semi-compatible, or unreliable, hardware.

Nor do I believe that the average consumer is intelligent enough to recognize or buy quality. As we have seen in the Windows market, what sells is price, not quality, reliability, compatibility, etc. When that happens, reliability and longevity suffer.

I have news for you. Apple's computers are cheap, standard Intel machines with bog standard PC parts of questionable quality (you always get the lowest spec Western Digital hard drive Apple can provide) in order for Apple to sell the machines at a premium and make a nice profit - for nothing very much.

Those margins on the hardware can only be kept in place if gullible people like you keep thinking that Apple machines are of a higher quality than a standard PC, so shhhhhhhhhhh.


You're right. They're not. ;-)

I may find you an annoying twat every now and then, segedunum, but paint me red and call me a front bezel because that was one hell of a memorable comment .

Head. Hit. Nail.

Hey, kids read this site. Keep profanity out!

-Ad

Do you live on a cloud?

While all that may be true, the fact still remains that it is a small known set of hardware they're dealing with. This means that they can basically test the latest OS X on every single machine that the latest OS X is capable of running on. This is hugely beneficial irregardless of actual hardware quality.

Yes and there is nothing stopping Apple from continuing to do that. Likewise there is nothing stopping people from buying their Macs from Apple - many people continued to buy IBM PCs when they could have chosen to buy an IBM compatible PC.

If Apple were to sell an OEM version of OS X, it would be in the same position as Microsoft - I.E. any incompatibilities would be the responsibility of the OEM. An Apple compatible Mac from Psystar, would only be guaranteed to work with the installed (and possibly earlier) versions of OS X. If a Psystar doesn't work with Snow Leopard, then it is no different than the same machine not working with Windows 7.

It is a little ironic that Apple are complaining about Mac 'clones', when all the current Macs are IBM/PC compatibles.

Na, I disagree.

If such-and-such a piece of hardware doesn't work with and operation system most people blame the OS creator, not the company who make the add-on, and should've spent more time on their drivers. My Grandma would, and for that matter so would my brother, and many other peoples brothers...

I prefer the Apple way of doing things, and I can't think of anything worse than OS X running on a butt-ugly machine with half-arsed drivers for random sound cards and so on...

Yep, that was my problem with Apple once they moved to x86, although to be somewhat fair they DO have to perform some extra work since they use EFI.

OTOH the cheap macbook is really about a $600 machine selling at twice that, and lets not even talk about the incredibly overpriced pro model which is generic PC terms would get you a Clevo D901C(or ASUS W90) w/better CPU and GPU with a chasiss capable of supporting multiple hdds and SLI GPUs.

The cheap macbook price gets you about a P8600 + ATI 4850 512MB GDDR3(MSI GT725) or nVidia 9800M GS 1GB GDDR3 (MSI GT627/ASUS G50VT/etc.) + 4GB DDR2-800 + full keyboard + 1680x1050 LCD panel + 320GB 7200RPM hdd + etc.

I really gave up when I got tired of all the lies about games coming to the Mac, paying full original price for games that were on Windows 2y or more ago and are now found commonloy in the bargain bin for $5. So in the end, I was maintaining extra Windows machines PLUS all of my macs, and just decided that the high cost of the Apple products wasn't justified by OSX.

Today I'm quite happy to be back spending MUCH less $$$ on hw and running linux + some version of Windows mostly for games.

The only possible plus for the Apple product is the Al frame, although a good chunk of the MSI nbs are Al while the others are all some sort of plastic AFAIK. (D901C and W90 are out of my budgeting for nbs...)

If Apple were to support calls from Psystar customers, I am guessing Apple will charge for them for the service. Why would it increase your price for OS X? Wouldn't that be an even better way for Apple to show that buying hardware from them is better - even economical - because you won't need to pay for the support since everything will just work...

500usd per minute and that problem is fixed

Noone is saying they have to support them.

I make OS.
You buy it. Resell it. Make profit.
Left me out of the loop. Will not support your customers.
Now what? Should I make more OS? Will happen again.
Not fare.

Will put effort into differentiating platform by providing services like on-line storage with dedicated hardware of some sort, so only my customers can enjoy it.
Will fail to impress. Become irritated.
Sign up with Sony, for using the Cell in desktop machines.

You left with customer base with no further updates. Bye.

Wow, that sounds almost like...every other industry on planet earth. Other sectors can cope with people reselling products, there's no reason why software should be different.
Btw, if you're not making a profit from selling it in the first place you're doing something very wrong.

Apple is a hardware company that spends a lot of time and money on marketing itself as high quality machines. Psystar and anything that comes after them will be marketing themselves as cheap osx machines. They can't call themselves Macs, because that is a trademark that apple controls.

If you want the mac experience, you buy a mac. If you just want OSX on the cheap, you go through a clone. It isn't that hard.

//Apple has managed to maintain a much higher reliability than Microsoft by being able to fully test all shipped hardware configurations with each major software release//

Microsoft is in the hardware business? Since when?

There have been a few Apple clones on the market already. I don't think that is the issue.

My issue is whether the software is tied to the purchase of the machine. In any other product you wouldn't have any legal grounds. If Firestone said you can only use our tires on a Ford product any normal person would think that is unfair trade practices. The other reason is if the software is being sold below cost in order to force you into a hardware purchase.

I also don't agree with the claim that you are not buying software. You only get an agreement. If they give me media then I have software.

I think Apple is a trying a legal battle that they feel would scare anyone away, even they know they are nuts.

Nice try, but the only option for Apple would have been for the judge to rule that there is no case and to have thrown it out completely. Anything else was a victory for Psystar. Apple even tried to pre-empt what the judge had suggested, and what Psystar ended up doing, over the extent of Apple's copyrights in order to try and discredit Psystar and make it look as if they were just stirring around. They failed.

The extent of Apple's copyrights is perhaps an even more interesting avenue the judge has suggested than anti-trust allegations, so the fact that the door appears to have been closed on the anti-trust angle is neither here nor there. The case is by no means over at all.

This is perhaps even more worrying for Apple and suggests that they aren't going to be able to fund legal teams until the opposition caves in through lack of funds and resources:

In the end, that's Apple's first and best hope - that the littler guy will cave in as he has been prone to doing so on so many occasions in the past.

"This is perhaps even more worrying for Apple and suggests that they aren't going to be able to fund legal teams until the opposition caves in through lack of funds and resources:"

Apple has a very strict price model it uses to validate and verify its legal expenses.

1. Apple sets aside X amount of money to win battles it is fairly certain it can win in the public eye, so as to make an example out of the company it destroys.
2. If 1 Then, Apple has justified it’s spending by winning the case and scaring others away who may later try the same thing.

This is what Apple hopes to do here. Apple’s other strategy won’t work as they want to make a martyr out of Psystar. Apples typical strategy goes something like this:

1. Apple sends a cease and desist letter.
2. Apple’s lawyer places a cease and desist phone call
3. Apple pays X amount of money to sent a hit man…
4. Normally it never makes it to step 3 as in step 2 the layer makes sure the person/company knows what will happen in step 3 

Edited 2009-02-09 23:47 UTC

[b"Anything else was a victory for Psystar."]

Wrong, read the case again. This is by no means a victory for Psystar, as the judge has only allowed Psystar to use his copyright misuse argument as an offensive argument instead of an defensive one. By no means, he is saying that this argument is right or wrong.

"The case is by no means over at all.

This is perhaps even more worrying for Apple and suggests that they aren't going to be able to fund legal teams until the opposition caves in through lack of funds and resources: "

Yes right, even though the judge has stated:

"Apple responds that it is within its rights to determine whether, how or by whom its software is reproduced and how it is to be licensed, distributed or used. This may ultimately prove to be true. "

It does not seem to look good for Psystar to me.....

"In the end, that's Apple's first and best hope - that the littler guy will cave in as he has been prone to doing so on so many occasions in the past."

What? Best hope? Apple can easily prove that it does not misuse its copyright by using the definition of copyright itself. It can prove that Psystar's claims are not valid as it did for the case of monopoly and anti-competitive practices.


@Holwerda

"Possible solutions for Apple would be to make the retail copy of Mac OS X really expensive, or to include a copy protection scheme that falls within the DMCA. "

Even if we assume that Psystar wins and that Apple has to distribute his OS on other platforms, then Apple will unavoidably create a license system for OEMs so that they can sell their hardware with OS X similar to what Microsoft does. And Apple can easily ask that any OEM must confirm to this license of usage and impose a very expensive fee so that few OEMs will even be interested in it. But anyway, that's not as easy as to say that suddenly Apple would not have any control on his product.

"Apple fans always claim that Apple's hardware is competitively priced and of higher quality than similar machines from competitors, so what is there to fear?"

Wait, the hardware is half the story or even less. You know that Apple differentiate his hardware not only by what it can do but also because it runs OS X, which is fundamentally the most important criterion of Apple's offering. What makes the Mac is fist and foremost its OS, and this is even more true since the switch to Intel chips. You know that if someone else starts to use Apple's OS, then Apple loses an important part of his capability to be competitive against pcs. And you know that Apple can't be happy with that as all his Mac business is built upon selling its hardware, and again for doing that, it needs competitive arguments, OS X is the strongest one.

I don't know why but i smell BS in what you are saying or is it just that you don't understand what you are talking about? And by the way, this argument alone, that Mac OS X is an Apple developed product which allow it to be competitive in the market, is itself an argument that supports the use of copyright by Apple. The judge has also recognized that.

"Yes, you're right, there is a lot of sarcasm in there. The reason for that is that we all know that cheap and unambiguously legal clones could mean a massive loss of hardware income for Apple. It has happened before, and it could happen again."

Not this is not sarcasm, this is non-sense!

Anyway, sure cheaper clones could mean loss of hardware income for Apple, heck, of course they are cheaper, they are assembled peaces of crap and the only way to sell them is to make them running a competitive OS that actually makes the success of the Mac. How ironic is that?

Plus, not sure that it could happen anyway. When it happened, it was when Apple was a completely different compagny that could not sell the Mac. This has changed, and yes Apple sells its Mac with the argument of OS X, this is surely the main argument why people buys Macs besides being better designed in and out hardware wise. But still the brand Mac has got a much better image and attraction than it uses to have when the clones happened.

Crap? I have more faith in non-Apple-assembled computers than in Apple-assembled computers. Let me illustrate why with the histories of my Macs.

iMac G4 700Mhz 15". Died after a few years due to massive logic board failure.

iBook G4 1Ghz 12.1". Case became cracked and started falling apart within a few months. Was only used at home.

PowerBook G4 1.25Ghz 15". Hard drive exploded for no reason, and suffered from the infamous upper memory bank failure that Apple refuses to fix.

PowerMac G4 dua; 450Mhz. Resuming from sleep leaves one processor inactive, and usually leads to kernel panics.

PowerMac G4 Cube 450Mhz. Power button doesn't work, case cracked.

The only Mac that hasn't died on me yet is my iMac G3.

That's not premium or high end - that's utter crap. You want to know what's high end? My speakers, hand made by a small Dutch company a few towns down south, that still work even though they're 35 years old. Or my new speakers, from British brand Kev, that I know will alo stil work and be serviced decades from now. THAT is premium.

Looking at my other computers - I've owned and own about as many non-Apple machines, and NONE of them have EVER died. The only piece of hardware that ever failed in those machines was a single 40GB drive, that served me for 8 years before it died. I also own an UlstraSPARC machine from Sun, from 1998, which also still just works with all of its original components.

As you can see, I've been bitten often enough by Apple to realise that they have a tendency to sell utter, utter junk. Don't blame others and me for being a little sceptical.

@Thom : you did not buy any of these machine as new.You had them all 2nd hand. If I remember correctly the cube you received it for free one year ago and at the time you were very happy with it. You even knew the power button problem when you got your hands on it. So,cut the crap, these machines did not failed on you. You were very well aware. Talking about journalism integrity.

He's not a journalist, and OSNews isn't exactly The Times.

The iBook was bought new, the Cube was a gift from a VERY trusted person (namely, the owner of this very site), the other machines were bought as official occassions from the biggest Apple retailer in The Netherlands - effectively the Apple Store. Certified occassions tested and found in perfect order by official Apple engineers.

But even then it's a nonsensical argument. Just because I didn't buy them new, but instead through official Apple occassion channels, I'm somehow not entitled to quality? Are you saying that as soon as a machine switches owners, they are magically allowed to fall apart?

Cut the nonsense. That has to be the lamest excuse I've ever heard.

Edited 2009-02-10 11:37 UTC

This is amazing. I just read your blogpost and I thought, an Apple fan is going to object that some of them might be second hand. :-)

Excuse? For what? I couldn't care less about Psystar,Apple and alike. Not my game. If only you have said "my experience with 2nd hand Apple HW (some of them really old)" ... But you didn't and you wouldn't even intended to do it. I don't have to be excused for anything. It is you that have mislead people,not me.

nobody said : He's not a journalist, and OSNews isn't exactly The Times.

Yes, I do apologize for this. One have (actually had) hopes. So , yes, it seems that there is one thing I have to be excused for.

Edited 2009-02-10 12:19 UTC

For the complete comparison with Thom's list of mishaps, here is mine:

1) PowerBook G4, still working in decent retirement with new hd, dvd and several replacement of batteries;
2) PowerMac G5 1.8 GHz, my central work horse and server with 2hd/500GB and 4 external hd with a total of 4TB;
3) iMac G5 2nd ver. suffered from all thinkable catastrophies and was finally after 3 years under extended guarantee replaced with a brand new iMac Intel (5);
4) iMac Intel 2.8GHz and 24" screen is running on its third year with absolutely no problem, and so is the replaced:
5) iMac Intel 1.8 GHz and 20" as it works - like the above - perfectly under an expanded WIFI network setting with meter thick walls from the 16th century.
CONCLUSION
Since my first entry and connection with the computer world in 1980, I believe I have had i.e. worked/owned roughly 20-25 PCs running under OS Microsoft and quite a few broke down or died otherwise. The above, dating from my entry into the APLE world in 2001 and apart from a few in-house built PCs represent my actual computer treasory and experience.
Thank you for your patience!

So ... what are you trying to say? You had several "windows-based" PCs stop working in the last 28 years, and you've had several problems with Macs in the last 8 years?

And ... so what?

On the basis that a number of your machines have cracked cases and in 25 years of working in this industry I have only ever seen cracked cases on computer that are - shall we diplomatically say - "not handled as they should be" - well - don't need to say any more really...

No, it would mean there was nothing to license. Anyone could install OSX on a machine and sell it. Dell too. They'd have to stop selling OSX at retail to stop it. Or DRM it to lock it to their own hardware.

Hmmm I wonder how long it would take to break DRM before OSX was out on Hackintoshes again? Me thinks 24 hours....

Five minutes, but it would still solve the problem. Apple doesn't care what hobbyists do with BitTorrent. The Psystar case is about vultures using their investments against them, and if there were antipiracy circumvention involved in building the gray market machine, it would be a slam dunk DMCA case rather than a wishy-washy, gray area, extent of powers of copyright case.

what they would no longer be able to do would be limiting the install on apple only hardware.

drm on the hardware would be fairly difficult (i mean difficult in finding a way that isnt hackable inside 5 mins) I think it would annoy more than it stopped

What would be interesting is if they made Apple OSX upgrade only and available only to those with a valid key (ie a key only comes with an apple mac)

OEMs could be offered 'Peach OSX' a rebranded version of osx which is limited feature set (no expose etc etc)and having only community support thereby retaining brand prominence and value.

p.s. i know i went off on a tangent but the more i think about it the more the idea intrigues me

Yup, I would. If nothing else, just so I could play around with it. They could just sell these babies at $100 a pop (or whatever) and say, "Unless you run it on Macs, we're not going to support it", and people like me would still buy it.

So they could essentially sell a shrink-wrapped copy for PC users and not even have to support it. Hell, what do they have to lose? It's not like I'm going to go out and buy Apple hardware just for the privilege of running it, so they're really losing money by not doing this.

Edited 2009-02-09 22:32 UTC

"Besides, its not like Apple makes money on the hardware side of things."

Actually, Apple makes most of its money on the hard ware side of things. infact, virtualy all the net profit from their Mac computer lines comes from hardware margins . "the more you know"

"Besides, its not like Apple makes money on the hardware side of things"

I stopped reading right after that.

Now, seriously... apple's business model for the most part is based around HW, not SW... the fact that they give a lot of their SW for free should have clued you into that "insight."

You're spot on. Apple's making 30%+ on hardware margins for several of their hardware products. They aren't making that with OS X. They are making some profit on software, but it's clear that the software drives the hardware sales.

You're spot on. Apple's making 30%+ on hardware margins for several of their hardware products. They aren't making that with OS X. They are making some profit on software, but it's clear that the software drives the hardware sales. "

All right, not to be argumentative, but isn't IBM famous for saying the money is in the hardware, not the software, and didn't Microsoft thoroughly disprove that? If a Mac was generic hardware, but still running OS X, wouldn't it basically be the same thing? Would most of the users even notice? Or is simply just more important for them to have OS X and have the applications that many film and music people want to use?

You're thinking of Be Inc. How's your plan working out for them?

since the begining of the court hearing the service at Psystar has gotten much much better, as Penguin here as made known of his experience. They were not always like this, but since they have been in the spotlight they are trying to do a really good job, and they have succeeded. I agree about how loud the computer is, a lot of people have complained but I think it is actually rather quiet by comparison to my other PC's.

I really can't say if Psystar has done anything wrong or not because I don't know about such things. However my experience with Psystar has been positive and I really like my Psystar Mac. I guess I would be inclined to ignore a license which prevents me from using software that I have legally purchased the way I see fit.

penguin

Different situations. OEM Windows is only licensed for one computer, but Microsoft isn't telling you what computer you must install it on. You get one install of an OEM license, you can pick whatever computer you wish to be that install. If it's OEM restore disks you're talking about, that's the OEM tying that restore disk to the hardware. That's not Microsoft's doing, that's the OEM.
Apple, by contrast, says in their eula that you may not install OS X onto non-Apple hardware. They're telling you flat out what hardware on which you can and cannot install OS X, and they are contending that breaking or hacking around this limitation is unlawful.
Quite a bit of difference there.

OEM meaning Original Equipment Manufacturer - so THEY determine what computer it goes on. You have no choice what computer to install it on. You cannot legally purchase an OEM license with a computer and install it on a different computer. In fact if you are the M in the OEM bit you are expected by Microsoft to remove the label from the license agreement and attach it to the case of the computer before it is supplied to the customer. It then contravenes Microsoft's license agreement to install that license on another computer or transfer that label (and therefore license) to another computer. Further, and major component upgrade to that computer nullifies that license. I can see no difference here.

Well, you see, Psystar has no OEM agreement with Apple. They buy OSX retail. OEM or not does not matter for this case at all.
You dont have to be have an OEM contract to sell boxes with Windows on them either, it just that you get good price breaks and other benefits if you are.

Well, you see, Psystar has no OEM agreement with Apple. They buy OSX retail. OEM or not does not matter for this case at all.
You dont have to be have an OEM contract to sell boxes with Windows on them either, it just that you get good price breaks and other benefits if you are. "

Do you always quote people out of context so that you can have your 2c worth? If you are going to quote something, quote the whole sentence - you know - so that people can actually see the whole context of what was written.

As was written in the original, that you chose to butcher, Apple's option here is to do what Microsoft currently do which is significantly inflate the price of their retail version so that companies like Pystar can't use an OEM priced version on their systems without first agreeing to some OEM style distribution agreement.

The point of the original, which you chose to eliminate, was that there is really no difference between Apple's RETAIL license and Microsoft's OEM license from an end user perspective - they both have restrictions on what hardware they can be used with, so if Pystar were to win this case it would surely have to eventually have an impact on Microsoft's OEM license.

You didn't really answer the original point.

This was that the Apple retail EULA restricts to one particular brand of machine, whereas the MS OEM EULA restricts to one particular instance of machine.

Consequently a court could reasonably hold that either one was enforceable and the other not. They are significantly different in term.

Edited 2009-02-12 07:43 UTC

Apple is testing the waters. They could lock their OS down and only run on certified Apple hardware or they could offer that sweet spot headless mid-tower everyone has been crying about and subsequently castrate the clone vendors.

If they are serious with the second option the Mac mini will be larger and include a dedicated GPU and be at least as tall as the Shuttle system case.

To be quite honest when I had a problem with my Psystar Mac I never even thought once about calling Apple Support. I purchased my computer from Psystar and they were the only ones I even thought of calling for support. Since they took good care of my problem there was no need to call anyone else.

Quite honestly as far as Mac X goes there is really no need to call Apple. It just works and works great!

penguin

Now that you mention that, it's just like with Windows. When people have trouble with their machines bought from Dell, HP, etcetera, they don't call Microsoft (well, perhaps some do, but in the cases I've witnessed, and I've witnessed many), they contact the OEM. People buying from Psystar won't call Apple, they'll call Psystar, just as you did. Makes sense.

Yes. A short time ago I bought a new HP machine for just over 500 Euro. It comes with a Quad Core Intel CPU, 4GB RAM, 500 GB SATA 3G disk, and an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3450 GPU. Then I looked up the model with equivalent hardware from Apple, and it is *four times as expensive*.

Now Apple fans would say *premium hardware*. In fact, the last years I have bought two HP business laptops, one HP workstation, and one HP desktop. And none of them over broke down, nor did I have any problems with them. And even if they had half the lifetime of a Mac (I am convinced this is not true), I can still buy three new ones for the price of one Mac Pro.

Basically you pay big time for the brand, and the operating system (which is pretty good, but not perfect).

I wonder what the Apple fans think the problem is. Everybody knows Apple is usually more expensive than boxes comparable hardware, and that you pay for the design, the brand, etc.

It makes total economic sense, whether you like them or not, and if they did not add a significant margin they might sell more but perhaps make the same amount of money.
Enough people like to pay the premium, just as many people like to pay ridiculous amounts of money for certain brands of shoes or jeans (ridiculous compared to their productions costs, which is often quite low ).

I think there's a cultural side to this. In the societies many people here seem to be from, it's okay to consume a lot, quantatively, but apparently if you buy something more fancy and a bit more expensive you have to justify. Is that Anglo/American/Dutch calvinism or something? ;-)

What I mean; if you pay an Apple, you have people saying "why you pay a premium on what's basically generic PC hardware" - yet if you own lots of PC's or laptops that you, if you're frank, don't really use that intensively -- there's virtualisation these days, folks ;-) -- you rarely ever hear people ask, "what on earth are you doing with so many computers"?

Anyway, with the demise of the dollar and the subsequent rise of the yuan, sooner or later PC hardware will become quite a bit more expensive (after adjustment of supplies and overproduction itself), so PC/laptop overconsumption in the West will end.

It's not about quantity, it's about the fact that what some pay premium for isn't necessarily of higher quality. It's considered a "waste" of money.
To quote a comic strip I saw once:
Person A: My shirt costs more than you pay in apartment rent for a month.
Person B: That's because you're an idiot.



I'm certainly no expert but I think it's a Lutheran thing.



Most non-geeks would actually ask that very question.

Edited 2009-02-10 11:33 UTC

Hmmm, I would ask that question myself, but that would probably reveal how envious I am. I have two, and my second one is in sorry shape.

> I wonder what the Apple fans think the problem is. Everybody knows
> Apple is usually more expensive than boxes comparable hardware,
> and that you pay for the design, the brand, etc.

Since I probably count as an "Apple fan", I'll try to explain my view on this. The problem - as I see it - is not related to Apple's pricing, although Apple themselves will probably hate the competition.

It is also not related to the quality of Apple's hardware. I do not know about the quality, and although I never had a problem with breaking hardware I perfectly know that I could just be lucky. (It really scared me when I read above that Apple uses Western Digital hard disks...)

The problem - as I see it - is the possibility of clones ruining the Apple trade mark. These machines may very well be of higher quality than original Apple machines, be better supported, and what not. However, a precedent that basically allows *everybody* to build Mac clones inevitably opens the door for cheap, low-quality, badly-supported clones too.

And this is the problem, because customers and "the computer guy next door" no longer know what machines they get. From doing Windows support I remember that usually, people do not know what hardware they a using - they a using a "computer". Forget about driver disks or manuals; they don't keep such stuff. You're lucky when they know the brand of computer they use (Dell/HP/whatever), and not just where they bought it. This is currently different when you have an Apple machine - You know what you get when you buy an Apple machine. To fix an Apple for Joe User who messed it up, the primary information you need to have is the version of OS X to install. With clones of any kind flooding the market, you're in the same mess as with Windows.

Currently, you can say that an Apple "just works". Although this is formally still true with a market full of clones - still true because clones aren't Apples - there'd be indistinguishable clones of higher and of lower quality, with or without device driver mess, and with no clue as to which support line to call. Just as today, everybody can tell you that "PCs" often crash, device drivers are messy, and support is crappy, when in fact none of them aren't "PCs" but actually more-or-less compatible PC clones.

> I think there's a cultural side to this. In the societies many people
> here seem to be from, it's okay to consume a lot, quantatively,
> but apparently if you buy something more fancy and a bit more
> expensive you have to justify. Is that Anglo/American/Dutch
> calvinism or something? ;-)

I hope that ad hominem attacks aren't your only "argument".

Perhaps you are using the wrong definition of "ad hominem"? :-)

> Perhaps you are using the wrong definition of "ad hominem"? :-)

I am using this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

And the aesthetics. I personally think that Apple make some of the prettiest computers around. For a lot of people the price of the iMac, for example, is worth it simply because of the way it looks.

Many people think that "does it look good in my living room" is far more important than "how many flops do I get pr $". Most geeks have a very hard time understanding this.

...and most nerds don't care much about aesthetics anyway, they're usually quite happy with a Frankenstein's monster of a machine made from scavenged parts here-and-there.

If Apple relied on nerds for their business they'd be bankrupt.

When Apple releases a mid-tower headless box that is within their design constraints you can stop bitching about the price by comparing it against the Mac Pro and proclaiming Apple is a ripoff.

Of course, you'll just bitch about the slight price difference in this range and demand Apple isn't doing enough, but if they just did x, y or z then you'd buy one.