Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Oct 2009 12:51 UTC
Editorial A couple of years ago, a professor at my university had a very interesting thought exchange with the class I was in. We were a small group, and I knew most of them, they were my friends. Anyway, we had a talk about language purism - not an unimportant subject if you study English in The Netherlands.
Order by: Score:
100% true
by _txf_ on Sun 25th Oct 2009 13:14 UTC
_txf_
Member since:
2008-03-17

I Suspect that apple has no confidence in their brand.

It is generally well known that despite how much value for money (even if it were the case in apples computers) people will still go for cheaper products.

There are a few things to consider from apples point of view:

1) perhaps apple feels that the dilution of their brand to other manufacturers will reflect badly on them i.e. badly working hardware causes osx to function less optimally.

2) Dilution causes the expectation from consumers that apple should support other hardware. No matter how many disclaimers there are.

3) I imagine a lot of people only tolerate the hardware in order to get osx. (my laptop has roughly the same specs as a good macbook pro for at least 600 euros less with more usb ports and other slots).

I suspect that apple does not want to get relegated to the same territory ms is in whereby they produce nice hardware but then suffers massively from having to support every computer on the planet. If you look at the xbox you can see that ms can produce very nice software if they target a specific piece of hardware (rather crappy hardware tho!).

Edited 2009-10-25 13:15 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: 100% true
by twenex on Sun 25th Oct 2009 13:28 UTC in reply to "100% true"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Exactly right. And I think it also applies to other, proprietary dinosaurs (mentioning no names, of course). Products should compete on their own merits, they shouldn't be forced on anyone. And I think that these days, 99% of the hardware you are going to use would work, on, say, Linux (even on my multifunctional, duplex, printer/scanner/fax/copier from HP, EVERYTHING works in Linux). Guess where the problems are? The graphics card in my desktop, which uses a proprietary driver for 3D and 2D acceleration.

Personally, if I weren't bothered about FOSS software (and many people aren't), I would gladly buy MacOS X if I could buy it cheaply and install it easily and legally on {insert any PC make here}. I would have bought a Mac already, if it weren't more expensive than an equivalent PC (and here in the UK, stuff that retails for $500 in the US is liable to retail for £500, i.e. almost double the cost to the American consumer). Now that the only chip that differentiates a Mac from a PC is the EFI (which isn't even proprietary to Apple, but a standard on Itanium), there really isn't much of an excuse for making Apple products expensive OR for keeping the OS tied to their hardware. I bet it would knock the socks off Windows 7 (apart from the strange drag-a-disk-icon-to-the-Trashcan feature, which I never liked but which might well now be gone).

Reply Score: 2

RE: 100% true
by siraf72 on Mon 26th Oct 2009 10:46 UTC in reply to "100% true"
siraf72 Member since:
2006-02-22

"It is generally well known that despite how much value for money (even if it were the case in apples computers) people will still go for cheaper products. "

Only if its a commodity product. Luxury goods are luxury goods because they don't follow this rule.

Reply Score: 1

RE: 100% true
by twitterfire on Mon 26th Oct 2009 12:38 UTC in reply to "100% true"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


I suspect that apple does not want to get relegated to the same territory ms is in whereby they produce nice hardware but then suffers massively from having to support every computer on the planet. If you look at the xbox you can see that ms can produce very nice software if they target a specific piece of hardware (rather crappy hardware tho!).


Microsoft makes money from software they write. Apple makes money form hardware they sell. And thay make money by tying the software to hardware. Because is the software who sells the hardware. Any rational human being wont buy some hardware from someone when they can buy the same hardware for less.

And Microsoft don't support hardware. It's the hardware makers who provide the drivers.

Reply Score: 1

Apple is the brand
by sigzero on Sun 25th Oct 2009 13:21 UTC
sigzero
Member since:
2006-01-03

Of course, they are going to fight for it.


Note: Is it really a good thing that OSNews has a Psystar ad when they are in the courts over the issue?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apple is the brand
by twenex on Sun 25th Oct 2009 13:29 UTC in reply to "Apple is the brand"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I don't think it matters, legally. I remember once buying a magazine with a review of Wordworth 3 for the Amiga, which ABSOLUTELY trashed it. Guess what was given a full-page ad on the back of said magazine, same issue?

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Apple is the brand
by secs on Sun 25th Oct 2009 14:56 UTC in reply to "Apple is the brand"
RE[2]: Apple is the brand
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 25th Oct 2009 15:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple is the brand"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It is quite obvious that OSNews has a personal dislike towards Apple and Psystar gives them the opportunity to push their anti-Apple agenda.


Dude, get over yourself. Just this week we've had nothing but positive news for Apple.

But of course, that doesn't fit within your paradigm about OSNews and myself, and as such, you block it out. Basic psychology at work there. It's fascinating how there's this whole slew of people who ONLY comment on any possibly negative Apple story on OSN - and on nothing else, not even all the positive Apple stories.

I don't do conspiracy theories, but it makes you think.

Edited 2009-10-25 15:39 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Apple is the brand
by secs on Sun 25th Oct 2009 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple is the brand"
secs Member since:
2009-10-22

It is quite obvious that OSNews has a personal dislike towards Apple and Psystar gives them the opportunity to push their anti-Apple agenda.


OK, I take that back.

Although OSNews LINKS TO both positive and negative news about Apple, when writing ORIGINAL CONTENT, OSNews (or Thom at least), certainly appears to have a personal dislike towards Apple.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Apple is the brand
by wirespot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple is the brand"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

News are facts which you merely relay. When it's a personal opinion, it looks like OSNews is taking a stand.

And perhaps all the negativity which meets your opinions on this matter should tell you something. Other than "Apple zombies have it in for me".

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple is the brand
by Soulbender on Mon 26th Oct 2009 14:04 UTC in reply to "Apple is the brand"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Note: Is it really a good thing that OSNews has a Psystar ad when they are in the courts over the issue?


Sure, why not? They havent been found to be in the wrong yet so I see no problem with it.
Unless of course OSNews should not show Ads from either party in the lawsuit.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by wirespot
by wirespot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 13:30 UTC
wirespot
Member since:
2006-06-21

Let me ask you an equally simple question:

If Psystar sold their machines at higher prices than Apple sells Macs, would Apple still sue them?

They'd have no reason to, right? Since people can't possibly care for anything other than price, right? They don't care what they buy, they just go for the cheapest alternative, right? Right?

Thom, seriously, are you really this blind? (I considered "stupid" but you're not stupid. If anything, it takes real cunning to come up with this line of argument.)

Are you seriously suggesting that price is the ultimate factor here? Apple is the company that came on a market suffocated by Windows and cheap PC-clones and basically said "this is our stuff, we think it's so good we're gonna sell it at these outrageous prices." Does that seem like a company who lacks confidence? A company that cares about scraping the bottom of the barrel or about bottom-feeders?

What about their customers, all those people who bought and keep buying their expensive stuff, are they all posers and cretins? These are people who vote with their money, and quite a lot of them. Are they all middle-aged retards, the kind that buys a Ferrari to make up for a small penis? Is that what OSNews is saying, through you, to anybody who's ever bought anything from Apple? You insecure retard? Really?

What if Apple's stuff is not complete shite, they don't lack confidence, and their customers are not all morons. What a notion. Could it then be perhaps that they have something of value, and that's what they're trying to protect by going against Psystar? Because Psystar is just the beginning. If Psystar got away with it a lot more would come.

Thom, this "article" is nothing but pure trolling. You've exhausted your "arguments", you've had them torn to pieces by commentators in every other thread you've started on this subject. Yet you won't stop, and now that you've run out of arguments you pull stuff like this? Seriously, when's it gonna stop? This is not what OSNews is about.

I'm begging the other editors and whoever owns this site to do something. I came to OSNews back when it was news about operating systems and related topics. How is it that a completely unsubstantiated and insulting piece of writing like this came to be representative for OSNews?

Edited 2009-10-25 13:39 UTC

Reply Score: 8

v RE: Comment by wirespot
by rockwell on Sun 25th Oct 2009 14:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by wirespot"
RE[2]: Comment by wirespot
by secs on Sun 25th Oct 2009 14:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by wirespot"
secs Member since:
2009-10-22

//What about their customers, all those people who bought and keep buying their expensive stuff, are they all posers and cretins?//

No, but they're incredibly stupid.


Based on that logic all non-Apple customers are stupid for using Microsoft's 'expensive stuff', meaning Windows.

Just because Apple products are expensive doesn't mean only fools buy them. Some people's personal experience has shown them that spending more a product can sometimes provide a better experience.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by wirespot
by tupp on Sun 25th Oct 2009 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by wirespot"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Based on that logic all non-Apple customers are stupid for using Microsoft's 'expensive stuff', meaning Windows.

This notion is logical only if one were a short-sighted Mactard lost in the RDF.

There are probably more non-Mac, non-Windows users than there are Mac users.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by wirespot
by rockwell on Wed 28th Oct 2009 14:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by wirespot"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Sense of humor much?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by wirespot
by Kroc on Sun 25th Oct 2009 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by wirespot"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Laugh it up. More people, _especially_ geeks are buying Macs as they get fed up waiting for the second coming of Microsoft. Apple might be flawed, but eventually you just want to grow up and get some work done and begin to see your computer as just a tool and not a penis extension with which to score points with in Internet debates. Honestly, Mac vs. PC flame wars are about as mature as 13 year olds on Halo.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by wirespot
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sun 25th Oct 2009 21:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by wirespot"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Is there anyone of any age who's mature on halo? I know some guys that are absolute saints in real life, but on Halo, they're assholes of the highest order.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by wirespot
by sbenitezb on Mon 26th Oct 2009 02:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by wirespot"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

Is there anyone of any age who's mature on halo? I know some guys that are absolute saints in real life, but on Halo, they're assholes of the highest order.


Those guys are complete repressed in real life. There's a saying that if some person acts like a jerk in a game, he's a jerk also in real life.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by wirespot
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 27th Oct 2009 15:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by wirespot"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

That's an awfully pessimistic view. By the same logic, you could probably call them repressed murderers. I think its the Halo/online-gaming culture that they conform to when immersed. When not immersed in that culture, they revert to their normal selves.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by wirespot
by boldingd on Tue 27th Oct 2009 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by wirespot"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

It's kinda funny, but that whole "I just want to do work" attitude is why I use Linux. Linux has plusses and minuses, and I'm not going to claim it's an ideal home-desktop or gaming OS... but it is, at least for me, a wonderfully productive work environment.

And, actually, I've known a lot of "geeks," and also at least one theater major, who tried Ubuntu, for various reasons. None of them stuck with it when they couldn't play games... but at least they tried -- my point being that, while there's lots of OS X interest out there, there's Ubuntu interest too: it's just that Ubuntu isn't quite where non-technical users can deal with it yet.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by wirespot
by Anonymous Penguin on Sun 25th Oct 2009 16:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by wirespot"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

I wonder if you live in the US.
Because if you lived in Europe and realized that most Macs (take for instance a Macbook Pro or a latest generation Mac Pro) cost twice the price of a PC with similar specs, you'd probably think twice before writing that price is not all that important.
I feel especially bad when I see that simple upgrades are either not available at all (especially graphics cards) or cost more than twice as much as you would expect.
It is difficult to convince Europeans that a double price for something which on paper looks the same, can be granted by quality alone.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by wirespot
by wirespot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by wirespot"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

It is difficult to convince Europeans that a double price for something which on paper looks the same, can be granted by quality alone.


And it's easier to make Americans buy Macs because they are more stupid? More rich? Both? Is that what you're saying?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by wirespot
by righard on Sun 25th Oct 2009 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by wirespot"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Mac's are more expensive in Europe.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by wirespot
by wirespot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 17:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by wirespot"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Compared to Macs in the US, I gather you meant to say. Yes, and in other parts of the world, too. And not just for Macs, all kinds of IT hardware. Some reasons here:
http://www.ifoapplestore.com/stores/exchange_rates.html

In short, taxes, transportation and, last but not least, the buying power of the local currency make the difference. The US dollar has been slipping for some time now, so IT products are priced accordingly to what US citizens can afford. Any manufacturer will push the prices up as much as any given market can bear. They're in for the profit, of course. So it's not that Macs are more expensive in Europe or Japan, it's that they're cheaper in the US because that's what Americans can take.

Besides, I don't see how this argument helps. Even if Macs were more expensive in Europe that the US (compared to the locals spending power), the fact they keep buying them makes all the stronger the argument that they're quality products. You don't keep buying very expensive stuff if it's not worth it, do you?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by wirespot
by righard on Sun 25th Oct 2009 18:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by wirespot"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Anonymous Penguin probarbly thought is easyer to find out, that Apple computers are not worth there price, in Europe, because there more expensive here. Not because you're more stupid or richer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by wirespot
by twitterfire on Mon 26th Oct 2009 14:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by wirespot"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

You don't keep buying very expensive stuff if it's not worth it, do you?


You keep buying if the marketing is good and if you want to be elite and cool. And because you ended spending a large amount of money you try convincing yourself yiu have bought the best hardware and the best software in the world. And the best support. And the best integration. And you're cool too. And elite.

Geez, I heard that google is planning to throw away their bsd and Linux machines. They are going to buy Os X servers. Yahoo too. Even Microsoft engineers write their software on Os X boxes and secretely send it to build machines to compile. But MS is too ashamed to recognize. Even governments and armies use exclusively Os X and on a little planet out there, the green guys use Os X, too. This is because they know that apple produces the best software and the best hardware. And the best integration. It would be a stupidity on their behalf not to do so. Even MTV is playing music from ipods, and google runs youtube on a giant Ipod that apple designed specially for them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by wirespot
by mrhasbean on Mon 26th Oct 2009 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by wirespot"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

"You don't keep buying very expensive stuff if it's not worth it, do you?


You keep buying if the marketing is good and if you want to be elite and cool. And because you ended spending a large amount of money you try convincing yourself yiu have bought the best hardware and the best software in the world. And the best support. And the best integration. And you're cool too. And elite.

Geez, I heard that google is planning to throw away their bsd and Linux machines. They are going to buy Os X servers. Yahoo too. Even Microsoft engineers write their software on Os X boxes and secretely send it to build machines to compile. But MS is too ashamed to recognize. Even governments and armies use exclusively Os X and on a little planet out there, the green guys use Os X, too. This is because they know that apple produces the best software and the best hardware. And the best integration. It would be a stupidity on their behalf not to do so. Even MTV is playing music from ipods, and google runs youtube on a giant Ipod that apple designed specially for them.
"

I'm glad you just clarified the psychological stability of those who think people who continually buy Apple products are idiots - very enlightening...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by wirespot
by Anonymous Penguin on Sun 25th Oct 2009 19:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by wirespot"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06


And it's easier to make Americans buy Macs because they are more stupid? More rich? Both? Is that what you're saying?


I never meant to say that. As righard said, Macs are a lot more expensive in Europe. If I could buy one in the US, without spending a fortune on shipping and taxes, I would.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by wirespot
by sbenitezb on Mon 26th Oct 2009 02:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by wirespot"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

More stupid sure. But also Macs are cheaper in US.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by wirespot
by fretinator on Mon 26th Oct 2009 01:36 UTC in reply to "Comment by wirespot"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, between your ad hominem attacks, you are actually making Thom's point. You are saying that the people who pay more for Macs are not stupid, they are doing it because it is a superior product. Based on that, how would Psystar selling Mac OS to the unwashed masses who currently buy cheapo PC's hurt you? You guys can keep on buying your expensive, superior Macs. Apple would still get your money. The only thing new is that they would also get money from those who currently by cheap PC's.

How would you guys be hurt by increased Mac OS sales to the cheap PC crowd? Apple makes more money. You guys can keep buying your Cadillac PC's.

Your logic is poor, but your yelling is loud.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Comment by wirespot
by wirespot on Mon 26th Oct 2009 09:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by wirespot"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

You are saying that the people who pay more for Macs are not stupid, they are doing it because it is a superior product. Based on that, how would Psystar selling Mac OS to the unwashed masses who currently buy cheapo PC's hurt you?


First of all, don't assume I own a Mac, because I don't. I only own iPods. But that's somewhat irrelevant.

So let me rephrase your question. How does a cheap Mac clone hurt Apple customers? First of all, if left unchecked, it would seriously undermine Apple's bussiness model. If Psystar was left alone more cloners would follow. History has shown us that Apple can be buried by cloners since it almost happened before. I suspect that whoever is behind Psystar intends exactly that.

No, it's not a conspiracy theory. If you have any notion that Psystar is a small honest company out to make a small and honest buck, think again. Small honest companies don't engage in multi-million dollar lawsuits against the computer manufacturer with the deepest pockets around and one of the meanest legal teams. There's serious money and serious legal counsel behind Psystar (which also translates to money). And for what? Spend all this money just to gain Psystar the right to sell cheap computers? Does that make any sense? Engage in an uphill legal battle and spend tons of money for the right to enter a business with very thin returns? Wow, Psystar must be downright philantropists.

Returning to the topic: if Apple is hurt they can't keep on making the products that their customers enjoy. In fact, they'll probably stop making, or at least crippling, OS X itself, which everybody seems to be after. How does that make sense? No matter the outcome, the masses will NOT get OS X. Assuming that Apple is, for the sake of argument, forced to let anybody bundle OS X, they will cripple it, change the license, add serious protection methods and so on. OS X as we know and like it would be gone.

Secondly, there's a bigger issue here. Psystar is attacking a way of doing business that's not just Apple's, it's widely used in the IT industry today: renting software instead of selling it (not to mention SaaS). That model is based on current copyright law. A favorable decision for Psystar would have so far-reaching consequences that some legal experts say it might affect even FOSS licenses, and it would definitely impact lots of commercial software.

Thirdly, there's the principle of the thing. I have to admit when somebody is in the right or the wrong, no matter how I personally feel about them. There's rules and laws and if we're ready to give them up whenever we feel like it we might as well grab clubs and return to the caves. Psystar is wrong and breaking the law.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by wirespot
by twitterfire on Mon 26th Oct 2009 12:44 UTC in reply to "Comment by wirespot"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Apple is the company that came on a market suffocated by Windows and cheap PC-clones and basically said "this is our stuff, we think it's so good we're gonna sell it at these outrageous prices."


Apple is the company who said: "there are enough stupid people and enough snobs who will buy our products just because they think they will be different and cooler".

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by wirespot
by darknexus on Mon 26th Oct 2009 12:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by wirespot"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Oh, I see. So then, if I bought a Mac because it was the most accessible computer for a blind person like me, that means that I'm automatically a snob, eh? You might want to take a long look in the mirror before you start pointing the finger there.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by wirespot
by twitterfire on Mon 26th Oct 2009 13:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by wirespot"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

No. If you have a good reason, I respect your choice. But many people don't have good resons for buying things.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by wirespot
by Laurence on Mon 26th Oct 2009 15:20 UTC in reply to "Comment by wirespot"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Apple is the company that came on a market suffocated by Windows and cheap PC-clones and basically said "this is our stuff, we think it's so good we're gonna sell it at these outrageous prices."


Except that the market wasn't suffocated by windows when Apple first came to market.

In fact, quite the opposite: there was huge amount competition in the market at the time.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by wirespot
by twitterfire on Mon 26th Oct 2009 15:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by wirespot"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


Except that the market wasn't suffocated by windows when Apple first came to market.


Maybe it's like the second come of Messiah. Even if it's a false Messiah.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by wirespot
by looncraz on Mon 26th Oct 2009 17:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by wirespot"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

While Apple may, indeed, have something good to offer, it is really in their support services and the OS X itself. Apple knows that little more than a fancy case is all that stands behind their claims of "higher quality" as machines.

I can build a top-end system for $800, pay $50 for Psystar's EFI fix, $200 on the best case I could find, and $170 for MacOS X. Apple would charge me a good $3000 for the same specs. Seems like not much of a reason to buy to me... unless you are the type that calls their tech support frequently.

I have even less reason to want to buy an over-priced Mac when I consider all of the mods I could do to my Volvo to eek out another few miles per second :-) Or how many steak dinners I could buy...

Not to mention I get 3 year warranties on most of my parts anyway, those things that don't have a 3 year warranty are so cheap to replace it wouldn't be worth the shipping costs anyway!

To the masses, whom are concerned with cash, most Apple products are not desirable. However, a cheap alternative could be. The masses are well aware that they are not buying an Apple.

Should the masses have a bad experience with the low-end knock-offs, they will then consider Apple-direct as the best possible option and will inform others around them to buy direct.

The problem is that, to the masses, Apple has nothing unique to offer in computing experience outside of the software department. And that software, IMHO, sucks pretty hard.

I don't like Windows, but I'll run it as my primary OS long before MacOS X.

--The loon

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by wirespot
by zlynx on Tue 27th Oct 2009 01:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by wirespot"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

A dual socket Xeon Nehalem with ECC RAM for $800?

Reeaaaaallly.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by wirespot
by looncraz on Tue 27th Oct 2009 06:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by wirespot"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

The $800 figure was just to make a point, I'll be precise, now, for your enjoyment:

Specs are equal to or greater than Apple's basic configuration as part availability permits. No used parts. From eBay, unless noted.

I had to make a few upgrades to the Apple in order to do a proper comparison as I had a problem finding the slow quad xeons at a good price, 1TB hard drives are abundant, and 4GB DDR3 ECC is the current value king in server memory. I also had some issues drumming up the exact details of the MacPro mainboard, so I guessed based upon Intel's lineup.

I'm sure this could be done cheaper/better.

ZZF = ZipZoomFly.com

Prices are rounded or approximated based upon listing, and I chose only parts that would be easier to obtain at a given price-point. Or, in statistical parlance, I removed the outliers in order to test the null.

ITEM____________________________________PRICE____PLACE

2x Xeon 2.66GHz___(three listed)________650.00
Dual Socket MBRD__(hard to find)________375.00(retail)
8GB DDR3, ECC________(lots)______________95.00
1TB HDD, SATA 3gb/s 16M, 7.2k____________72.00___ZZF
ATI HD 4870 1GB_________________________148.00___ZZF
22X DVD +/- R/W DL+, etc...______________29.00___ZZF
Wireless MSE + KBRD______________________40.00___ZZF

The case is too varying to really classify, I'll allow a nice $500 budget for it considering how nice the MacPro cases are in reality...

Fancy Case_____________________________500.00

Total: $1909.00

We can call it $2000
hell, let us just call it $3000, just for kicks... and to make up for price changes and the little things that are missing ( sound, speakers, but NOT A MONITOR ).


Apple's Comparable Configuration

2x Xeon 2.66GHz
8GB DDR3 1066MHz ECC
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
16X "SuperDrive"
Apple Wireless Keyboard
Wired Mouse ( +$20 for "magic" - which does look neat )

No other options selected.

$5,119.00

I kid you not. Without a monitor.

I have spent about an hour, now, on this post, being careful to pick comparable, new, parts. The Xeon prices are of a bundle deal which includes both quad core CPUs. The motherboard's price was based upon new intel server boards, like those used in the MacPro, and the price is that of one of the few retail listing I found.

The worst of it all is that a used MacPro of those specs will sell for less than $1500 with warranty remaining. That is some terrible devaluation!!

But, for that "$3000" on the home-brew "$5000 MacPro-equal," you get a bit more to show for it, at worst. You get a 22x vs 16x "SuperDrive," and double the video memory.

The reality is you could easily pack in water cooling, a nice screen, awesome speakers, and a copy of Windows 7 Ultimate, a copy of RebelEFI, and lease a copy of MacOS X for the extra money I threw in, at this writing.

Then, the extra money could be used to buy a nice Palm Pre and a new engine for your car. Or, you could give it to Apple so you can call them up once or twice in your lifetime, just because their tech support is SO awesome!

The choice is yours, but -if you buy a Mac for its value- I don't understand it. At least not from a logical standpoint.

If you tell me you simply love the machines, and you are really just buying into the image - I can understand that. You like the culture, the community, the elitism. You like the looks, whatever!

I am on my twelfth Volvo now, for pretty much just those reasons! But I don't delude myself to think I am getting the best value. I am getting a good value simply because I enjoy the feel of the car. I like the quirks, like having "confusing" door handles, round turn wheels to change the backrest angle, five cylinders, headlight washers, etc...

You tell me you like a Mac because of its character, I will be at a loss of how to combat that logic. It can't be beaten. Because it is true. And it is emotional. Logically, however, I should own a car that is easier & cheaper to repair with better gas mileage - I drive 2-3,500 miles/month @ 26-28MPG, a Toyota Corolla would give me 36mpg and would be cheaper all around... even if it needed to be replaced more often. And, logically, you should put your money where you get the most return.

Emotionally, you can get whatever you want, but you can't call it the best value. Not now, not ever.

--The loon

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by wirespot
by zlynx on Tue 27th Oct 2009 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by wirespot"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

Kudos for doing the numbers. You cheated just a little bit.

Apple charges a high upgrade price on the CPUs. By bumping from 2.26 to 2.6 GHz you add $1400 to the system.

With everything the same but keeping the slower CPUs I get $3,639 for the Mac Pro.

I also don't think you found the Nehalem Xeons for that price at ZipZoomFly. I see 2.26 E5520 for $382 each.

And no operating system yet, but lets say you get a OEM copy of Win7 for $100.

There is also warranty, service, assembly, burn-in testing, etc.

Probably up to around $3,000 like you said.

So it's $3,000'ish vs. $3,639.

And that's where people get the idea that the real cost of OS X is about $500.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by wirespot
by boldingd on Tue 27th Oct 2009 20:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by wirespot"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Even assuming you're right, I still wouldn't pay $500 for OS X. I'll have to install Windows for gaming, practically speaking (unless steam launches on OS X tomorrow), and that's where I'll spend a lot of my time. So, I'll be hopping into whatever the other OS is only for work tasks. Hint: if I'm gonna pick a just-for-productive-work OS, it's not going to be OS X for $500.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by wirespot
by looncraz on Wed 28th Oct 2009 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by wirespot"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

I found the Xeons on eBay :-)

I should have watched the item, maybe I'll look for them later.

I did the upgrade because I couldn't find an affordable matching pair of CPUs, I went with the best value for the build rather than base-line comparison.

I did this because that is what a person would do when building a system - look for the best bang for the buck. Apple's $1400 upgrade cost is truly mind-boggling.

Likewise, the RAM was cheap because I used 2x4GB sticks, rather than Apple's bulk-bought 4x2GB. 4GB modules were the value king, 2 GB would cost more per GB.

The video was a no-brainer. What a steal! Especially considering Apple charges $200 for it after removing the base card.

Sure, the base-line system from Apple would have cost considerably less, but to build it on your own is not the wisest way to go. In the real world, you look for the best bang per buck, so I did exactly that, upgrading the Mac only if I needed to do so to match the best general-market values.

Of course, if one has the smarts to go this far, one would be expected to be capable of providing one's own support. All the hardware I selected is under factory warranty as well.

I think a comparable chassis is the most difficult part of the game. Apple has been making incredibly lovely machines for years.

Of course, if you really want a good deal, you would just buy a slightly used MacPro for half of the general market expense.

That is just crazy.

--The loon

EDIT: dyslexia rules!

Edited 2009-10-28 16:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by wirespot
by Abstract on Wed 28th Oct 2009 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by wirespot"
Abstract Member since:
2009-10-24

@looncraz

No doubt Apple hardware is more expensive then a low end PC or Build It Yourself.
Most Mac users know not to buy the hard drive, cpu and ram upgrades when you are configuring a Mac at the Apple Store website.
Other World Computing, Pricewatch.com among other sites all offer the same upgrades for a lot less.

Just like buying a car, you don't upgrade the radio/stereo or tires, etc.. from the dealer, you get after market parts or upgrades for either cheaper or better performance/quality. Nothing wrong with that.
So your price comparison is skewed, but I repeat again, Apple hardware is usually more expensive then other low end or build it yourself.

And you also took one model / offering of Apple's hardware. the iMac is a better value then a lot of build it yourself options, mac mini might be slight more then the equiv PC shuttle, but laptops as a complete package (don't forget display and the battery, plus the case) is very competitive when it comes to high end laptops.
Plus by your own omission you went out and found the parts piece by piece from different sources, so if you can do that why can't a person purchasing a Mac also go out and get upgrade parts in the same manner. But again it is the total package you are buying when you purchase an Apple product.

to quote myself:

I can buy the same paint that any other artist does, but what i create with it might not have the value or worth that a famous artist’s work does. Also I may not feel as though a painting by an artist is worth millions of dollars, but if someone else does, and is willing to pay it, then so be it.


This is what Apple has done.

Simple fact is Apple has been doing well with their current business model, if it works while change it radically? Should Apple take the approach of Dell? large volume, low margins? Ya, thats very successful.

Oh they should take the approach of Microsoft and license their OS to other hardware vendors to sell systems with Mac OSX pre-installed?

Big difference is Microsoft has a strangle hold on the corporate/enterprise market which wether you want to accept it or not is where Microsoft makes the bulk of their money from when it comes to OS sales, cause i think it was something like only 2/3rds of home users (non-corporate) actually purchase the OS and the majority of those are OEM, as in the OS came with the computer.

Microsoft has 85-90% of the market share, so they make up for their loss in in volume, Apple has 10% so if 1/3rd of their users pirated Mac OSX its a bigger hit to Apple then Microsoft takes ratio wise.

Besides do you enjoy dealing with the nonsense of Activation Keys, calling Microsoft to re-Authenticate, etc..

How do we put a price tag on our time & frustration, or the value of being stress free?

Edited 2009-10-28 22:11 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by wirespot
by looncraz on Thu 29th Oct 2009 01:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by wirespot"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Just like buying a car, you don't upgrade the radio/stereo or tires, etc.. from the dealer, you get after market parts or upgrades for either cheaper or better performance/quality. Nothing wrong with that.


No, nothing wrong with that. But you have already wasted about $1,500 going that route. Maybe you can recoup some of your losses, but not to the degree required.

But that is beside the point I was making: Mac's are far more expensive for what you get than they should be. Apple is not alone here, mind you.

I was arguing to the point of the MacPro being of any kind of real monetary value based on specifications, and quality, alone.

The fact that I could spend $3000 to build a $5000 MacPro also means I get a MUCH better value for the price of a basic MacPro ( $3299, IIRC ).

2.66GHz vs 2.1GHz, 8GB RAM vs 6GB, 1TB Hard Drive vs 640GB, 1GB ATI Video instead of... junk. For considerably less money than the basic MacPro.

So the bargain is the home-brew.

I also spoke, momentarily, to the point of devaluation. Just check out the offerings on eBay. Albeit, 6-month devaluation is not a common concern, but neither configuration will fare well here - but the Apple loses much more quickly.

But let us move on...


And you also took one model / offering of Apple's hardware. the iMac is a better value then a lot of build it yourself options, ...



I was only compelled to so closely examine one particular model. Look at the post that initiated my comment, we are talking MacPro.

I don't do laptops. I despise them.

That said, I own a few and even have one I'm about to install into my car. None are new. My fastest is a 3GHz Celeron with 512MB RAM. That is for live OBDII monitoring.


Plus by your own omission you went out and found the parts piece by piece from different sources, so if you can do that why can't a person purchasing a Mac also go out and get upgrade parts in the same manner. But again it is the total package you are buying when you purchase an Apple product.


I was comparing the total package.

I build computers for a living. That is what I do. I have never had the need to build a system of this scale, but my take would be only about $200. And I go to my clients' homes/businesses and setup the machine, and walk them through anything they need to know and connect any peripherals they have.

They can call me for my lifetime for answers to their questions, and I do house calls within, at most, a few days if they need extra help.

The only catch is that I am limited in service area.



Simple fact is Apple has been doing well with their current business model, if it works while change it radically? Should Apple take the approach of Dell? large volume, low margins? Ya, thats very successful.



Making a profit does not mean a business model works well. Often profit is made in the short term at the expense of the future. Apple is heading that way.

Particularly in public relations with technical professionals. You get the techs against you, you will soon fall. I have prevented a dozen or so people from buying Macs based on nothing but price and software compatibility.

Imagine a few million of me ( which there are ). With Apple's current strategy and attitude this effect will become increasingly prevalent.


Oh they should take the approach of Microsoft and license their OS to other hardware vendors to sell systems with Mac OSX pre-installed?


No, Apple should simply obey the laws of the retail marketplace.

But this gives them an opportunity. Windows on retail shelves has a very high price point. The top of the line MacOS X will be the non-upgrade version which has no limitations save for one: product support is included with Apple hardware, not software.

Price-match Windows on the shelves.

Create a "low-price" "upgrade" version which has only one requirement: installation on an Apple-branded computer.

This is a very different situation in the law, and would only serve to bolster revenues and profits of MacOS X sells. A little gravy, so to speak.

If Psystar were to hack the upgrade version, I - along with most- would be very much against them, they would have no protection and would see no mercy.


Big difference is Microsoft has a strangle hold on the corporate/enterprise market which wether you want to accept it or not is where Microsoft makes the bulk of their money from when it comes to OS sales


Apple has no need to compete intra-market in the OS category. They should NOT create OEM licenses. That would be counter-productive all-around.

They should do as I said. Nothing more. Except dropping the Psystar case in exchange for the same from Psystar.

--The loon

Reply Score: 2

OT: Wrong about Americans
by joshv on Sun 25th Oct 2009 13:32 UTC
joshv
Member since:
2006-03-18

"Most of our readers come from the United States, and as such, will have little to no experience in dealing with languages other than English (which, I can assure you, is a great loss - nothing broadens your horizon more than learning a new language)"

Good lord - generalize much? I deal with Spanish every day, living in a city with a large minority hispanic population. I took French in high school, studied Nederlands in college and even got in a semester of Hungarian while in Budapest. My wife took the obligatory high school French, speaks fluent German (Germans ask her what part of Germany she is from) and studied Swedish in college.

Granted, I live in a world where my languages is the lingua franca, so no, my skills in a non-native language are certainly not as buff as yours, but you are wrong to assume that people in the US with a similar educational level as your own, have little or no exposure to foreign languages.

Reply Score: 8

RE: OT: Wrong about Americans
by cyberpsi on Sun 25th Oct 2009 13:38 UTC in reply to "OT: Wrong about Americans"
cyberpsi Member since:
2005-07-12

It seems to me that it's time to USA study P.R. because everybody else gets the wrong image.

Reply Score: 4

RE: OT: Wrong about Americans
by righard on Sun 25th Oct 2009 17:34 UTC in reply to "OT: Wrong about Americans"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Google "Multilingualism in us" and you'll see that Americans are lacking somewhat behind in speaking more then one language.

Reply Score: 3

RE: OT: Wrong about Americans
by frajo on Sun 25th Oct 2009 18:44 UTC in reply to "OT: Wrong about Americans"
frajo Member since:
2007-06-29

you are wrong to assume that people in the US with a similar educational level as your own, have little or no exposure to foreign languages.

This might be correct for the well educated strata you mentioned. But it isn't if you compare the majority in The Netherlands with the majority in the US. Growing up in the smaller country you practically can't avoid to learn some German, French, and English.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: OT: Wrong about Americans
by joshv on Mon 26th Oct 2009 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE: OT: Wrong about Americans"
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

"you are wrong to assume that people in the US with a similar educational level as your own, have little or no exposure to foreign languages.

This might be correct for the well educated strata you mentioned. But it isn't if you compare the majority in The Netherlands with the majority in the US. Growing up in the smaller country you practically can't avoid to learn some German, French, and English.
"

What percentage of the Dutch population do you imagine is as well educated as Thom? The Netherlands has it's working class as well. I doubt very much that most of them speak or write English half as well as Thom. I'll grant that most people will at least know some English, German or French, of necessity - nobody is going to understand your Dutch when you are carvanning around Europe on holiday.

Reply Score: 2

RE: OT: Wrong about Americans
by Drumhellar on Sun 25th Oct 2009 19:21 UTC in reply to "OT: Wrong about Americans"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Thom is half-right. Americans do deal with other languages frequently, but do so poorly. "Budweiser is advertising in Spanish?!?! That's an American beer!"

Speaking multiple languages and traveling abroad makes you a rare exception. I think most Americans with as much education as you quickly forgot the languages they learned once they got a diploma. California is the worst, I think, because we are the most diverse part of the country, but still think everybody should learn English. I really do think a foreign language should be a requirement for graduating high school, but Americans don't really like anything "foreign".

Oh, the irony.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: OT: Wrong about Americans
by zlynx on Tue 27th Oct 2009 01:57 UTC in reply to "RE: OT: Wrong about Americans"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

A foreign language is a US high school requirement. I distinctly remember being forced to choose between a year of French or Spanish in 1991.

This may vary between school districts. I couldn't say.

Reply Score: 2

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Currently in California at least, it's either a year of foreign language or two years of visual/performing arts.

I went the visual arts path. Only know do I wish I had taken a language instead.

Reply Score: 1

RE: OT: Wrong about Americans
by Soulbender on Mon 26th Oct 2009 10:36 UTC in reply to "OT: Wrong about Americans"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

studied Nederlands in college


In what country do they speak "Nederlands"?

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

In what country do they speak "Nederlands"?


In mine. "The Netherlands" is English for "Nederland", and the language we speak is "Nederlands". Technically speaking, the English name for my language should be "Netherlandic", but this term is hardly used.

"Dutch" is a relic name, as it refers to a language that no longer exists ("Middle Dutch" or colloqually, "Diets", ~1100-1500).

Reply Score: 5

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Really? Most people seem to always say Dutch but thanks for correcting me,

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: OT: Wrong about Americans
by joshv on Mon 26th Oct 2009 14:28 UTC in reply to "RE: OT: Wrong about Americans"
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

In Nederland.

Reply Score: 3

RE: OT: Wrong about Americans
by twitterfire on Mon 26th Oct 2009 12:50 UTC in reply to "OT: Wrong about Americans"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Well, not Thom is wrong but Hollywood who presents the average american as being illiterate. So people judge americans as they are presented in films and media.

Reply Score: 2

RE: OT: Wrong about Americans
by josi on Tue 27th Oct 2009 18:33 UTC in reply to "OT: Wrong about Americans"
josi Member since:
2009-03-11

There are lots of people in the USA who have great foreign language skills. But if you compare the statistics, there is a huge difference between the USA and Europe.

Please don't take offence, but sometimes we need to generalise if we want to say something about the general trends. It is however important to emphasise that the general trend not necessarally implies that all the individuals are alike.

I can by looking at the statistics say that you have much more linguistic knowledge than what is the trend among US Americans.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by cyberpsi
by cyberpsi on Sun 25th Oct 2009 13:36 UTC
cyberpsi
Member since:
2005-07-12

I'm pretty happy with my macbook white. I just don't care if someone is installing osx on other computers. In fact I've upgraded to snow leopard and for now I'm keeping it till no updates are available to me. And just to keep doors wide open I'm testing Haiku... Just one thing: Oh Lord don't make me go back to the Linux/BSD wheel because I always felt a little unhappy on it. Something was always missing: Easiness.

Reply Score: 1

Here we go again.
by Buck on Sun 25th Oct 2009 14:32 UTC
Buck
Member since:
2005-06-29

Has it ever occured to you, Thom, that cultures and languages, your sense of purism and running a business are very different things really?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Sun 25th Oct 2009 14:38 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Well written Thom, thank you. Nice to see an opinion piece on OSnews that isn’t directly related to someone else’s RSS feed. This is what OSnews needs.

As for the point—Apple have a legal requirement to protect their brand. As far as I’m aware, there’s no legal precidant to protect the current form of any language, except perhaps for the school curriculum, but then you hardly get people up in court for crimes against language.

Interesting factlet—the Hebrew language barely changed at all during the period of the formation of Israel and the beginning of the writing of the Bible until Israel were cut off by the Roman invasion 1500 years later. Essentially since the Holy texts were a core part of their culture and studied at all ages, it acted as a central reference point for the language and prevented wild deviation that would of alienated people from the text.

Sometimes languages have to change, and sometimes they don’t need to. In the case of Apple, they did their changing during the 90’s—now they want to keep things the way they are; Microsoft are in the exact opposite position. It’s all quite odd.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 25th Oct 2009 15:35 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Apple have a legal requirement to protect their brand.


No they don't. They have to protect their trademark, or else they'll lose it. If your brand is strong enough, then you don't need to offensively protect it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Kroc
by frajo on Sun 25th Oct 2009 18:52 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
frajo Member since:
2007-06-29

As far as I’m aware, there’s no legal precidant to protect the current form of any language, except perhaps for the school curriculum, but then you hardly get people up in court for crimes against language.

AFAIK there are language laws in France. Seems they are not allowed to use English expressions in their ads if there are equivalent French ones.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Sun 25th Oct 2009 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

A bit ironic coming from a country where French was hardly spoken by anybody until the industrial revolution and subsequent patronage by Napoleon. The whole idea of the typical 'Frenchman' started with him.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 25th Oct 2009 19:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

As for the point—Apple have a legal requirement to protect their brand.


It's trademarks that they must protect, or risk losing their claims to them. But so far as I'm aware, Apple hasn't accused Psystar of trademark violation (it appears that Psystar has been fairly careful to avoid using "Mac," "Macintosh," or "Apple" in any of their product names).

As far as I’m aware, there’s no legal precidant to protect the current form of any language, except perhaps for the school curriculum, but then you hardly get people up in court for crimes against language.


Unless you put up English signage in Quebec, that is ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Kroc
by twitterfire on Mon 26th Oct 2009 12:54 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Well written Thom, thank you. Nice to see an opinion piece on OSnews that isn’t directly related to someone else’s RSS feed. This is what OSnews needs.


I think that's interesting and I'm liking it but that's one problem: the site begins to be more like OStalks insted of OSnews.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc
by twitterfire on Mon 26th Oct 2009 13:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


Interesting factlet—the Hebrew language barely changed at all during the period of the formation of Israel and the beginning of the writing of the Bible until Israel were cut off by the Roman invasion 1500 years later. Essentially since the Holy texts were a core part of their culture and studied at all ages, it acted as a central reference point for the language and prevented wild deviation that would of alienated people from the text.


Regarding Hebrew: it was a dead language like latin spoken for 2000 yars only by some clerics. Exactly like latin. That's why it didn't change. And after creation of Israel it was forcefully enforced as the state language. I mean, at the time the State of Israel was formed, the vast majority of hebrews didn't spoke hebrew. They spoke english, yddish, french, russian, etc.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc
by griffinme on Mon 26th Oct 2009 16:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
griffinme Member since:
2005-11-09


Interesting factlet—the Hebrew language barely changed at all during the period of the formation of Israel and the beginning of the writing of the Bible until Israel were cut off by the Roman invasion 1500 years later. Essentially since the Holy texts were a core part of their culture and studied at all ages, it acted as a central reference point for the language and prevented wild deviation that would of alienated people from the text.


Yet in 300B.C. they felt the need to translate the Bible into Greek, the Septuagint, because so many Jews didn't understand the Hebrew anymore. By the time of Christ it was the standard *** version. Even the quotes in the New Testament and Josepheus use the Septuagint version. Hebrew had fallen into disuse to the point that the New Testament was written in Koine Greek because that was the lingua franca of Palestine and the Mediterranean.

Reply Score: 1

confidence logic is flawed
by secs on Sun 25th Oct 2009 14:44 UTC
secs
Member since:
2009-10-22

The logic in this whole article makes no sense to me.

Apple positions itself as a specialty product and targets those who have more expendable income.

What does that tell you about the confidence Apple has in its own customers...?


Apple's customers (that have this extra expendable income) have the choice between buying expensive and inexpensive hardware and software. They choose Apple products because they feel they are a better value. They are more expensive, but they work better. (Since my family has switched to Macs I no longer have to deal with endless phone calls to fix their broken/unstable Windows computers.)

I would never switch to Psystar simply because it is cheaper, this makes no sense. Psystar does not offer the quality support that Apple does, nor the quality hardward. I choose Apple and it IS worth the price.

What does that tell you about the confidence Apple has in...its products?


The fact that Apple chooses to charge it's customers more for their products proves that they must be confident in their products.

Microsoft must also feel confident in Windows, since they charge so much for it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: confidence logic is flawed
by righard on Sun 25th Oct 2009 17:38 UTC in reply to "confidence logic is flawed"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

(Since my family has switched to Macs I no longer have to deal with endless phone calls to fix their broken/unstable Windows computers.)

Why would they still call?, If there not using them anymore... ;-)

Edited 2009-10-25 17:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v What a load of bullshit!!!
by c_lei on Sun 25th Oct 2009 14:47 UTC
RE: What a load of bullshit!!!
by Soulbender on Mon 26th Oct 2009 10:41 UTC in reply to "What a load of bullshit!!!"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

is basically *CRIMINAL BEHAVOR* and everyone knows it.


What is?
People installing OSX on non-Apple computers? That's a contract violation at worst and that is not a criminal act.
What Psystar is doing? Perhaps, if it's a copyright violation but it may just be a contract violation. Guess we'll have to see what the courts say, eh?

To put bluntly,Psystar should be put up against a wall and shot dead.


You are out of touch with reality.

Reply Score: 3

I donât get it and never have
by Gone fishing on Sun 25th Oct 2009 14:59 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

I don’t get it and never have, why is Apple fighting Psystar in fact why didn’t they license OSX to Dell, Acer, Lenovo etc, etc soon after they changed platform? They missed an opportunity to be the dominant OS and I think MS has shown that a company can be viable if it concentrates on software and OSes.

Well if you had the choice to by a PC with the horror of an OS that is Vista or OSX, which would you, choose? Only a madman would have chosen Vista. Would this damage Apple hardware sales – yes probably but this would have been offset 50 fold by OS sales. This is not even a certainty some folk maybe more would feel thy get the genuine Apple experience if they had both the hardware and software.

I suspect this opportunity is fading Windows 7 isn’t a horror (not absolutely confident about this as I haven’t used it much, the hype makes me skeptical) and Ubuntu gets better on every release.

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I don’t get it and never have, why is Apple fighting Psystar in fact why didn’t they license OSX to Dell, Acer, Lenovo etc, etc soon after they changed platform? They missed an opportunity to be the dominant OS and I think MS has shown that a company can be viable if it concentrates on software and OSes.


Agreed. I don't hold out any hope that Apple will ever license OS X in the same "free-for-all" fashion as Windows - but I think that (very) selective OEM licensing would be consistent with their business model. In other words, allow third-party OEMs to offer OS X as a BTO option - but only on specific, Apple-approved models (that must meet specific minimum standards/requirements).

Reply Score: 2

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Agreed. I don't hold out any hope that Apple will ever license OS X in the same "free-for-all" fashion as Windows - but I think that (very) selective OEM licensing would be consistent with their business model.


How? What would be their incentive? Apple is already making more money than any other OEM. It has market capitalization bigger than Dell and HP put together:
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/07/29/apple-dell-h...

Apple sells to a percentage of personal computer owners, but it skims the cream off the top. Those small percentages in buyers translate to a lot more money than all the rest are spending together. The same applies to other types of hardware, such as smartphones vs the iPhone.

So what would drive Apple to license OS X to other OEMs? It's not gonna be money. I don't see what else. OS X is an advantage they have built for themselves (anybody could have taken a *BSD or Linux flavor and done the same). Why would they give it up for scraps?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: I don't get
by Moochman on Mon 26th Oct 2009 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I don�t get"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

I wouldn't call MS-sized profits from OEM sales of the OS "scraps".

I think Apple may be paranoid because last time they allowed clones, it was a disaster--they lost tons of money in hardware sales and weren't remotely able to make up for it in OS sales. The big difference is that today their OS runs on the same machines that run Windows, which means that theoretically they could have transformed the market overnight.

Ultimately though Apple decided to go the safe route and protect its hardware sales, with the knowledge that it was a surefire, instant way to profit--as opposed to the somewhat risky prospect of battling things out on Microsoft's own turf.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I don't get
by Gone fishing on Mon 26th Oct 2009 04:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I don't get"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

Agreed but thinking of the number of hardware + software platforms there were BBCs, Acorns Be+BeBox etc linking your hardware to your software seems risky.

MS has shown that selling an OS can make you a rich and powerful company and certainly the profits aren't scraps.

Now Apple sells a a very good OS but artificially linked to it's own hardware which is basically the same as every one elses. This looks risky to me especially when it had the opportunity to be the major OS vendor.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: I don't get
by wirespot on Mon 26th Oct 2009 09:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I don't get"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

MS has shown that selling an OS can make you a rich and powerful company and certainly the profits aren't scraps.


What Microsoft did was a once-in-history trick which will not be repeated soon. They entered the market at just the right time, took advantage of a particular set of circumstances in the history of personal computing, eliminated competition and maintained their position with a series of ruthless, underhanded and sometimes downright illegal moves. They've managed to build a monopoly which has survived for almost 2 decades but which is now a dinosaur and cannot survive as it is. They're facing fierce competition on every front (browsers, operating systems, game consoles, handhelds, office suites, search engines, server applications etc.), not to mention that everybody has gotten wiser to their schemes and has seen the benefits of FOSS.

Microsoft's trick will not be copied. Building marketshare slow and steady the way Apple is doing is a much better and safer way of going about it.

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

How?


The "how" was described in that part of my post that you didn't quote.

What would be their incentive?


If it's profitable, that's usually incentive enough for publicly-traded companies like Apple. There's also the incentive of increasing the OS X userbase/marketshare while letting someone else do the grunt work of selling the individual machines.

Apple is already making more money than any other OEM.


What relevance does that have? Their goal as a business is to make as much money as possible - not to simply make more money than their competitors.

So what would drive Apple to license OS X to other OEMs? It's not gonna be money. I don't see what else.


If they were to do it, I'm sure it be done in a strategically-careful way, Apple being Apple. Partnering with the right OEM could help get Apple into markets where OS X has almost no presence, E.g. commercial hosting.

OS X is an advantage they have built for themselves (anybody could have taken a *BSD or Linux flavor and done the same).


Anybody? I take you meant "anybody with a few hundred million dollars lying around to buy the underlying technology and the company that developed it"?

Why would they give it up for scraps?


Is that some sort of dry, subtle satire on the elitist Mac user stereotype? Or are you seriously trying to imply that all users of non-Apple computers are "scraps"?

Reply Score: 3

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

I don’t get it and never have, why is Apple fighting Psystar in fact why didn’t they license OSX to Dell, Acer, Lenovo etc, etc soon after they changed platform? They missed an opportunity to be the dominant OS and I think MS has shown that a company can be viable if it concentrates on software and OSes.


First: They can't stand a chance gainst Microsoft.

Second: They make thair money from hardware, not from software. You also can ask: if Apple is so good, why users, companies and top 500 fortune companies don't buy Apple harware to use with their Windows, Linux, BSD, AIX and HPUX oses? Why nobody uses the so called os x server version? That's because they can buy much better hardware for the same money. or they can buy
the same hardware for a much smaller amount of money.

Third: It will never be dominant. If for no other reason, you can't run the software you need on it. (besides emulators like cider-wine or vm's like vmware).

Reply Score: 1

What is Apple's Product?
by AndrewDubya on Sun 25th Oct 2009 15:37 UTC
AndrewDubya
Member since:
2006-10-15

I don't want to sound like I'm attacking just because I don't agree (which seems relatively common around here and the Interwebs).

First, I think the language question is a bit loaded. I wouldn't be in the purist crowd, but it should be ok to defend language against drastic changes. Fast evolution isn't always best, and change for a reason is better than just change ;)

On to Apple: If you're to believe them, OSX is _not_ their product, the MacBook is. The iPhone is. The iPod is. They're making money off of the hardware. They just happen to have made an OS for it that some people really like.

When they sell an upgrade to the OS, I think their charge is nominal. How does the cost of an OSX upgrade compare to Windows?

I do kind of want Apple to be forced to deal with Psystar or whoever else, but if that's the case, I _don't_ think I should have access to a heavily subsidized price that's meant for people who paid for the _actual_ product.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What is Apple's Product?
by alcibiades on Sun 25th Oct 2009 15:41 UTC in reply to "What is Apple's Product?"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Well, you could answer your own question. Look up how much Microsoft charged for the XP service packs, since XP first came out.

Then look at how much Apple has charged for new releases since the first OSX release. Add them all up.

Tell us what the difference is, and in whose favor. Looking forward to finding out.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What is Apple's Product?
by Anim8me2 on Sun 25th Oct 2009 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE: What is Apple's Product?"
Anim8me2 Member since:
2006-02-10

Ah, the old "MS Service Packs are equivalent to the full OS releases from Apple" argument.

They are not so please stop using this fallacious bit of tripe.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Ah, the old "MS Service Packs are equivalent to the full OS releases from Apple" argument.


I think he meant adding up all Windows releases, starting from XP. Service packs are obviously in no way comparable to Mac OS X 10.x releases.

Reply Score: 2

Thom has a point...
by alcibiades on Sun 25th Oct 2009 15:39 UTC
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

Thom has a point. Its this. We keep hearing on OSN and other forums about the strong points of Macs, and we keep having the alleged weak points fiercely rebutted.

The strong point is said to be hardware-software integration. I have never really understood why OSX is more integrated with a given graphics card, Intel main board, or Core2 processor than either Windows or Linux or BSD. But the argument is made that this is a unique and wonderful thing that you get when you buy a Mac, and this is why Mac users like them.

The point that is rebutted is the view that Macs are more expensive. We always hear that this is simply false, and the evidence put forward is that if you duplicate a Mac configuration elsewhere, it will cost you as much or more. I have never really understood this argument, since very few people ever use one of the limited Mac hardware range as their starting point, but still, Mac enthusiasts affect to believe this.

So, if both of these things are true, if Macs are more integrated and no more expensive, then there is nothing to fear. The Mac user is famously committed and devoted. He will never shift away from Apple hardware, will he? He would spend no less, and he would lose all that fabulous integration.

If everyone in the Mac world really believes this, it becomes impossible to understand why they would think that Psystar, or Quo, or anyone else of that sort, is any sort of financial threat to Apple's hardware business. Yet they are perceived as being a threat, and you often find people posting here that if its allowed to continue, it will destroy Apple's hardware business, the core of the company. 'Apple is a hardware company', we keep hearing.

The only explanation is that neither Apple nor its adherents really believe in the equal price and benefit of integration story. They must secretly worry that there is no such thing as integration, which is entirely reasonable given that it is impossible to point to an example of it, and that if you compare prices in more rational ways, you'll end up finding better quality and cheaper products to run your OS on.

In fact, this last is perfectly obvious. At the moment I am looking at an i5 configuration with 4G memory, an Antec 900 case, brand name PSU, couple of hard drives, and expect to spend around UK 800 on it. We start at UK 550 inc vat, to be precise. That's with 4G memory and i5 750, and all we have to add to it is maybe more memory, and some disks and opticals. How much would it cost to get the same thing from Apple? Or the nearest thing? A standalone tower system similarly equipped? Yes, I know the processor will be a Xeon. So what if he don't need a Xeon?

The story does not add up, and this is why Psystar and freeing OSX really is a threat. What is going on is that rents from OSX are being taken in the form of high markups on a very limited range of fairly mediocre hardware, and there is a strong cult marketing around a designer brand to put this across. It works because right now its hard to get OSX on x86. But if the OS is freed, people really will move. Not just new buyers. Lots and lots of the Mac faithful will move too. Because there is a small group of Apple fanatics, but there is a large group who just want a decent machine running OSX. They will move.

Everyone involved knows this, and so they go through all kinds of intellectual contortions to avoid admitting it, because once they do, they have exploded the myth. Its like any cult, once you have stepped outside, its over.

Reply Score: 13

RE: Thom has a point...
by wirespot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 16:55 UTC in reply to "Thom has a point..."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

How nice of you to repeat Thom's "arguments" for him.

So let me sum it up: Apple, a company that keeps pricing their stuff high on a very competitive market is actually cowering in fear, and the people who keep buying their expensive stuff are not actually enjoying the higher quality, they're just brainwashed idiots.

Oh, and breaking copyright law and undermining another company's business is ok because it's "freeing OS X". Rules be damned, the masses want their OS X! Hail Psystar, the champion of the people!

That's an opinion. You're entitled to yours, but that doesn't mean it holds any water just 'cause you say so.

I happen to believe otherwise. Common sense dictates that Apple products have at least some quality to them that makes people buy it. Other than straight out brain-controlling waves, that is. Common sense dictates that if Apple's products were just trendy hype they would have gone under a long time ago. Because trends come and go, but quality endures. Finally, common sense also says that if you go head-to-head with established law you should be prepared to assume the consequences. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time", remember?

Smart and decent people don't go for straight out breaking the law every time they don't like it. They don't break copyright for OS X or Windows, they pay or they use an alternative. They don't break copyright for music or movies, they pay or they find stores that sell cheaper or find music/movies when/that are cheaper. They don't throw rocks at Adobe's HQ windows, they create alternative technology. Yeah I think we need free software and open standards and a completely different approach to showbiz publishing, but going against the law like a dumb ox is just that, dumb. You're free to do it, but no definition of freedom is complete without the part that says "assuming consequences".

As for Thom, publishing this as a normal OSNews piece has no excuse. Opinions belong in editorials and should be marked as such, with disclaimers. I don't fault Thom either for stating his opinion, in comments. But doing it from a position that implies it is endorsed by OSNews is not nice.

Edited 2009-10-25 17:00 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Thom has a point...
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 25th Oct 2009 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Thom has a point..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

As for Thom, publishing this as a normal OSNews piece has no excuse. Opinions belong in editorials and should be marked as such, with disclaimers.


This IS marked as an editorial, in two ways actually. But maybe you couldn't see it through the foam accumulating around your mouth ;) .

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Thom has a point...
by wirespot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 17:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thom has a point..."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Then you need to mark it better, because yes, I haven't seen it. In spite of my eyes being located well above my mouth and all the foam. Wait, there's a lightbulb icon. Which clearly means "editorial". If only I'd have inferred that earlier I wouldn't have made such a fool out of myself.

Not to mention that I appear to be touched by the rabies. Apparently the fact that I just took apart your rants is a clear sign of madness. Whereas leveraging a non-personal website to push your personal beliefs against any common sense, and then failing to address the criticism, is the epitome of sanity and good sense. I stand corrected.

Edited 2009-10-25 17:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Thom has a point...
by red_devel on Sun 25th Oct 2009 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Thom has a point..."
red_devel Member since:
2006-03-30

Not to mention that I appear to be touched by the rabies. Apparently the fact that I just took apart your rants is a clear sign of madness. Whereas leveraging a non-personal website to push your personal beliefs against any common sense, and then failing to address the criticism, is the epitome of sanity and good sense. I stand corrected.


Wow, this cracks me up. Where did you "take apart" his "rant". Both Thom's article and the parent post seem to be well thought out rational arguments, and I haven't seen a single good counter point. Your posts, on the other hand, have all in fact been total rants bordering on lunacy. Take a step back from the keyboard big guy. Taking this stuff a tad too seriously I'm afraid.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Thom has a point...
by Chicken Blood on Mon 26th Oct 2009 03:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Thom has a point..."
Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21

Wow, this cracks me up. Where did you "take apart" his "rant". Both Thom's article and the parent post seem to be well thought out rational arguments,


Like hell they are. This purism argument is the must unbalanced analogy since Thom conflated Apple's pressure on webzines leaking information with Islamic extremism and murder.

and I haven't seen a single good counter point.


You're simply refusing to see them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Thom has a point...
by Buck on Sun 25th Oct 2009 17:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Thom has a point..."
Buck Member since:
2005-06-29

Very well written.
But hey, it's Sunday and Thom couldn't be bothered to write anything but a dreamy opinion piece on a subject that's BOUND to polarize the audience (and then hide behind the 'editorial' tag, so smart).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Thom has a point...
by koki on Mon 26th Oct 2009 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thom has a point..."
koki Member since:
2005-10-17

Very well written.
But hey, it's Sunday and Thom couldn't be bothered to write anything but a dreamy opinion piece on a subject that's BOUND to polarize the audience (and then hide behind the 'editorial' tag, so smart).


And polarized audiences generate more comments and page views. Thom is smart, and must have learned this trick...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAWDYaWAVQQ

...from John C. Dvorak. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Thom has a point...
by alcibiades on Sun 25th Oct 2009 18:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Thom has a point..."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Smart and decent people don't go for straight out breaking the law every time they don't like it
No. But when they find a company imposing conditions on the use of stuff they have bought from that company that they consider unfair, anti competitive, probably contrary to consumer protection legislation, they...hold up two fingers, and get on with doing what they want with what they have bought.

Good on them!

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Thom has a point...
by Manik on Sun 25th Oct 2009 20:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thom has a point..."
Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

Class actions have been prohibited ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Thom has a point...
by wirespot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thom has a point..."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

they...hold up two fingers, and get on with doing what they want with what they have bought.


Except Psystar doesn't fall within that category. They have no right to do what they're doing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Thom has a point...
by twitterfire on Mon 26th Oct 2009 15:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thom has a point..."
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

I only raised one finger when I installed os x on my PC. Which even if it has better cpu, ram, video etc than apple alternatives and even if I found drivers for all the harware is a piece of crap because it wasn't Apple branded. ;)

I won't tell which finger I used.

I raised two fingers when I wiped os x from my poor PC who from that moment happily dual boots Linux and Windows. Well, I must be insane, you may think, if I dared to erase such a good os. Not the case, since even if I have better hardware, the only thing I miss is the "integration". I'm heading right now to an apple dealer to pay 1500€ for that nice "integration". ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Thom has a point...
by BallmerKnowsBest on Mon 26th Oct 2009 01:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Thom has a point..."
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

How nice of you to repeat Thom's "arguments" for him.


How nice of you to reply to a post without actually responding to most of the points raised in it.

So let me sum it up: Apple, a company that keeps pricing their stuff high on a very competitive market is actually cowering in fear, and the people who keep buying their expensive stuff are not actually enjoying the higher quality, they're just brainwashed idiots.

Oh, and breaking copyright law and undermining another company's business is ok because it's "freeing OS X". Rules be damned, the masses want their OS X! Hail Psystar, the champion of the people!


Careful, you'll make yourself dizzy by putting that much spin on a strawman argument.

I happen to believe otherwise. Common sense dictates that Apple products have at least some quality to them that makes people buy it.


And you could say the same thing about microwave dinners or Miley Cyrus albums.

Common sense dictates that if Apple's products were just trendy hype they would have gone under a long time ago. Because trends come and go, but quality endures.


I'm sure that Stephen King and Madonna would be happy to hear you say so.

Finally, common sense also says that if you go head-to-head with established law


There's an established law stating that an OS vendor can legitimately use an EULA to enforce post-sale restrictions on the brand of computer that can be used to run their OS?

you should be prepared to assume the consequences. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time", remember?


Don't look now, but Psystar doesn't seem to be having much problem dealing with the consequences.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Thom has a point...
by wirespot on Mon 26th Oct 2009 09:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thom has a point..."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

There's an established law stating that an OS vendor can legitimately use an EULA to enforce post-sale restrictions on the brand of computer that can be used to run their OS?


No and please don't try to twist things around. Apple is not placing restrictions on the "brand of computer used to run their OS". They're placing restrictions on WHO can bundle OS X with ANY computer and WHAT they can and cannot do with it. And for that yes, there is legal precedent. Look up MDY vs Blizzard.

Don't look now, but Psystar doesn't seem to be having much problem dealing with the consequences.


Has the lawsuit ended? We'll talk when it does. But I suggest in the meantime you look at how well troll lawsuits worked out for SCO. They're currently bankrupt and the pieces are being taken apart by a judge-appointed overseer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Thom has a point...
by BallmerKnowsBest on Mon 26th Oct 2009 17:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Thom has a point..."
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

"There's an established law stating that an OS vendor can legitimately use an EULA to enforce post-sale restrictions on the brand of computer that can be used to run their OS?


No and please don't try to twist things around.
"

You set the standard, too late to complain about it now.

Apple is not placing restrictions on the "brand of computer used to run their OS". They're placing restrictions on WHO can bundle OS X with ANY computer and WHAT they can and cannot do with it.


Sorry, but that's not any better. That's like a condiment maker telling restaurants "you can only sell our mayonnaise in sandwiches made with our brand of bread."


And for that yes, there is legal precedent. Look up MDY vs Blizzard.


Not the same thing at all. One - Blizzard sells a service and associated software, they don't sell any hardware last time I checked. Two - Blizzard tried to claim that not abiding by the terms of an EULA amounted to copyright infringement, because they equate loading a program into RAM with copying.

You really want to reference something that inane to back up your argument? By that reasoning, you're liable to OSNews for copyright infringement just as a result of viewing this page. After all, your browser had to make a copy of the page and all of its contents in your computer's memory (and you probably have additional cached copies).

"Don't look now, but Psystar doesn't seem to be having much problem dealing with the consequences.


Has the lawsuit ended? We'll talk when it does.
"

Funny, it doesn't seem to have stopped you from speculating.

But I suggest in the meantime you look at how well troll lawsuits worked out for SCO. They're currently bankrupt and the pieces are being taken apart by a judge-appointed overseer.


Since Apple and SCO were the parties who initiated the lawsuits, I can only conclude that you're equating Apple with SCO.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Thom has a point...
by kurtlinux on Mon 26th Oct 2009 01:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Thom has a point..."
kurtlinux Member since:
2006-06-20

I really think this is a nice "editorial". I for one would want to install OSX on a non-apple computer. I love OSX but a mac is always too expensive. I love my PC but I really don't like windows as much. I also use Linux but my wife, kids, and I use some apps for work/school that are only available in mac or win (Microsoft Office, Photoshop, etc). OSX on (cheap) PC hardware is really a no-brainer. I would definitely buy a Psystar if it proves to be LEGAL. Why pay double for THE SAME hardware specs? Psystar is offering what a lot of us (*Nix users) are obviously hoping that Apple would take into consideration: RELEASE THEIR GREAT OS FOR USE ON CHEAP HARDWARE. I think this would make a huge impact in the operating system scene (increased competition, lower prices).

On the language purism thing, in my opinion Thom has a point. I also speak Japanese as a third language (English is my second language) and it is really liberating to be able to communicate with someone in his/her native tongue. I think operating systems should also be constructed in this manner. A good operating system should be able to communicate with a lot of different hardware (as possible). What Apple is doing (hardware purism, if you like) is greatly limiting its otherwise graceful operating system. It's always been a joy using OSX.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Thom has a point... - case law?
by jabbotts on Mon 26th Oct 2009 14:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Thom has a point..."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Maybe you could point to the case law which shows that Psystar is in fact committing criminal acts through the breaking of copyright law... cause.. I'm not seeing any definitive ruling out of that case yet nor am I seeing any past case law that strongly indicates it. Last I checked, courts where still deciding if Psystar is in fact an illegal business. Maybe we should wait until that claim is made by law before we make that claim; be if fact or opinion.

One may not agree with Psystar is doing and that's fine but claiming a legal ruling where non has been made does not help the opinion.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Thom has a point...
by twitterfire on Mon 26th Oct 2009 14:07 UTC in reply to "Thom has a point..."
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Very nice said. Nice argued and logical. I might add that - if anyone remembers- 5 or 6 years ago were flames on forums about "which OS is better"? To support their theories, apple fanboys mentioned the integration. They even said without any arguments that powerpc cpus are much better than intel ones. I might ask: why has apple moved from that marvelous powerpc? If you ask today, the very same apple fanboys will say that intel cpus are much better than powerc and that's why apple has moved. That's right: same people saing two different things. If you ask the fanboys if they like the move, some will say no (because now, everyone and their can install Os X on average PC's and they aren't an "elite" any more), some will say yes (apple said it's better and apple is always right).

Apple isn't even a hardware company. They don't manufacture their products, they buy them from OEM's and brand them. And resell. Intel is a hardware company. Nvidia is a hardware company. Acer is a hardware company. Apple is just a designer.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Sun 25th Oct 2009 16:16 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Language purity reminds me when I was working at a khebab shop in Australia where the owners were speaking in arabic but would occasionally drop in an english word on the odd occasion. Puzzled by this I asked they used an english word instead of an arabic, he noted that it would take many words in arabic for which there is on in english - its a lot easier to just use the english word.

The reason for adopting english words into a language is because the language itself needs to have a way of organically growing without having some over seeing council of elders deciding what is and isn't french, german, etc. English organically grows, a new word is created, it enters into use and when it reaches critical mass it is added to the dictionary - with no care about where it originated from. The result now is that less than 25% of english is actually english.

With the rise of globalisation, english will eventually adopt more words from other languages and the usage of those new words will become common place as it gains traction online and offline which will mean the fragmentation won't occur. What ever the case maybe, its an interesting language given how it developed and where it has arrived at.

As for Apple, personally, I've said it once and I'll say it again - Apple should go out, purchase Adobe, take off the protection controls on Mac OS X and focus on producing hardware that works well instead of using restrictive licences. If it means you have to have two tier licensing then so be it - one price for Mac users and a slightly higher price for non-Mac users then do so.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by Manik on Sun 25th Oct 2009 20:43 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

It may come as a surprise to many, but that's exactly how french grows also.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by wirespot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 21:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

I was just wondering how the French Academy deals with this issue. If you put up barriers against foreign "pollution" of a language you give up a major source of neologisms. Or it may be that blocking foreign words is just wishful thinking and eventually they are forced to accept them as they make their way into colloquial language.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by sbenitezb on Mon 26th Oct 2009 02:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

You can't put a barrier. The language changes when there's external influence. And even more these days of internet, free speech, television, etc.

Edited 2009-10-26 02:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Mon 26th Oct 2009 02:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It may come as a surprise to many, but that's exactly how french grows also.


Then explain why the French Academy dedicated resources to developing a French word to replace email? if adoption is so willing and open then why not accept it? it seems to me as more of a 'screw you' to the anglo-saxons than anything to do with anything reasonable.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai - attribution
by jabbotts on Mon 26th Oct 2009 15:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

That attributes (assumes maybe?) that the actions of the French Academy are supported by all french speaking people. Perision, Quebequa; The French Academy has your back. I suspect it's more a matter of the academy puritans doing what they can while the actual use evolves with or without them.

I see a similar struggle between those who know the correct history and usage of the word Hacker versus mass media's purly criminal portrayal based on a minority of information security enthusiasts within the sub-culture. The popularized use falls far short of the meaning and culture the word represents. Perhaps it provides some sympathy for the French Academy.

The other thing that amuses me is remembering that French was the dominant language in europe for a while. More so to think that English was actively hunted yet resulted in becoming the currently dominant language.

Also that someone today wouldn't have a clue what was being said if hearing 200 year old english spoken properly or french for that matter. Pronunciation alone has changed drastically.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Manik on Wed 28th Oct 2009 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, to take the example of the word "mail", one can hardly say the French Academy dedicated resources to develop some replacement : the word "courriel" existed, it had been invented by Quebeckers.

The French Academy only makes recommendations, and those are only valid for official documents (this has been the historical mission of the French Academy : unify the language in a country that had a lot of various idioms, so that the king, and the laws, would be understood by every official). There is absolutely no obligation for the French (who, generally, couldn't care less), not even for the publishers of dictionaries, to follow those recommendations. And "courriel", for example, has largely been ignored by the French, who will, preferably, use "mail"(though they write it, sometimes "mél").

The French Academy, by the way, does adopt english words, sometimes "frenchified", sometimes "as is", and a lot of french words that have been anglicized and that came back in a new form.

There is a comment in that very thread that gives an idea of what's going on in France, and it's not different than what you would see in Turkey, the Netherlands, and a lot of other countries.
http://www.osnews.com/permalink?390993

Edited 2009-10-28 19:23 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Fallacy
by rexstuff on Sun 25th Oct 2009 17:28 UTC
rexstuff
Member since:
2007-04-06

It's a very interesting read, Thom, but I feel I have to point out a fallacy in your original reasoning. As you state:

"Which type of person has more confidence in the strength and resilience of his culture and language - someone who feels threatened by outside influences, or someone who doesn't?


You might need to make a few 180s in your brain, but the answer is someone who doesn't.
"

Except that someone who doesn't may not feel threatened by outside influences simply not because of the confidence he or she has in the language and culture, but because he or she does not care. Or, he or she actually sees these outside influences as a good thing.

None of this is to say that Thom is in any way wrong, just that because someone doesn't feel threatened by outside influences, doesn't mean that he or she actually has confidence in the resilience of the his or her language or culture.

In any case, the rise and fall of global languages is a very fascinating topic, to me. I read one excellent article that I was hoping I could share, but can't find it. Basically the main point is that English has far and away secured its position as the global lingua franca. That the next best contender, in a distant second, is actually French.

Perhaps this is my own ethno-centric view speaking, but I tend to see this as more of a good thing than a bad thing. For all its faults, having English as a global language is better than having no standard language at all. "A bad standard is better than no standard" and all that. I only hope that on its way up, not too many smaller languages and cultures have to die. We all lose something when that happens.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Fallacy
by frajo on Sun 25th Oct 2009 19:24 UTC in reply to "Fallacy"
frajo Member since:
2007-06-29

In any case, the rise and fall of global languages is a very fascinating topic, to me.

Especially regarding the fall of the Latin language and the staying alive of the Greek language.

Basically the main point is that English has far and away secured its position as the global lingua franca.

For the foreseeable future. The same was said of Latin in times of the Imperium Romanum.

That the next best contender, in a distant second, is actually French.

French has had its time - two centuries ago. Nowadays the second western lingua franca is Spanish. And there are vast regions on this planet where western languages are utterly irrelevant.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Fallacy
by rexstuff on Sun 25th Oct 2009 21:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Fallacy"
rexstuff Member since:
2007-04-06

For the foreseeable future. The same was said of Latin in times of the Imperium Romanum.


True. But I think this is different. English has penetrated too deeply into our global society, particularly with regards to technology.

I point to the apocryphal story regarding Linus and his kernel. In an interview, he was asked why he commented the code in English, as opposed to his native Finnish(?). He was reportedly a little surprised by the question, and claimed that it never even occurred to him to do otherwise.

English has the richest technical vocabulary. For instance, (almost) every programming language is based in some form on English, even ones developed in non-English countries. Even were the US to implode tomorrow, that sort of momentum would be difficult to overcome.

There is a connected-ness today that didn't exist in the Roman times. Everyone is communicating instantly, all the time. And when it's across linguistic borders, the common language is almost always English. And, of course, Latin was only supreme within the bounds of the Empire, whereas English is truly Global.

I suppose we could come with some pretty extreme scenarios where English falls from its perch to be replaced by another, but I think we're past the tipping point - English will continue to grow as the dominant language, and eventually will become the acknowledged language of the Human Race.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Fallacy
by unclefester on Mon 26th Oct 2009 12:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Fallacy"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Rome was only ever a regional power with almost no influence outside the Mediterranean region.

There is nowhere in the world where English is irrelevant. Even some of the most isolated villages in the world will have at least one English speaker. English is spoken by a significant portion of the population in almost every country. Around 2.4 billion people speak English as their first, second or third language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_...

Reply Score: 3

Language purism is positive
by rebus on Sun 25th Oct 2009 17:53 UTC
rebus
Member since:
2009-10-25

Okay, English excluded, it is positive for at least some languages.

While it may be true that what purists consider "proper Dutch" today would be despised by the language purists from the early 20th century, purism keeps mutations in check.

My mother tongue (Croatian) is purist in tradition, but that does not mean that it is not evolving, it is, and purism makes us more aware of the process. That is positive thing.

That much about the language part.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Language purism is positive
by twitterfire on Mon 26th Oct 2009 14:57 UTC in reply to "Language purism is positive"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

What language is Croatian? I guess the rest of the people from ex-Yugoslavia speak Serbian, Macedonian, Montenegrian and Slovenian. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Language purism is positive
by rebus on Mon 26th Oct 2009 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Language purism is positive"
rebus Member since:
2009-10-25

You desperately need some clue. Go buy some.

Reply Score: 1

It's simple really...
by Caliban on Sun 25th Oct 2009 17:55 UTC
Caliban
Member since:
2009-10-25

And it has nothing to do with lack of confidence, concern about purity, or any other misguided metaphor.

In the Apple business model, they make most of their money on hardware, not software.

In the Apple business model, because the operating system is tied so closely to the hardware, they are able to offer innovations--and charge a premium--that would not be possible if they had to support clones along with their own hardware.

Years ago, Apple tried allowing clones and it almost killed the company. They have no wish to repeat that experience.

Basically, you are suggesting that Apple follow the Microsoft business model. They don't want to do that and why should they? They have an approach that works them and they have every right to protect it from rip-off artists such as Pystar.

None of this should be news to you.

Reply Score: 2

RE: It's simple really...
by alcibiades on Sun 25th Oct 2009 18:31 UTC in reply to "It's simple really..."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

No, he is not suggesting they follow the MS business model. MS doesn't supply installed copies of Windows on a PC. He is not suggesting Apple stop shipping hardware with OSX installed. Of course not.

He is suggesting that they either stop selling retail copies OR allow people to do what they like with their retail copies when bought.

But what they should stop doing is, sell retail copies, and then try to tell buyers what they can and cannot do with them.

Why this is supposed to mean that they stop selling bundled hardware and software? No idea.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: It's simple really...
by wirespot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE: It's simple really..."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

MS doesn't supply installed copies of Windows on a PC.


Are you kidding me?! That's how the vast majority of [legal] Windows copies get sold. Very seldom do people go to the store and buy a boxed copy (if only because it's so much more expensive). They usually get an OEM version with a computer, and the cost is disguised in the price of that computer.

He is suggesting that they either stop selling retail copies OR allow people to do what they like with their retail copies when bought.


How is that a problem? Apple is allowing people to do just that. Have you seen Apple sue any individual who installed OS X on non-Apple hardware? What they have a problem with is companies who want to undermine their business model by producing Mac clones against Apple's express wishes and legal license.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: It's simple really...
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 25th Oct 2009 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's simple really..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

How is that a problem? Apple is allowing people to do just that. Have you seen Apple sue any individual who installed OS X on non-Apple hardware? What they have a problem with is companies who want to undermine their business model by producing Mac clones against Apple's express wishes and legal license.


...and that exact same license is used for ordinary consumers. If the judge rules that the specific EULA clause is valid, and Psystar is not allowed to install Mac OS X on non-Apple labelled machines, then that is just as much jurisprudence for companies as it is for individuals. The law makes no distinction.

If what you say is true, then Apple would've included that in its EULA - which is quite a common practice. There are literally countless of EULAs out there that give a lot of freedom to individuals, but restrict usage for commercial endeavours.

Apple is actively trying to make it illegal to jailbreak iPhones, a practice only done by individuals - and you're telling me they are okay with people like me installing Mac OS X on a non-Apple labelled machine? For a company so actively trying to prevent jailbreaking, it sure dun' seen like it.

Apple fanatics continuously put Psystar apart from individuals, but this is nonsense. Apple has a single EULA, covering both cases, and in said EULA, no distinction is made. Any ruling by the judge affects both cases, because legally, there is no difference between me selling my Mac clone on eBay, and Psystar.

Edited 2009-10-25 22:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: It's simple really...
by wirespot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's simple really..."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Careful with the legal talk, Thom, you might cut yourself.

If you bothered to read Groklaw instead of dismissing PJ as "nutty" you might actually learn something. Such as this:

The Court recognizes that Vernor found the meaning of "owner" to be the same in sections 109 and 117 and therefore found Wise and Wall Data to be incompatible. Id at *7. The Vernor court elected to follow the older precedent of Wise. Id. This Court, however, is confronted with recent Ninth Circuit authority not only interpreting section 117, but also explicitly declining to reconsider the rule established in MAI and Triad. Wall Data, 447 F.3d 785 n.9. If the Circuit's interpretation of section 117 is to be reconsidered, it must be done by the Circuit, not this Court. Moreover, it is not at all clear that the result in this case would be different even if the Court were to follow Wise. Under Wise, a transaction is a license where the recipient is required to the return the copy to the copyright owner or the copyright owner retains title to the copy. 550 F.2d at 1190-92. As noted above, section 3 of the EULA provides that Blizzard explicitly retains title to "all copies" of the game client software. Dkt. #42 at 3.


No written by PJ, BTW, but by an US judge.

Apple is actively trying to make it illegal to jailbreak iPhones, a practice only done by individuals - and you're telling me they are okay with people like me installing Mac OS X on a non-Apple labelled machine?


Yes.

iPhones and Macs are not alike, OS-wise. The Mac comes with OS X and allows the user to exercise large amounts of freedom in handling that OS and applications. Not legally, but in practice. Yes, you may be breaking the OS X license. But Apple won't come after you. In fact, they've elected to treat their customers honorably and assume they're being legit, rather than torture them with authentication schemes a la Microsoft. That assumption obviously doesn't apply to a company like Psystar which tries to openly destroy Apple's business.

The iPhone, on the other hand, is a device on which Apple wishes to control all the running applications, in order to enforce a very high level of quality and security. In order to do that they have to lock it tight and closely examine any applications that goes through their AppStore. It's not an original practice; Linux distributions do it too with their repositories (minus the locking down of the users' machines, of course).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: It's simple really...
by _txf_ on Mon 26th Oct 2009 00:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: It's simple really..."
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

I call BS on the iphone quality and security. The most obvious evidence is apples own given BS that jailbreaking would bring down cell towers. Idiocy.

The fact that other manufacturers don't prevent jailbreaking (or even need jailbreaking) is another reason.


"closely examine any applications that go through their appstore".

Given the amount of turd that makes it through I wouldn't say they closely examine;More like haphazardly examine (and blocking anything that would compete with their own apps).

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: It's simple really...
by alcibiades on Mon 26th Oct 2009 08:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: It's simple really..."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

That assumption obviously doesn't apply to a company like Psystar which tries to openly destroy Apple's business.

This is what is so totally inexplicable. Why do you think that if I set up in business to install a customer's own copy of OSX on non-Apple hardware, I am trying to destroy Apple's business? I am just providing a service.

You are right about Blizzard in one sense: it directly contradicts Vernor on the point of whether I own my copy and thus get S117 protection. We must see which holds up as the appeals wind their way through. But of course neither one has any bearing on anything outside the US.

On the shipping of Windows and the MS model, you didn't address the point. The original assertion was that people who support the right of Psystar and others to do what they do are proposing that Apple be obliged to follow the MS model.

The MS model is that the software developer ONLY ships product either to retail market or to OEMs who package it with hardware. In the MS model, if you want a bundled system of hardware and software, you cannot buy it from MS.

As far as I know, no-one is advocating that Apple be obliged to stop shipping its software as a bundle with its hardware. No-one. So no-one is proposing that Apple follow, or be obliged to follow, the MS model.

They are just saying, take one of two choices. Choice one is, carry on just as now, sell your bundles, sell full copies of OSX at retail with no questions asked. In that case, don't tell people where to install your retail copies.

Choice two is, carry on just as now, sell your bundles, but don't sell full copies of OSX at retail with no questions asked.

Notice that in either case Apple continues to sell bundles, something that MS does not do. Notice that in either case, Apple is not selling OSX through OEMs, something that MS does.

In short, in neither case is Apple adopting the MS model, and no-one thinks it should, or should be forced to. This is a red herring.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: It's simple really...
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 26th Oct 2009 10:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: It's simple really..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

In short, in neither case is Apple adopting the MS model, and no-one thinks it should, or should be forced to. This is a red herring.


Of course it is. It's demagogy. Scare 'm and they'll fall in line.

For me, there's only one thing that matters: that software be treated like any other copyrighted work. If software vendors want to impose additional restrictions - then fine, but they'll have to handle it the proper way. Software vendors already know perfectly well how to do this: the enterprise market. You won't see a software vendor rely on a click-through EULA in massive software rollouts. Those are properly signed contracts.

Will this hurt the software industry? I'm not sure. EULAs are a relatively recent development, so the software industry grew early on without all that nonsense, so who is to say they would be hurting now?

Even if it did hurt them - why, exactly, should I care? If this will hurt Microsoft, Apple, or whatever - I just don't care. It just means their business model is flawed. It is not the consumer's job to bend over backwards just to ensure the survival of software vendors.

If the foundation of an entire industry is built upon the rather legally dubious practice of the EULA, as some seem to claim, then your industry is severely flawed, and should fall on its ass (see banking world).

I think reality is different, though. The industry won't collapse if the concept of the EULA is tossed out. That's just a red herring promoted by EULA supporters (currently, the EULA supporters in the Apple camp) because they want to have the ability to control their customers.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: It's simple really...
by zlynx on Tue 27th Oct 2009 02:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: It's simple really..."
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

I agree with you.

I think Apple should sell the retail full copies of OS X for $500, put it in the bundle with the Mac hardware for the same, current prices, and sell cheap upgrade copies that require an original license key check.

That would simultaneously solve the "Psystar" problem and people complaining about Apple hardware prices.

Reply Score: 2

Beauty and control
by earksiinni on Sun 25th Oct 2009 18:45 UTC
earksiinni
Member since:
2009-03-27

Thom, it's an interesting comparison except that the endurance of a culture and the confidence of its adherents in its endurance are fundamentally different from the viability of a business and the confidence of a community that is formed around a certain business's products in that business. I don't presume to lecture you on Business 101, and I commend your creativity, which I think a lot of the commenters didn't really get. However, I think that the long-term endurance of cultures and languages is a lot more effervescent, not in that it will disappear but rather that their language and ways will vaporize and fill far flung nooks and crannies influencing countless people in innumerable ways, or perhaps that they will stay in one place but that they will retain the spirit that defined them in the beginning. Regardless, cultural endurance implies a certain degree of a lack of control--but then again, speaking as an American from the English tradition where language is extremely deregulated, I am biased.

A business, on the other hand, depends on control because its aims are different. Albeit Apple is a visionary company that has influenced many facets of culture and life, that is perhaps an after effect or even a prerequisite to a more important goal: profit. Profit has no confidence or faith or vision or any of that, it's just a number, and when your business strategy that relies on a apparent/real integration between hardware and software is being compromised, stockholders will get worried. The relationship between confidence and overt controlling action that you mentioned with regards to Dutch purism is inversed in a business context, and if Apple were to let Psystar have its way, investors would perceive this as a weakness precisely because they have no confidence in Apple because "confidence" is not applicable. An analyst's confidence in a company is based on a very small set of assumptions. Challenge just a couple of them, like the assumption that the company's leader and chief visionary will remain in good health or that they have achieved a unique integration between their hardware and software, and the markets will grow skittish. It's hard for me to understand the rest of the Mac "community" since I'm not part of it, but I suspect that their sentiments are not so far off, and even if they are not shareholders then they certainly have more of a vested interest in making sure that their champion is profitable so that it will continue manufacturing the equipment they love rather than to see their influence spread to all corners of the Earth as a real language would (or that the spirit of the platform would be retained in some uncertain future, especially since in Apple's case the exclusivity and "tight integration" seem to be so much part of that spirit).

Thom, I'm curious, what's your take on the Nederlandse Taalunie? Is it influential at all? I'm actually bilingual with Turkish, and I know that the Turkish government has, like many other countries, a similar body called the Turk Dil Kurumu (Turkish Language Institute) that seems to have uneven influence. It managed to get a lot of Arabic and Persian words replaced with Turkified versions, which I think is very unfortunate and has turned many parts of the language into a weird German faux-Frankenstein replete with odd compound words that don't make any sense unlike in German (and Dutch, correct?) where the combinations, especially when prefixes are involved, are used in a way that makes sense historically and "ad sensum". Most unfortunate is the lifting of the caret, which used to mark the "thin vowel" sounds taken from Arabic and has made many words curt and blunt like in English but without any of the smoky undertones or rounded edges (i.e., "paper", kâğıt (pr. KYAAT) --> kağıt (pr. KHAT) ). Unlike many languages, they've also managed to replace many technical terms with native versions, the most infamous being "computer" with "bilgisayar" (literally, knowledge-counter). Interesting aside: my parents were college students in Turkey when they were asked to come up with Turkish versions of technical terms, and if you open up a Turkish dictionary today and look up "triangulation" you'll see the word my dad invented in the 60's!

In many ways, however, the Turk Dil Kurumu has had no influence whatsoever on the use and abuse of foreign words in spoken and written Turkish. There are too many examples to even give a sampling, but I will give two particularly colorful instances. The first is that the English word "meeting" has long had its counterpart in "toplantı" (literally, gathering), but the word "miting" (pronounced similarly to "meeting") has arisen to describe large political rallies, which sounds like a tongue-in-cheek joke to a native English speaker. The second is an anecdote from my mother, who had gone to the supermarket to buy my grandmother an electric fan. Having grown up in Turkey in the 60's and moved to America in the 70's, her Turkish is fluent but a bit dated, and so she asked whether they sold any "pervane"'s (fans). The young lady working there looked at her quizzically and called her manager, a middle aged man who still didn't understand my mother's request. After some deliberation, it dawned on the young woman that what my mother was looking for was a "fan". My mom got pretty mad at this bastardization and asked if there was a more Turkish word for fan, to which the manager suggested "ventilatör" (ha!) Later we learned that "pervane", the original Persian word, has now come to mean the actual rotor blade assembly of a fan (e.g., a helicopter's blades would be called "pervane").

I wonder more about the aesthetic argument implied in all this rather than any comparisons between the confidence of a language's speakers and that of a company's users. Beauty and control have an intimate relationship, and casting aside any political criticisms for a moment there is some merit to imposing a strict language policy, as there is in the Francophone world. For that matter, I've heard French people say that French-speaking Africans speak the most beautifully because their French is completely academic as it's learned mostly in school rather than in the streets. But of course English and Dutch are also beautiful to behold (leaving aside the old English/German joke about Dutch ;-), though in a very different way. The rules and order have arisen organically, and I would point out that the most authoritative reference of the English world (the Oxford English Dictionary) is not a collection of definitions as most dictionaries are but is a collection of sentences and examples in which the words have been used over the centuries.

That historical approach doesn't work with personal computing because we haven't had the same interval of time to judge how platforms will influence each other in the long run--yet. More fundamentally, for the same process to apply, we need to think of computers as adhering to similar rules of order and beauty, and as of yet we are still thinking of them as tools rather than works of art or "worlds unto themselves" as, say, books and sculpture are. Apple is trying to achieve "art" status for OS X even if only to raise their bottom line, but there will always be control issues anytime a body announces a new form of art. Look at how the Nazis rejected "entartete Kunst" to herald the advent of their own "new" art or the development of socialist realism in the Soviet Union. I wouldn't extend the analogy to the current legal battles over movie and music copyrights because that's a purely legal issue. I'm talking more as a quasi-Marxist here, that there is a spiritual and aesthetic struggle for the means of production of new art forms that is translated into a political/legal struggle. In a business context, such a struggle is occurring because Apple and the computer industry as a whole has not yet found a way to make art profitable.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Beauty and control
by Kroc on Sun 25th Oct 2009 19:28 UTC in reply to "Beauty and control"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

That was a really good read, thanks.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Beauty and control
by frajo on Sun 25th Oct 2009 19:45 UTC in reply to "Beauty and control"
frajo Member since:
2007-06-29

Most interesting posting. Thanks a lot.

Reply Score: 1

About pystar/apple
by viator on Sun 25th Oct 2009 19:05 UTC
viator
Member since:
2005-10-11

A good analogy and a decent opinion piece. I like osx its a great product but i could care less about apples hardware or their business practices in general. I think apple has the opposite problem of microsoft, apple has no confidence in a great product (osx) microsoft has too much confidence (arrogance)in their products. Also Price does make a huge difference. System 76 sells systems with linux pre-installed and offer support but they are a priced a little too high so i buy a pc (with windows) erase windows and install linux myself because i save hundreds of dollars in some cases.

Posts here have me thinking....I can NOT understand how people have been brainwashed into supporting corporations (no matter what they do) Even threatening violence against others who say something they dislike about a product their favored company produces.

Reply Score: 1

RE: About pystar/apple
by twitterfire on Mon 26th Oct 2009 15:54 UTC in reply to "About pystar/apple"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

A good analogy and a decent opinion piece. I like osx its a great product but i could care less about apples hardware or their business practices in general. I think apple has the opposite problem of microsoft, apple has no confidence in a great product (osx) microsoft has too much confidence (arrogance)in their products.


Microsoft has a large user base. Microsoft has the largest pool of commercial applications. Microsoft has a stong position in the market. And of course, there is a lack of competition. I'm sure that if someone cames up with a better desktop os, MS will feel challenged. But that's not the case with neither os x nor linux.

Getting a bsd system and ruining it's strongest points and throwing on top of it a handicapped file system and a shiny UI does not make an os better.

I'm not saying that Windows is very good and I'm not an MS fan. But right now, we don't have a better choice for desktops and for workstations. For server, we can use eiher linux or BSD. But for desktops we are stuck with windows for good.

Reply Score: 1

You do not own Mac OSX, you License it.
by Abstract on Sun 25th Oct 2009 20:06 UTC
Abstract
Member since:
2009-10-24

Why does everyone keep making the mistake of thinking they own their copy of Mac OSX? When you buy the "retail" copy, you are purchasing a License to use it, the disc that accompanies it it more of a convenient form of distribution. So you don't have to download it, or submit your Registration/Activation/whatever you want to call it Key and download it directly from Apple.
All that nonsense aside, what is the big gripe anyway? If you don't agree with the terms and conditions that Apple has in order to use Mac OSX then why even use it?
Apple has what 10% market share? Do you have to use it in order to be able to perform your livelihood in order to make an income? Does someone have a gun to your family / loved ones head, telling you if you do not use Mac OSX they are dead? Is the world going to end, if you do not save it using Mac OSX? Basically are you forced to use Mac OSX? Are there no alternative OSes?

Funniest thing is the whole price tag argument. If you were so worried about the cost of things (anything) what car do you drive? is it a 10,000 dollar Kia? or the lowest priced car available? Wouldn't any car that is mechanically sound still get you to point B from point A? Do you buy your shoes from Payless for $12.99 ? Do you get your clothes from Kmart, WalMart or a thrift store?

Obviously Mac OSX is the greatest OS currently available or why would there be so much discussion / debate on how Mac OSX should be available to be installed on non-Apple hardware.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maIgu_7oLm0

Do we want a License for Mac OSX to cost a lot more then it currently does? Do we want Apple to implement Registration / Activation Key (or whatever) protection to deter pirating? Do we want some of the issues that plagues Windows, with driver/hardware incompatibilities?

A lot of the R&D costs for Mac OSX is offset by the high margins they get from hardware sales. Apple's current business model works, they make a profit. Apple is a debt free company, share holders are happy. Are they not a successful company? What obligation do they have to allow for clones?

If you do not agree with the terms and conditions in the License Agreement for Mac OSX do not purchase a License. Choose another OS, use another OS. Apple hardware to expensive for you, don't buy it.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Why does everyone keep making the mistake of thinking they own their copy of Mac OSX? When you buy the "retail" copy, you are purchasing a License to use it


Various judges disagree with you on that one, most recently Vernor vs. Autodesk. Whose word to take...

Reply Score: 3

Abstract Member since:
2009-10-24

Various judges disagree with you on that one, most recently Vernor vs. Autodesk. Whose word to take...


Had to go look up Vernor vs Autodesk.
Vernor wasn't selling a computer with Autodesk pre installed, Psystar is selling computers with Mac OSX pre-installed. Apple vs Psystar isn't about Psystar reselling copies of Mac OSX, like Best Buy, Amazon, etc.. are doing, its about Psystar selling computers with Mac OSX already installed on it.

Reply Score: 1

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Do not bother. Myself as well as others have pointed out to him why Vernor vs Autodesk is not similar to Apple vs Psystar. PJ from Groklaw did a pretty thorough analysis and explained why that is not the case, and has offered a more appropriate example (MDY vs Blizzard).
http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009081716312060

He still keeps going on about it, like a broken record. And it's quite hard to argue sensibly with someone who covers their ears and sings "Twinkle twinkle little star" loudly. Usually they're not adults.

Edited 2009-10-25 22:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Of course, the massively crucial difference between Bliz and Psy is ignored conveniently:

WoW is a subscription service.

Mac OS X is not.

In fact, in the Autodesk case, this was specifically mentioned - as in, had AutoVAD been a subscription service, Autodesk would have had a much better point to make.

PJ has completely lost it in the Psystar case, as she is convinced it is nothing but an attempt to destroy open source, funded by Microsoft, part of the SCO case. She's gone nutters.

Reply Score: 1

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

So's OS X, you troll. It's rented, not sold.

As for PJ being nuts, let's recall she was right about SCO. There will come a day when we'll see if she was right or wrong about Psystar. I have a long memory and I use ScrapBook. The above quote will be waiting for you and that day on my harddrive.

Reply Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So's OS X, you troll.


Discussion's over. No need to resort to insults. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make him a troll. The fact that you need to resort to insults shows how poor your arguments are.

Edited 2009-10-25 23:49 UTC

Reply Score: 0

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

The fact that you need to resort to insults shows how poor your arguments are.


You're right, Thom. How's calling PJ "nutty" then? Or was that just an affectionate term? Nowadays, every time someone points out at the actual research that PJ is doing (and she has the training for it, unlike you) you dismiss her out of hand and insult her.

Or how about the main piece you wrote, in which you basically called all those who enjoy Mac products insecure retards?

You see, unlike you, who have only made-up "arguments" and insults to offer, I give out actual, well thought-out arguments. Insulting you is just a perk. I have to admit I enjoy telling trolls what they're worth.

Reply Score: 3

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

As for PJ being nuts, let's recall she was right about SCO.

And don't we know it? While we were all running in circles thinking that The SCO Group had an iron-clad case, and that IBM and Linux didn't stand a chance, Pamela was the sole voice in the crowd questioning TSG's claims.

Revise history much, wirespot?

Well... it's not like RMS's fans don't do the same thing. Taking brain-dead simple observations from the past that most everyone recognized, and then retroactively asserting that RMS (or Pamela) was the only one who saw them.

Edited 2009-10-25 23:52 UTC

Reply Score: 3

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Taking brain-dead simple observations from the past that most everyone recognized, and then retroactively asserting that RMS (or Pamela) was the only one who saw them.


That's not what I said. I said that PJ was right about SCO. Not that she was the only one. And that she might be right about Psystar. Revise my comments much?

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Well... it's not like RMS's fans don't do the same thing. Taking brain-dead simple observations from the past that most everyone recognized, and then retroactively asserting that RMS (or Pamela) was the only one who saw them.


That, or they take the "broken clock" approach and constantly repeat the same prediction - and then loudly congratulate themselves for the one time that they turned to be right (while ignoring all of the other times they were wrong).

Reply Score: 2

zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

Is someone required to roll over and agree with your point of view because you've cited authority and shown some evidence?

No.

They may have good reasons for still not agreeing with you.

I don't know if that's the case here, but "Because PJ said" is not an answer to anything.

I am another person who thinks Groklaw and PJ have gone rather odd lately so I also pretty much ignore arguments coming from that direction.

Reply Score: 2

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Why does everyone keep making the mistake of thinking they own their copy of Mac OSX? When you buy the "retail" copy, you are purchasing a License to use it


Various judges disagree with you on that one, most recently Vernor vs. Autodesk. Whose word to take...
"

Vernor vs. Autodesk confirms that you do indeed own the copy of the software. Which means you can shred it, eat it, burn it, whatever you want to that specific copy. The same case also confirms that *use* of the software is governed by the license, which means you must adhere to the terms of the license when you actually install and use it.

Reply Score: 3

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Vernor vs. Autodesk confirms that you do indeed own the copy of the software. Which means you can shred it, eat it, burn it, whatever you want to that specific copy. The same case also confirms that *use* of the software is governed by the license, which means you must adhere to the terms of the license when you actually install and use it.

Yes, this is true, but it is also true that Blizzard in the WoW case directly contradicts Vernor on this point. Not that it matters outside the US. As to which will eventually become binding precedent in the US, we will have to wait and see.

I'm not sure Thom is right (as I was also not right earlier) to think that the fact that WoW is a service is a decisive factor. The sections of the Blizzard judgment that refer to purchase versus license do not make any reference to the service. The sections which in effect conclude that when you use a product in violation of EULA, such use, because you no longer have permission to copy to memory, are copyright infringing, also do not make reference to the fact that WoW is a service.

I agree with Thom that the case of Psystar has no bearing on the GPL, and PJ has never made any coherent argument that it does.

Reply Score: 2

zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

Only those license terms which are legally valid and binding, of course.

Many EULAs and even paper contracts contain clauses that lawyers can easily invalidate and are only in there to scare people into thinking they have fewer rights than they really do.

Reply Score: 2

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Obviously Mac OSX is the greatest OS currently available...

Well, that is the big question here, isn't it? Is OS X the greatest OS out there? Apple (and cult fans) tells us it is, but to know for sure, you have to make a leap of faith and buy a beige box in a pretty dress for a pretty steep markup.

When you do make the leap of faith, you either discover Macintosh + OS X is computing Valhalla or you find you basically bought an expensive but bog standard x86 machine, with a run of the mill *Nix with a prettied up shell.

I think most people would like to find out if the "Think different", "I'm a Mac / I'm a PC" and "It just works" marketing magic of Apple is the honest truth or just a puff of smoke up our collective rear.

we'd like to know and preferably before we pour twice the price of a comparable and decent Windows machine into Apple's coffers. Because going Mac is adopting a niche (just like Linux / BSD / Haiku is) and with that comes limited hardware and software support. Then the high price and the inconvenience of less choice better be outweighed by the "magical" Apple integration advantage.

...or why would there be so much discussion / debate on how Mac OSX should be available to be installed on non-Apple hardware.

I think to find out if OS X truly is that magical OS that brings you Unicorns and ponies all the while it's doing your computing tasks, without running the risk of being ripped off by Apple for a mediocre PC with a nice casing and delivering an OS that works Ok but isn't that panacea that is touted in all the hype.

*****

As an aside. Personally, my rational side tells me that Apple kit is just a pretty x86 PC with a polished Unix. Something one can also pretty much get by just getting a good non-Apple x86 machine and installing a nice BSD or Linux on it. The problem is that my lofty idealist side really want's to believe there is a magic blue pill that makes computing not suck. It's my rational side that wants an easy hackintosh to have that red pill to shove down my idealistic throat.

Reply Score: 3

NathanHill Member since:
2006-10-06

Wow. You haven't tried Mac OS X? It's way more than a *NIX shell with a fancy skin or whatever. Not sure if it is Unicorns and ponies, but it does make using Windows or any version of Linux feel like slumming.

I don't think Apple makes beige boxes any more, by the way. If you want, you can pick up an older G4 Mac or something for like $100 to try Mac OS X out on. It won't be super fast, but it will give you a great opportunity to see how neat Leopard is and all the great software out there.

Reply Score: 1

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, I've played with OS X, with the interface at a few shops and it is snappy, snazzy and works well. I've dropped an app-bundle in the application folder on a machine from a friend and that worked OK, but...

Windows is decent these days. Linux is decent these days. I suspect BSD is too (haven't bothered yet). Mostly all work out of the box (although Windows needs a little more hand holding with drivers).

I know my way around computers, so I may be biased. The "it-just-works" factor doesn't really rank highest on my list. I can solve most problems fairly quickly.

I use Ubuntu at home (not because I need the "noob factor", but the distro is targeted by developers more and that broadens available packaged software). And it mostly just works out of the box. The minor niggles I can solve within an hour and it is "set it and forget it".

Except for glitz and some proprietary design in the housing, what does Mac and OS X bring me more than Apple branding? The innards of Apple machines are really bog standard x86 components. EFI, while nice, is just another way of initializing a PC. I don't need a top of the line x86 processor (doesn't even have to be Intel). It will be two years tops and then they are antiques ready for the museum anyways.

I'm curious about OS X, because I'm a geek and like to poke around new stuff and see how stuff works. It be nice to know how Apple solves stuff from a technical standpoint, but I'm absolutely not dependent on Apple to craft an enjoyable computing environment.

I'd like to see for myself how "super" OS X really is, instead of relying on the Apple marketing or the gushings of people around me who I suspect couldn't solve/configure their way out of a wet paper bag, even if their lives depended on it. So these people do seem to have Valhalla in OS X, but I suspect my experiences wouldn't match theirs simply because I'm versed in handling computers.

The trouble with trying out OS X is you have to get Apple kit and these machines are simply not what I want in an x86 box. They are configured with a decent Intel proc, but the rest is fairly stock. Graphics are not top of the line, RAM size is OK. Hard disk space seems to be scarce on the cheaper models. But the mix is exorbitantly priced. I don't need an all in one. I don't need an aluminum case. I don't play soccer with my machines and I like some modularity. On the hardware side, for me, the veil is pierced for Apple's myth.

Buying obsolete PPC hardware, to try out a superseded version of OS X, is certainly out of the question. I've got enough electronic junk as it is.

On another note. Funny you thought that beige box meant an older Apple G4. Back when the PPC line was the bee's knees of Apple, beige box was the choice derogatory term in the Apple community for an x86 IBM Compatible PC.

Reply Score: 2

Abstract Member since:
2009-10-24

Thom said:

For me, there's only one thing that matters: that software be treated like any other copyrighted work. If software vendors want to impose additional restrictions - then fine, but they'll have to handle it the proper way. Software vendors already know perfectly well how to do this: the enterprise market. You won't see a software vendor rely on a click-through EULA in massive software rollouts. Those are properly signed contracts.


Which supports my statement of:
Only thing wrong with the EULA is the time in which it is presented, and the manner in which it is presented.
Only valid argument concerning the EULA. What do I mean by that? The end user purchases the license before being presented with the conditions and what they need to agree to.

From a similar discussion in: http://www.osnews.com/comments/22386 (3rd page of comments)

So no License Agreement is upholdable unless it is printed and signed? Would that mean the GPL is junk since it neither does that or even a click through?
Before you go into how the GPL doesn't restrict you on what hardware you are allowed to use GPL code, thats not the point, its the Terms & Conditions that are called into question regardless of what they maybe in the License Agreement.

@r_a_trip
Obviously Mac OSX is the greatest OS currently available...

Well, that is the big question here, isn't it? Is OS X the greatest OS out there? Apple (and cult fans) tells us it is, but to know for sure, you have to make a leap of faith and buy a beige box in a pretty dress for a pretty steep markup.

When you do make the leap of faith, you either discover Macintosh + OS X is computing Valhalla or you find you basically bought an expensive but bog standard x86 machine, with a run of the mill *Nix with a prettied up shell.

I think most people would like to find out if the "Think different", "I'm a Mac / I'm a PC" and "It just works" marketing magic of Apple is the honest truth or just a puff of smoke up our collective rear.


Quote the complete sentence:
Obviously Mac OSX is the greatest OS currently available or why would there be so much discussion / debate on how Mac OSX should be available to be installed on non-Apple hardware.


If its not, again why all the fuss? Also "great" and "greatest" is a matter of opinion. Some might say the Beatles was the greatest rock band ever, others might not think that. To each their own.

Not disputing that Apple Hardware is not more expensive then the equivlent of Building It Yourself (piece by piece). But again it is the complete package. I can buy the same paint that any other artist does, but what i create with it might not have the value or worth that a famous artist's work does. Also I may not feel as though a painting by an artist is worth millions of dollars, but if someone else does, and is willing to pay it, then so be it.

Try before you buy? You can demo one at an Apple reseller or Apple Store. Not enough time to fully see if Mac OSX is the OS you want, so violating the License Agreement is justified? Go lease or rent an Apple computer then. Does any car dealer allow you to take / use the car you are interested in for longer then the amount of time for a test drive?

Cool Factor? Like how it is also trendy / cool to be anti-whatever is popular or deemed cool by the mainstream? That is just being a hypocrite, so your cool cause you think people who purchase over priced Apple products are idiots wanting to be be cool by jumping on the Apple bandwagon? Thats like all the "Alternative" Music fans, wanting to be non-mainstream / top 40s, but actually wind up making "Alternative" mainstream / top 40 from its popularity. Conforming to not-conforming? Oxymoron.

Reply Score: 1

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

There is allways a price/performance ratio. The smaller the ratio is, the better. So let's say I have an amount of money to buy a car. A normal person with a satate of good mental health, chooses the best price/performance ratio within that segment. It's that simple. If you have a small penis, if you aren't sure about your sexual identity, if you were abused in the childhood, then you buy a car which you think that makes you smarter, cooler and also enlarges your penis.

As for activation keys/other protection methods, they don't work. At least they don't work for someone who isn't atechical.

As for using activation keys who don't work with a regular PC, I'll take them in court for obstructing me using a product with I legitmately have bought. It's like Volkswagen obstructing me using the car if I use gas from another seller by modifying key design. I don't know about USA and Common law system, but in EU I'm sure that a lawful and legitimate buyer will win a case in court if someone else is obstructing him to use a product.

Reply Score: 1

The way I see it
by drcoldfoot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 20:48 UTC
drcoldfoot
Member since:
2006-08-25

Is that Steve Jobs and teh Apple Execs are COntrol freaks. This in itself can be Both a good thing and a bad thing. A good thing being More stable HW/SW combo across teh board. Cheaper also when it comes to development since you do have Finite HW to develop for. The Bad, Consumers are strongarmed in what to do, what to buy, how to use it, and at times where and what to use it on. It's also bad on Apple since their business model doesn't alow for integration with Other HW. Oher HW would Boost the SW driven model Skyward, but would have effects on their HW model. But I believe perosnally the effects to be minimal. The Mac fans Are truly loyal for the most part and as a social status would continue to buy Apple Built Products.

Reply Score: 1

What an absurd conclusion.
by UrbanBard on Sun 25th Oct 2009 21:10 UTC
UrbanBard
Member since:
2009-10-25

What Windows and Linux users are doing is making a vote of no confidence when they steal Mac OSX and install it on their Hackintoshes.

This is just about money to Apple. Mac OSX exists only to sell Apple hardware. Apple cannot afford to sell Mac OSX at the upgrade price of $129. If it were to sell to PC owners it would need to charge around $500 and this would reduce the desire for conversion.

What Psystar is doing is stealing money out of Apple's pockets. Why shouldn't Apple complain about that?

So, why do you take something as reasonable as economics and turn it upside down? Why do you make this a lack of Apple's? Perhaps, it is a self justification to cover your immorality.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What an absurd conclusion.
by SReilly on Sun 25th Oct 2009 21:24 UTC in reply to "What an absurd conclusion."
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Apple cannot afford to sell Mac OSX at the upgrade price of $129. If it were to sell to PC owners it would need to charge around $500 and this would reduce the desire for conversion.

I'm not disagreeing with you but some references for that point would be nice. I've seen other people make that statement but have never found any proof for it. If you could provide a link, I'd be very grateful.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: What an absurd conclusion.
by Abstract on Sun 25th Oct 2009 21:55 UTC in reply to "RE: What an absurd conclusion."
Abstract Member since:
2009-10-24

"Apple cannot afford to sell Mac OSX at the upgrade price of $129. If it were to sell to PC owners it would need to charge around $500 and this would reduce the desire for conversion.

I'm not disagreeing with you but some references for that point would be nice. I've seen other people make that statement but have never found any proof for it. If you could provide a link, I'd be very grateful.
"

You won't find one, cause Apple does not release that information, it is also why Apple is not going after Psystar for damages, cause it does not want to release that information.

When you buy a Mac, you are buying the complete package, both hardware and software, its not 2 separate products. Yes Apple does sell a License of Mac OSX as a stand alone product to be used on their hardware.

Whats with all the animosity towards Apple anyways? Cause they make a better product? Shouldn't direct the anger, frustration, dislike, or whatever you (as in anyone that is upset that Apple doesn't allow Mac OSX to be installed on non-Apple hardware) feel towards Apple, direct it towards Microsoft, or Linux or any other OS you do not use cause it can not compare or surpass Mac OSX in functionality/features.

I am not some Mac Fanboi that blindly defends Apple. I owned a Power Computing when they were an authorized OEM, they had better hardware, especially graphic cards.

I don't think Apple has no confidence in Mac OSX which results in Apple not allowing Mac OSX to be installed on non-Apple hardware.
I think Apple has a solid business model that works, and allows them to innovate without to much compromise since they control the hardware platform in which their OS runs on.
I think it is everyone else that lacks confidence and are insecure in their own OS.
Again, why is cost an issue? Lets say for arguments sake that Apple allows for other computer manufacturers to pre-install Mac OSX on their hardware. Wouldn't building your own PC from parts and installing a no-cost / free (not counting time) OS like Linux, FreeBSD, etc.. still be more inexpensive then even purchasing a pre-built / configured computer with Mac OSX?
Why even stress MacOSX to begin with? Are there no other alternative OSes? Is Mac OSX the only OS that will allow you to surf the web, read your email, etc.. So is the truth of the matter, not that Apple lacks confidence in its software, but rather everyone lacks confidence in the alternatives to Apple's software?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: What an absurd conclusion.
by bfr99 on Sun 25th Oct 2009 22:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What an absurd conclusion."
bfr99 Member since:
2007-03-15

There is no animosity towards Apple here. Its just that there are some people who who apparently would like to run the Apple OS on non Apple hardware. This may or may not be wise or cost effective but the legal issue is simply does Apple have the legal right to prevent this, presumably via licensing restrictions.

The relative merits of Apple OS and hardware versus other software and hardware is course totally irrelevant to the legal issues. You can surely appreciate the fact that different individuals will rate various software and hardware systems differently.

Reply Score: 3

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

The relative merits of Apple OS and hardware versus other software and hardware is course totally irrelevant to the legal issues.


Yes, OSNews is just a big old attorney and paralegal community interested in this case only from a purely intellectual and professional point of view. The merits of Apple products or personal likes and dislikes play no role whatsoever in this. And Thom keeps writing opinion pieces on the case because he's a paralegal in training to become a lawyer specializing in copyright.

No fanboys or ignorant people here, move along.

Edited 2009-10-25 22:46 UTC

Reply Score: 4

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

And Thom keeps writing opinion pieces on the case because he's a paralegal in training to become a lawyer specializing in copyright.


If Thom's articles on Apple are a bit contrarian, the funny thing is that it's probably a reaction to shrill fanbois like you who go ballistic if you think someone has blasphemed against holy mother Apple.

No fanboys or ignorant people here, move along.


Pot. Kettle. Black.

Reply Score: 2

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

I am not an Apple fanboy; I am an Apple hater. And I have repeatedly tried to point out the serious flaws in Thom's legal arguments. Pointing out the huge flaws in his reasoning is definitely, definitely not the exclusive purview of Apple Fanboys. And you're not the first person to falsely claim that it is.

Reply Score: 2

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

I think it is everyone else that lacks confidence and are insecure in their own OS.

You do have a good point there. Apple and its circle of fans have always looked down on us simple IBM-PEECEE users. Apple is hip, cool and better and beige box users are the dull working drones better forgotten. It's just that the price Apple charges, for us dull drones to find out if we really need to be insecure, is too steep.

The desire for the easy hackintosh is to see OS X in action. You only buy magic beans over regular ones if you are pretty sure they work.

And that is the crux of the matter. If we could be sure that if we bought a Mac we would never look back, we'd all probably pony up the money. The risk of being fleeced is too great though.

One can click around on a Mac in the Mac store and one can play with a Mac from a friend for a few hours, but to truly know if it is any good, you need to work the system for a few months.

We'd like to believe, but the risk of just buying an overpriced x86 machine with an OS that wasn't the second coming is too big. After all, if OS X rubs you the wrong way, you just spent way too much money on a machine that will be running Windows (or BSD / Linux) anyways. Mac innards are common x86 components, so if OS X falls short of it's magic expectations, you just blew too much money on what will basically be a lowly beige box.

Reply Score: 2

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

We'd like to believe, but the risk of just buying an overpriced x86 machine with an OS that wasn't the second coming is too big. After all, if OS X rubs you the wrong way, you just spent way too much money on a machine that will be running Windows (or BSD / Linux) anyways. Mac innards are common x86 components, so if OS X falls short of it's magic expectations, you just blew too much money on what will basically be a lowly beige box.


You can allready buy a beige box as you have no risks. If apple are offering a better os x "integration", maybe they offer better bsd, linux and windows "integtation". Maybe your poor old, linux and windows is "integrated" and will run better on apple hardware. After all it is THE BEST hardware. ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE: What an absurd conclusion.
by BallmerKnowsBest on Mon 26th Oct 2009 14:57 UTC in reply to "What an absurd conclusion."
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

What Windows and Linux users are doing is making a vote of no confidence when they steal Mac OSX and install it on their Hackintoshes.


What Maclots are doing is admitting desperation when they resort to lazy generalizations and try to imply that all Hackintosh users are thieves.

This is just about money to Apple. Mac OSX exists only to sell Apple hardware. Apple cannot afford to sell Mac OSX at the upgrade price of $129.


So if they can't afford it, then why DOES Apple sell a full version for $129? A complete lack of business sense?

What Psystar is doing is stealing money out of Apple's pockets.


How is it stealing when they PAID for the copies of OS X that they resell? It's not stealing just because you and other Apple fanbois don't like the way Psystar uses the product they paid for.

Perhaps, it is a self justification to cover your immorality.


Funny, creationists use the exact same reasoning (that people only believe in evolution to justify their immoral lifestyles). And it looks equally-desperate when you do it; it's painfully obvious that you'll latch on to any pretense to vilify Psystar and their supporters, no matter how flimsy.

Perhaps Psystar makes you feel defensive because they threaten the notion that owning an Apple PC somehow makes you "special" (see what I did there?).

Reply Score: 4

I'm Multilingual Too
by cefarix on Sun 25th Oct 2009 21:12 UTC
cefarix
Member since:
2006-03-18

I speak English, Urdu, and some Arabic. I'm from a Pakistani family, although I've lived most of my life in the US. And I have an interest in languages anyways.

Reply Score: 1

Apple purist...
by Luposian on Sun 25th Oct 2009 21:34 UTC
Luposian
Member since:
2005-07-27

I am such an Apple/Mac purist, there are only two types of Apple computers:

1) Apple Macintosh and Power Macintosh computers (from the 128K, to the last G5 made)

2) Apple PC's that natively run MacOS X.

The Macintosh no longer exists.

Well.. actually, that's entirely too true... it's now "Mac" this and "Mac" that. iMac, MacBook, Macbook Pro, Mac Pro, Mac Mini...

I will always love the Macintosh and Power Macintosh. I will always disdain Apple PC's.

Remember "Think Different" (when the hardware AND software WERE different)? It ain't that anymore! Now it's simply a different OS on the same hardware as a standard PC, with software code that keep it from running on non-Apple PC hardware.

Gee, Apple sure didn't have any of this PsyStar junk going on in the good ol' PowerPC days, did they? Remember the brief cloning that went on, back in the days of the 8500/120 (back when top-end Macs used to cost $4,500-$5,000, minus hardware upgrades/additions)? That sure didn't last very long, did it? Why? Because all it ever did was rob Apple of sales. It never benefited them more mindshare or popularity.

Since going the "Intel" route, Apple has deliberately made this bed for themselves and they WILL sleep in it. They *could* have made enough custom changes to their boards to make an "Intel Mac" different enough you COULDN'T put MacOS X on a standard PC with a few software hacks. But they didn't. And, said system, also wouldn't natively boot Windows, either, which is my biggest issue against Apple nowadays. Macs are Macs and run MacOS X. PC's are PC's and run Windows and every other X86 OS available for that platform, and never the twain should meet, nor cross paths, except under emulation!

It's Apple's fault they're in the boat they're now rowing (and trying to keep afloat)... and may they sink to the bottom of the ocean because of their bad judgement.

As far as I'm concerned, Apple died the day they switched to the Intel. Not just because of the CPU (it's performance increases over PowerPC cannot be denied, even by a die-hard PowerPC fan like myself, who started using the Mac when the 6100/60 (using System 7.1.2, the first PowerPC version of System 7) was released), but because they took it so far as to be nothing more THAN a PC, natively running MacOS X. Well, it ALSO runs Windows 100% natively! So is it a Mac or is it a PC (I think the Apple ad says it best, when the Mac claims to *ALSO* be a PC!)? Depends upon which OS you're running on it, nowadays. It's a "Mac", in name only, as far as I'm concerned.

You wanna talk about being a "purist". I'm one of the few that are the purist of the pure Mac users. Nothing less that 100% hardware isolation from what is considered a "Windows platform" (which is what the Mac might as well be classified as, today), will suffice for me.

Back in the good ol' days, being a Mac user meant having a system AND OS that were wholly different and independant from PC's and Atari ST's and Amigas and all those other systems.

Nowadays, the fight is over which OS is better than the other. Who cares. The day Apple went Intel, I became OS agnostic. Windows? MacOS X? Ubuntu? Haiku? BeOS? All just slightly different ways of interfacing with the computer, to accomplish the same goal. None better than the others, just different ways of doing the job.

I miss the days when I was proud to be a Mac user and loved Apple. But those days are gone now. Now, I actually PREFER to use Windows or Ubuntu or Haiku over MacOS X. Probably because I know what MacOS X has become... just another OS on the Intel platform. Sure, you can say, MacOS X was always an Intel OS, behind the scenes, but... until that day finally came (when they changed platforms), I was actually HAPPY as a MacOS X user. Ignorance IS bliss, I suppose.

[Rant mode disengaged]

Reply Score: 5

RE: Apple purist...
by wirespot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 22:54 UTC in reply to "Apple purist..."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

See now, this is what I call a proper fanatic. They don't make them like that nowadays (he's probably 50, in mind if not in body). Decades of evolution and R&D be damned, gimme back my 80's. iPod? iPhone? Mac? What are those? I want my Macintosh!

Some people look to the future and wonder what technological advances they'll get to experience within their lifetimes. Some cling to the past and remain frozen in it.

Actually, I take that back. He's not 50, he's 30. He got to experience the Macintosh when he was young and impressionable and it put an indellible mark on him. Dude, we all had computers we loved when we were kids. They're gone. Get over it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Apple purist...
by Luposian on Sun 25th Oct 2009 23:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple purist..."
Luposian Member since:
2005-07-27

See now, this is what I call a proper fanatic. They don't make them like that nowadays (he's probably 50, in mind if not in body).


41, actually. Born in 1968. Saw our 7-11 go from Pinball machines to Asteroids. Was around when the Atari 2600VCS was a 6-switch unit. Saw every advance of home gaming technology from the 2600 to the Jaguar. The Zenith Odyssey. The Vectrex. From the Nintendo Entertainment System (otherwise known as the NES) to the Nintendo Wii. From the Sega Master System to the Sega Dreamcast. From the Sony Playstation to the Playstation 3. Xbox to Xbox 360.

Saw every advance of computing technology from the Apple II, Atari 8-bit, Atari ST, Commodore VIC-20, Commodore 64, Commodore 128, Amiga 500/1000/1200/2000/3000/4000, and IBM PC Jr. to the latest Wintel PC's made today and fastest Apple PC's made today (or is that redundant, as they're 100% identical?).

On and on I could go... and would, but I gotta take a nap before going to church tonight... us old timers have more to worry about than just livin' in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and the 2000's, ye young whipper-snapper!

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Apple purist...
by Kroc on Mon 26th Oct 2009 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple purist..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

And I presume that you are simply too young to remember where we’ve come from, and thus why it’s so worrying where we’re going with technology.

Do you remember the days when your computer was your own? That, given time, you could learn *everything* about it, every inner working, every part. It started up, and it was yours to do with as you saw fit instead of this notion of EULAs and licences telling you what you can and can’t do. When all the development tools you needed came with the computer and you didn’t need someone else’s permission to develop something for it.

You’ve grown up in a world where you take it as given that you basically have no freedom over your own purchases and equipment.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Apple purist...
by wirespot on Mon 26th Oct 2009 09:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple purist..."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

You’ve grown up in a world where you take it as given that you basically have no freedom over your own purchases and equipment.


There you go, assuming. I'm not a 12yr old digital native, I'm Gen X, and so's he. I've experienced just as much computing history going by as he has.

And pardon me, but I do so own my computers, thank you very much. I build my own rigs and use Linux on them. Not Ubuntu either. I get my hands dirty messing with the engine and I enjoy it as much as I did messing with Spectrum clones or playing arcade games back in the day.

Doesn't mean I have to live in the past and not enjoy new technology. I loved the old stuff but they're gone and good writtens, we have much cooler toys now. Evolve, you silly old fossils.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Apple purist...
by Kroc on Mon 26th Oct 2009 10:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Apple purist..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I’m developing with the latest web technologies and helping push this forward into the mainstream. I’m no fossil either. I just feel that we’re barely scratching the possibility of these 'cooler toys' because of this closed-culture in place.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple purist...
by dbolgheroni on Mon 26th Oct 2009 14:54 UTC in reply to "Apple purist..."
dbolgheroni Member since:
2007-01-18

Luposian++

I don't know what was the Apple plan when they switched, but afterall, I don't think performance was the argument when people bought Apple computers in the past. So, I don't think it was wise to switch to x86 in the long-term. On the other side, Apple users are usually blind about that. They don't care if what is under the wood is Intel x86, PowerPC or whatever.

Didn't see your post before, but look at my post below called "Price of the switch to x86".

I usually take the "developer approach" rather than an "user approach". So, I don't run Windows, nor Mac OS X on PC, nor Linux. BUT, that said, yes, I agree with you. You don't even "feel" Apple computers are different today. I have some old Macs too, from the days of the Motorola 68K, like Quadras, to the days of PowerMacs, but don't want a new Mac Wintel.

Edited 2009-10-26 14:55 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Nicholas Blachford
Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple spends a lot of money developing both OS X and the Macs themselves. This costs a lot of money and Mac owners pay extra for it.

I find there is a lot of attention to detail put into Macs, you don't get this on cheap PCs.

You do get attention to detail on PCs but you also pay extra for them, but of course no one compares expensive PCs to Macs.


As for Psystar, if they make it possible to run OS X on cheap PCs of course people will pick these instead of Macs, the vast majority of people will pick price over attention to detail every time. However if that happens Apple lose a major source of income, how do they then continue to fund the development of new technologies like OpenCL or libdispatch or things like the iPhone?

So yes, I expect Apple are more than confident in their products, but they also know good engineering costs money, they wouldn't be able to afford it if their OS development involved supporting vastly more hardware platform combinations.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

A reason Macs are expensive? How about obscene margins?

Reply Score: 3

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Except that even expensive pcs can cheaper than macs. Unless of course yo're talking about those nutcases that create diamond encrusted laptops and whatnot.

But what you say is true. And I even appreciate the fact that osx does not come loaded with crapware that pc manufacturers use to slice the prices of their machines.

Apple could charge more for osx and cut the prices of their machines.

Reply Score: 3

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Apple spends a lot of money developing both OS X and the Macs themselves. This costs a lot of money and Mac owners pay extra for it.

I find there is a lot of attention to detail put into Macs, you don't get this on cheap PCs.

You do get attention to detail on PCs but you also pay extra for them, but of course no one compares expensive PCs to Macs.


No, this is not true. Just take a look at modern medium priced PCs. I sometimes put together the little barebone Shuttles for people. They're superb. Take a look at the high end Antec cases, which you can afford if you are spending 500-1,000 euros, and which some barebones vendors are now shipping with their i5s. Better than anything Apple has ever shipped.

Apple stuff is basically at the component level very ordinary standard components - cheap memory, cheap disks, low end graphics cards. Standard main boards, and the highest end processors they can find. Very mid range PSUs. A very strange combination, but it has its merits from a marketing, if not technical, point of view. But any better quality than the midrange PC, it is not.

You want cheap by the way, UK 150 including VAT gets you AMD barebones, dual core, 2Gb memory. Are the Macs better quality than this? Well, higher specified, and better cases, better PSU, yes. But so are the mid range PCs.

Reply Score: 2

The Worst
by NathanHill on Mon 26th Oct 2009 01:32 UTC
NathanHill
Member since:
2006-10-06

This is the absolute worst article ever put on this site. And I think I wrote a piece for this site some time ago.

It doesn't make any sense.

For one thing, you'll find plenty of awesome Mac websites/communities that quite happily detail the pros and cons of building your own Hackintosh - MacWorld, TUAW, Lifehacker, Lowendmac, XLR8YourMac, and on and on. I have yet to see any Mac website that is in utter panic at the possibility of Hackintoshes. In fact, it's mostly been curious since for so long it was hard to make a decent gaming machine with standard Mac setups. (If those panicky websites exist, provide some links, Thom.)

Sure, you might find some suspicion of Psystar, but it's a pretty insignificant thing, I guess. You are probably the site that covers this whole thing the most from what I have read.

It's just economically infeasible to try to go after Hackintosh owners, one by one. Hey, maybe Apple will try, Mr. Conspiracy, but Apple is most likely benefitting from having that little hobby community out there doing its thing.

At the end of the day, a lot of people buy Macs because they do just work. Using Psystar's new little software thing or any of the other methods out there is still so much more complicated than just popping in your Snow Leopard disc and holding down "D" - or just buying a beautiful brand new Mac from an Apple Store.

I support Apple and its programmers defending their hard work. If Psystar is in the clear, the courts will work it out. If not, Psystar will pay the piper. Regardless, Apple will go on and keep being one of the more profitable entities in the technology market.

Terrible article, Thom.

Reply Score: 1

Uhm, why would you need a 180?
by phoenix on Mon 26th Oct 2009 01:56 UTC
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

"Which type of person has more confidence in the strength and resilience of his culture and language - someone who feels threatened by outside influences, or someone who doesn't?


You might need to make a few 180s in your brain, but the answer is someone who doesn't.
"

Uhm, what? Why would you need a 180? If you are confident in your position, you don't feel threatened. If you feel threatened, you aren't confident. How is that some great revelation? It's even more basic than "if the ground is wet, it's probably raining".

Reply Score: 2

v Advertisement!
by ecruz on Mon 26th Oct 2009 02:28 UTC
Either outcome, I'm not fussed
by haydenm on Mon 26th Oct 2009 03:35 UTC
haydenm
Member since:
2006-10-29

I owned an iBook G4 back in their heyday, it died after a year and a half. This was no issue because I usually upgrade every year or so.

My favorite thing about Mac is the third-party software. It seems like more people developing for OSX try that little bit extra to make their application that little bit more intuitive/fun to work with. I assume this is to do with the "culture" surrounding the Mac products.

That being said I use windows now because that's what comes installed on Thinkpads. I generally spend around $3000(AUD) for the T-series and have no issue paying this much, mainly because I put these things through hell and back and they always last me till I *want* to upgrade. My current laptop I have dropped down a flight of stairs (while open), dropped from a moving car and spilled 3/4 glass of bourbon and cola on. The only damage that has been done is cosmetic (a couple of cracks around the edges of the lid).

I'm telling you this because for my personal computing I make my decisions based on hardware and while Lenovo keeps making sturdy products I'll keep buying them. Now, making gross generalisations based on my own purchasing habits I assume most Mac users would do the same?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Either outcome, I'm not fussed
by darknerd on Mon 26th Oct 2009 04:06 UTC in reply to "Either outcome, I'm not fussed"
darknerd Member since:
2009-05-19

I'm telling you this because for my personal computing I make my decisions based on hardware and while Lenovo keeps making sturdy products I'll keep buying them.


For Lenovo, you might want to block outgoing TCP/IP traffic to Chinese sites except for traffic you are intentionally establishing with an external router.

Reply Score: 1

People Don't Get It
by darknerd on Mon 26th Oct 2009 04:02 UTC
darknerd
Member since:
2009-05-19

Apple is about quality and want to deliver the best quality behind their products. This sharply contrasts toward Microsoft that goes for quantity. That is the perspective that they are taking.

Many want to reposition Apple into another market, but that is not how Apple wants to position themselves, and at this point, they are highly successful in their positioning. So why rock the boat? They have a limited number of resources for R&D, and they are expanding OS development into iPhone platform. They aren't ready to tackle with the plethora of platforms out there, especially dealing with some types that ship broken hardware these days that Microsoft has to deal with. This R&D for workarounds and the SQA testing for configuration testing with third parties is enormous. At some day Apple may scale into the mass market of hardware platforms, but at this point they cannot.

For now though, they want to protect their image and market position as delivering the best user experience, and using Mac OS X on hardware that might be subpar, riddled with known defects, they will just avoid it altogether.

Reply Score: 1

Price of the switch to x86
by dbolgheroni on Mon 26th Oct 2009 10:50 UTC
dbolgheroni
Member since:
2007-01-18

Maybe Apple is paying the price for the switch to the x86. People will eventually want to run Mac OS X just because, hmmm... they can!

I know back then when they were committed to PowerPC, there was some Mac clones, but most people wouldn't buy such machines just to see how Mac OS performs.

The Problem with Psystar is that they can be a spark for people realize they can have a good computer or a better experience without having to pay too much. Until now, most people running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware are enthusiasts, tech users, not common users.

Turning it easy to switch to non-tech people to install Mac OS X can make a considerable niche of not just enthusiasts, but real users of the OS. Apple is not affected until now, but they are certainly afraid. On the other side, I think they knew this could be a problem when they switched to x86.

(I think about this topic when I see my father using a computer. He don't note if you put a computer running some OS with GNOME, nor KDE, Windows or Mac OS X, if he can at least click on some globe to start the browser. Why would he note what is running is Psystar or an Apple machine? Maybe he would note the color of the case. Maybe he would note the price on the store if both are side by side.)

Reply Score: 1

Duh
by Shane on Mon 26th Oct 2009 11:25 UTC
Shane
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Which type of person has more confidence in the strength and resilience of his culture and language - someone who feels threatened by outside influences, or someone who doesn't?"

Kind of a leading question, isn't it?

Reply Score: 1

Why I don't like Apple
by twitterfire on Mon 26th Oct 2009 12:26 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

I simply dislike people who do things just to be "cool". I dislike people who buy shoes or clothes just to be cool. I detest people who buy cars just for show off. Every bit of software I use, OS-es included, is because I can find an use in it. And as a professional programmer, every bit of software I write, actually does something.

But looking at Apple products, it seems that every single Inothing and Inothingness they came up with, was brought not to supply a need or add some functionality, but to find some snobs who actually think they are cooler, smarter and their e-penises are bigger if they are buying Apple branded products. They buy apple for the same reason they buy shoes, clothes and cars: for ather people (who think like them) to see them. Of course, I'm not talking about 100% of apple users, maybe I not talking even about 99% of apple users. But the vast majority of apple users seems to be just snobs.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why I don't like Apple
by Jules on Mon 26th Oct 2009 12:44 UTC in reply to "Why I don't like Apple"
Jules Member since:
2007-01-30

I respect your opinion, bun't I don't recognize any of the observations you base it upon.

The great majority of Apple users I know in person (let's say around 100) choose Apple because the company designs everything they produce around usability. Mainly through great hard- software integration, and a clean appealing user interface on top of a rock solid OS.

They certainly don't base their brand choice on 'coolness'.

Reply Score: 1

sphexx
Member since:
2005-07-06

.... en goed Frysk"

Though I disagree with all these analogies I would put it to you, Thom, that the English took Frisian, one of the languages of your country, and made it into English and now you have to learn and write in English rather than Nederlands.

If this were to be compared with Apple and Psystar it would not be favourable to Apple!

["Butter, bread, and green cheese is good English and good Fries," which is pronounced more or less the same in both languages (Frisian: "Bûter, brea, en griene tsiis is goed Ingelsk en goed Frysk."]

Edited 2009-10-26 13:49 UTC

Reply Score: 1

strange comparison
by puenktchen on Mon 26th Oct 2009 14:45 UTC
puenktchen
Member since:
2007-07-27

my language and culture isn't my property and i'm not trying to make heaps of money with it either. if apple would only care about osx dominating computing, like a cultural nationalist might dream about his language becoming/staying important, they would be happy about anybody who wants to copy osx. but they aren't a cult/nation/political movement but a company.

Edited 2009-10-26 14:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

who's behind Psystar?
by garyd on Mon 26th Oct 2009 17:25 UTC
garyd
Member since:
2008-10-22

When I first heard that Apple listed several unnamed parties in their litigation against Psystar, I thought they were crazy. But after ready diligently through PJ's arguments on groklaw about her reasons for believing that this is another attack on open source software with funding from the likes of Microsoft, I'm starting to come around to Apple's side in this matter. If you doubt me, I challenge you to read up on the matter yourself in the archives of all her http://groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=archives&year=-1&use_... .

Reply Score: 1

Oversimplifying and Overreaching
by sdhays on Tue 27th Oct 2009 02:37 UTC
sdhays
Member since:
2007-03-13

Thom, I normally enjoy the stuff you write about, but I think this is pretty weak. The issue with languages is actually a lot more complex than just people feeling "un-confident" regarding their own culture. Minority cultures do get snuffed out without active labor to preserve them. The Welsh language nearly died (and the druids are dead), and only recently due to an active effort in Wales to bring the language back has it staved off the grim reaper for awhile longer. I think it's great that you feel that Dutch has nothing to fear from other languages and cultures, but let me ask you a question: why are you so confident?

If I could show you in my crystal ball that in 100 years, less than 1% of the population of the Netherlands will speak Dutch (not a real prediction, just a thought experiment), and the differences between mainstream "Dutch" culture and mainstream "American" culture (or German culture or French culture or, perhaps a little closer to home, Turkish culture) had become about on par as the differences between Chicago culture and New York: basically the same thing, but different localities, would that make you feel less "confident"? I'm asking because I'm guessing that a lot of your confidence comes from not caring all that much, when it really comes down to it (and I don't mean you don't care at all, I just mean that if your culture disappeared and it was something American-like, you might mourn, but you'd move on). Whereas this would be devastating to other people, so they are much more active in protecting their culture from threats, real or perceived.

I'm not writing to say that the purists are right (or that you're a traitor to your culture), just that boiling down their concerns to "un-confidence" is actually oversimplifying things. And when you map that to a soulless corporation, you're just looking for stuff to generate comments of people projecting their own preconceived notions and hoping that they've finally, ONCE AND FOR ALL, proven that their opinion == truth. And kudos for a job well done or that score ;-)

Fanboys tend to be pretty silly, whether they're Apple fanboys or Microsoft fanboys or Linux is teh Awesome fanboys. I get that you want to tweak the Apple ones. But I don't think it's very enlightening to to say that Apple itself lacks confidence because it's pursuing Psystar; it's their business model and they're going to defend it. Maybe they're being short-sighted, maybe consumers are being hurt, but, once again, reducing it all down to "confidence in their product" is oversimplifying quite a bit.

Reply Score: 1

IBM?
by buurtnerd on Wed 28th Oct 2009 20:47 UTC
buurtnerd
Member since:
2009-04-12

Isnt this what happened with IBM before? They produced a personal computer and after that everyone started manifacturing them.. Now IBM does not make PC anymore and is pushed back into the server market. I fear that if Apple sets OSX free, something like that will happen. By the way I am a Dutch language purist I prefer Javascript 'opKlik' over 'onClick'.

Edited 2009-10-28 20:48 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Yes but...
by SnowMac on Thu 29th Oct 2009 00:18 UTC
SnowMac
Member since:
2009-09-03

Interesting thought Thom,
Ik kan ook eits nederlaandse gerspeeken, mar om dat ik nooit nar in sckool in Holand gewiest mijn gebruik van U tall is helemaal gesprooken.
To answer your point, yes Apple could be a LOT more confident and relaxed about Pystar but if Apple wanted to LICENSE OS X to the great unwashed masses then it could do so, IF it wanted to. The reason it does not is because it has ALWAYS put customers ahead of profits. If Apple licensed OS X it would become the biggest vendor overnight, just as it became the biggest Unix vendor overnight when it replaced OS 9 with OS X. However... this would mean dealing with endless compatibility issues which it has never had to worry about. It also means true ongoing plug and play for Mac users.
tot siens!

Reply Score: 1