This article discusses the changed environment since Apple first introduced the clones, what new challenges Apple faces going forward, specifically in the corporate market, and how a targeted Apple clone market could help increase OS X’s market share.
While it would be great for consumers, clones would be horrible for Apple.
The best way to put it is that WallMart sells medium to low quality things for low prices. Anywhere that WallMart moves into hords of people who don’t care about quality or the wages the workers make at WallMart (I’m talking about non management) run to WallMart.
Apple doesn’t make medium to low quality hardware. And they don’t, and won’t, sell stripped down computers. People who could would buy lower cost clones with Mac OS X instead of buying Apple computers would.
But Apple doesn’t care how many copies of OS X they sell. Apple cares about how many computers they sell and at what profit margin Because of this, unless Hell freezes over again Apple won’t ever sell OS X to clone manufactures. This really, REALLY isn’t hard to figure out.
Although I mostly agree with you, I still believe Apple is leaving open the possibility.
Also, for Apple being a hardware company, they sure do make a great deal of software.
I would say OSX comes with more features than Windows out of the box (Sherlock, Dashboard, Automator, Spotlight, iCal, AppleScript etc.)
They also make stuff like iLife, GarageBand, Final Cut, DVD Studio, Keynote, Shake, AppleWorks, QuickTime, iTunes etc.
They make nearly as much software as Microsoft, and many people would argue they are better at it.
As MS is about to crusade on this “Web Services” thing, I don’t think Apple is going to slow down for them.
I think after Apple makes the switch to Intel processors, they can leverage a refreshed line of laptops and headless machines like iMac Mini to increase market share without the need clones.
If Apple wants people to have cheap headless systems to boost software sales, they can just sell them.
Edited 2005-11-10 20:29
They make nearly as much software as Microsoft, and many people would argue they are better at it.
Might be, but for one piece of crucial, extremely important piece of software Apple is completely dependant on Microsoft: Office productivity software.
OSX has a huge advantage that no other non-Windows OS can claim: full, complete, hassle-free support for MS Office. And personally: Office:Mac is a million times better than the ‘ordinary’ Windows version. Now, Apple will NOT challenge Microsoft directly, ie. as in allowing clones, because MS might stop supporting Office:Mac, dealing a huge blow to Apple (iWork is nice but a completely different product, and the OOO:Mac/NeoOffice SUCK).
Do not underestimated the importance of Office:Mac.
I don’t see how Microsoft could be upset.
Apple is simply increasing the potential for Windows installs inthe market by making the transition, while also increasing their install base thus increasing the potential number of consumers that might purchase copies of Office for Mac.
In the new scenareo, just because Apple grows, does not necesserally mean that Microsoft shrinks…. though that doesn’t mean it wont happen that way.
I don’t see how Microsoft could be upset.
Read more carefully. I was explaining why Aple will not enter the cloning business.
Apple is simply increasing the potential for Windows installs inthe market by making the transition, while also increasing their install base thus increasing the potential number of consumers that might purchase copies of Office for Mac.
The problem with this is this: every copy of Office:Mac run on a Mac means one less copy of Office:Win running on Windows (simply put). MS wants to sell Office:Win, because that would mean also selling Windows (again, simply put).
I have to disagree, MS Office on Windows is better than the Mac version due to the sheer fact that the Windows version has more applications included, namely “Access” and “Frontpage”, to me both are extremely important applications.
Yes Frontpage may create some dodgey HTML, but i use it for WYSIWYG Designing of pages and then clean up the code in Notepad. on Mac OS X i’ve been resorted to using another application in order to do the WYSIWYG part of Page design.
Also, the Windows Version forms the Benchmark for Office, Only the windows versions get a whole new version number, Mac versions just get a year tag really, where as Office on windows gets a year tag and a version number:
# Office 2003 = Office 11
# Office ???? = Office 12
# Office:Mac v.X = Office ??
# Office:Mac 2004 = Office ??
Actually the Mac versions do have version numbers. Office:Mac 2004 is version 11.
Also Access only comes with Office Professional which costs $100 more than the standard version. And no where can I find, at least on Microsoft’s website, that FrontPage is included with Office. It costs another $199.
Personnaly, I would rather have FileMaker Pro instead of Access, much more powerful and multi-user capable. And a program like Freeway is easily comparable to FrontPage for a lot less money.
Yeah but can FileMaker Pro do web pages yet? The only thing that makes Access vialble nowadays is the fact that you can make web pages with it just as easily as you could make forms that lived inside Access in the past, and the components necessary for the client to view these types of pages are freely downloadable and redistributable from Microsoft, and anybody with any version of Office greater than 2000 already has these components installed.
Last time I checked, FileMaker could make web pages that interacted with FileMaker databases, but they required a per-user license to view those web-pages(!), and they could only be viewed on a Mac with FileMaker Pro isntalled. (Note you don’t need to have MS Office or MS Access installed to view web pages that were created inside Access and interact with Access databases.) If FileMaker has changed to be more in-line with what you’d expect a web-development tool to be and do, I would consider switching from MS Access to FileMaker Pro.
Filemaker has been able to make webpages that can be viewed with any platform since version 4, and it doesn’t require you to have FileMaker Pro installed on a client. But you are right , there is a 5 user connection limit with FileMaker Pro, and FileMaker Pro Advanced, but that increases to 100 with FileMaker Server.
I’m confused and Filemaker’s site doesn’t help. Do you have to buy two separate products? FileMaker Pro 8 Advanced to make the database and File Maker Server 8 Advanced to host it? Or do you just buy FileMaker Server 8 Advanced and have everything you need? I’m just not getting the difference between (or relationship between) FileMaker Pro 8 Advanced and FileMaker Server 8 Advanced.
If the claim is true that “all you need is a web browser” to view these pages, it might be a viable alternative to what I’m using Access for, because even though the Office Web Components are a free download, the fact that something has to be downloaded and installed at all in order to view these pages (for non-Office XP/2003 users) has been quite a pain.
I don’t know about 8. On 6 (Mac or Windows) you have a publishing engine in Filemaker, and you can hit the page with a web browser and nothing else. But, its not like you are looking at the database as you would from the app. The buttons and layout is very restricted. Its not really a solution. Its not going to do it in an enterprise environment. You can compile the programme and distribute it, but then of course if people make changes, you can’t keep it all synced. Revolution is interesting, if you want cross platform databases. A bit like Hypercard. Or there is always PythonCard, which is coming along fine. Or Ruby Rails?
Yeah but can FileMaker Pro do web pages yet? The only thing that makes Access vialble nowadays is the fact that you can make web pages with it just as easily as you could make forms that lived inside Access in the past, and the components necessary for the client to view these types of pages are freely downloadable and redistributable from Microsoft, and anybody with any version of Office greater than 2000 already has these components installed.
Last time I checked, FileMaker could make web pages that interacted with FileMaker databases, but they required a per-user license to view those web-pages(!), and they could only be viewed on a Mac with FileMaker Pro isntalled. (Note you don’t need to have MS Office or MS Access installed to view web pages that were created inside Access and interact with Access databases.) If FileMaker has changed to be more in-line with what you’d expect a web-development tool to be and do, I would consider switching from MS Access to FileMaker Pro.
Last time I checked, there was actually more than one database on the block; given 4th Dimension a try lately?
“MS Office on Windows is better than the Mac version due to the sheer fact that the Windows version has more applications included”
Is this how you decide what’s the better software!? Norton Internet Security comes with about 20 different apps, that surely means that it is by far the best security software!
Office:Mac is often proclaimed as being better than the windows version because as of office.X and 2004 Microsoft ‘s Mac Business Unit have stopped trying to port Office’s UI directly and started to design different UI that suits the Mac better.
Perhaps you should try using it every day for a week before spouting rubbish that “The Windows Version is better because it has more stuff” like a grade.A troll
Hi Jody,
Apple ONLY makes software so that it can sell its hardware. Since nobody else was making software compelling enough to pick up a Mac instead of a Windows PC they had to buy (mostly) or create the software themselves. Now people, like you, can list all the very good software that Apple makes and then say, I want that software so I’ll buy the Mac Hardware.
Edited 2005-11-11 00:25
While clone manufacturers would allow people to buy a Mac with less and pay less, (this is the only reason why people are clamoring for clones) Apple could just as easily offer these same type of stripped-down computers and get more money than what they would by just selling an OS license.
Apple won’t do that because adopting the commodity business model devalues your product. Its not a coincidence that every major computer manufacturer except for Apple is hurting financially as a result of adopting that business model.
Apple’s model may not be right for every consumer, but I beg to differ with anyone who suggests its not right for most.
Apple provides enough options in varying types to meet the needs of most consumers and prices each at least equally if not less to any competitor that would otherwise offer an identical product in hardware, bundled software and operating system. (Those who suggest otherwise aren’t making equal comparisons)
If we look at it from the perspective that we as consumers want a healthy computer company that offers us good products… then we can take comfort in the fact that Apple is doing that. Similarly, if we as consumers want a company that sells these same products at prices that are at least comparable (if not less expensive) to the rest of the industry… Apple is doing that too.
Adopting clones only detract from those two goals.
Edited 2005-11-10 20:27
I believe the author was refering to only allowing clones into the corporate and server world. I personally don’t believe that Apple needs to offer clones for that, they just need to setup a new corporate division, hire a top-notch corporate management staff and then continue and expand with their excellent server products. Also for corporate desktops they should begin selling 15″ and 17″ Widescreen LCD’s to complement the Mac Mini in both the corporate and consumer spaces. I also think they are going to put Celeron M’s in the new Mac Mini and iBooks with the Dual-Core Pentium M’s (Yonah) into the Powerbooks.
All Apple needs to do to compete in the corporate world is setup a larger corporate department and maybe introduce a Mac Mini with certain lockdown features corporations like or simply build those features into all Mac Mini’s and advertise that as a feature to corporations that all they need to do is turn on certain features in the software. For Power Users there would be the iMac and the PowerMac still.
Also in the server space I believe it would be intelligent for them to enter into an alliance with Red Hat and begin selling High-End Linux Servers so they can have a top to bottom server infrastructure. Mac OS for low-end to mid-range servers and Linux for the High End. I also believe this would lead to increased collaboration with the open source world on Apple’s part.
I was reading till I got to this point, then I stopped
Apple’s biggest competitor in the corporate arena (and one that’s wiped the floor with Apple so far), Microsoft, has made a series of long and painful missteps in security, licensing, software rollout and more.
Apple’s biggest competitor is Dell, not Microsoft. When will people learn that Apple sells HARDWARE (as if the millions of iPod everywhere doesn’t tip them off) first and software second?
I guess never. Nerds and IT people want for someone to go after MS’s monopoly so much that they are blind to the truth.
Its time to deal with it people” Microsoft won the desktop war. As long as personal computers exist in their current forum, a Microsoft Window product will be the most popular platform. Not Desktop Linux. Not OSX. Both of those are NICHE desktops OSes that will stay that way. The GNU community does not have enough resources to take on MS’s monopoly (read: marketing money) and Jobs KNOWS that taking on MS loses Office for his platform (which millions of Mac users NEED) and makes it so he has to play Linux’s game of reverse engineering EVERYTHING to work in an MS dominant world (aka open Word docs, play Windows Media files at CNN.com, etc.)
Jobs is not stupid. He knows the industry better than any random blogger. He knows he sells an UPPER CLASS products for those with upper class budgets.
Face it fellow geeks- we are not getting cheap Mac boxes. Or AMD Mac boxes. No one is going to ever take on MS’s monopoly head on while the market is like it is. It sucks for us, because we would all love to have OSX for Window’s prices btu that is not the case.
Let me say that I am no Windows troll. I use Ubuntu full time, and I plan to buy an Intel Powerbook the month they are released. But I am sacing for that now because I know it will be expensive because Macs are expensive.
Any blog or “news” article that can’t figure out that Apple is not going to allow OSX to run on whatever you want. Its the most restrictive platform- deal with it! Maybe if you are lucky one day Apple will make a deal with one of those PC makers that is having their lunch eaten by Dell (thinking HP since they already sold iPods) might work out an EXCLUSIVE deal with Apple to sell OSX boxes. But they will still be Apple quality boxes for Apple prices. You can’t get gold (Macs) for the same price you can get silver (Dells) and that is the way life is.
You almost totally had me with your entire comment until you said, “Its the most restrictive platform- deal with it!”
deal with nothing… With the transition to x86, it will be the most inclusive. Run Linux, OS X and Windows apps from the same computer. There’s even reason to believe that all these apps will be able to be run without multi-booting but instead running them inside OS X.
You then said, “You can’t get gold (Macs) for the same price you can get silver (Dells) and that is the way life is.”
Actually, you CAN get your Gold Macs at Dell’s supposedly silver prices. Those silver prices aren’t exclusive to Dell. Apple has been besting Dell in price for quite some time.
All to often, people mistake having the ability to buy less and spend less as being less expensive. That’s like me comparing a Mac mini to Dell’s top of the line PC and claiming price superiority. I know you guys wouldn’t allow a Mac user to get away with that, yet that is common thinking amongst many PC users. When you match an equally (no, not similarly but equally) equipped Dell PC (in hardware, bundled software and OS) to that of any Mac, more often then not, the Mac will be the same if not less expensive.
Apple simply provides fewer options to buy less and spend less like you can with Dell.
Edited 2005-11-10 23:29
All to often, people mistake having the ability to buy less and spend less as being less expensive.
This is just pure and utter bullshit. I wish you’d stop repeating that like a mantra. It’s like the guy who kept saying Macs cost “a little bit more, or about the same, or a little bit less, or a lot less”. With the PowerMac line, in any case, you couldn’t possibly “buy less” to spend less. The 2.0 GHz G5 is in the league of a $320 AMD X2 chip. The graphics card is just barely a step above integrated (the 6600LE a 6200 class chip). It comes with only 512MB of RAM, a 160GB hard drive (even eMachines’s $600 number comes with 200GB). The features that Mac folks use to justify the high prices (firewire, GigE), are now standard on even low-end AMD motherboards. The only thing in the PowerMac you don’t usually find in even a low-end PC is the DVD burner, which adds maybe $50 to the cost?
I would like to see your idea of “spend less”. I would like to see how you can cut down something that’s pretty much been cut to the bone already!
Kellym and others are always asserting that Apple is the same price or cheaper for comparable performance and equipment. The difference is, they give you more.
OK, the APPM02 sells in the UK for £1949 ex vat. It has 2 2.5G processors, 512M memory, 1 250G hard drive, nVidia 6600, and no monitor. OSX.
The Evesham Axis Decimator sells for £1701 ex vat. It has dual X2s, 1024 memory, 2 x 250G hard drives. 2 x 7800GT graphics, and a 19inch Viewsonics panel. XP home.
Did you notice: theres extra graphics, extra disk, extra memory, extra monitor. And less money!
I can’t be bothered to type out other comparisons. Look them up for yourselves at macwarehouse and evesham. These were the first two I checked. But, you all know this. Why do you keep telling us black is white, then?
I was going to fulminate about the idiotic snobbery of the ‘upper class machines for upper class prices’ stuff and the snide references to WalMart, but no. Restraint. Don’t dignify it with a rejoinder. Anyone who thinks like that, and admits to thinking like that, is just not going to understand.
But the facts, why do you keep denying simple observable facts? Its the most bizarre thing I’ve ever come across. Its not that the machines are necessarily bad buys. Its not that you are necessarily silly to like them. But, they are, and obviously are, far more expensive, and buying them won’t make you upper class. Sorry about that.
I would hardly call 248 pound “far more”
that is more like some more, or a bit more.
when you are talking of spending nearly 2 grand, prices of a couple hundred are not really that big of a deal breaker unless you arrive with 1700 pounds… then , well you get best machine at that price.
Yeah, we are getting tired of YOUR lies. You bought a plain box with XP HOME. Big whoop. You then totally neglected to mention the Mac also comes with:
The lastest OSX 10.4 along with:
Safari 2
Mail 2
Address Book 4
iChat AV 3
iCal 2
Font Book 2
DVD Player 4.5
Preview 3
Xcode 2
iLife ’05
QuickBooks New User Edition
Art Directors Toolkit
FileMaker Pro Trial
GraphicConverter
OmniGraffle and OmniOutliner
Microsoft Office 2004 Test Drive
Zinio Reader
Apple Hardware Test
Plus a full one year Apple Warranty. Many Mac dealers will often bump up the memory free as well. People keep telling you that Apples come with more, and you keep ignoring it in your “comparisons.”
AND remember that all new Macs come with iLife 2005 on it as well. IMHO iPhoto is a gem of a programme when it comes to making copying photos of cameras.
Yes, that is true. iPhoto is very nice. However, in the example, you have £250 or so to spend on something like it. And you have far better graphics, double the disk and memory, and a screen too. We cannot be arguing that iPhoto is worth, what, £600?
Actually, I didn’t check the included software in the Evesham package other than noting XP. But on checking, you seem to get speakers, a decent enough sound card, and Roxio burning software as well.
I stand by the comparison.
I love how you included “Apple Hardware Test” in that list. Are you that desperate to justify the higher hardware price?
Safari 2
Firefox.
Mail 2
Thunderbird.
Address Book 4
Outlook.
iChat AV 3
AIM.
iCal 2
Outlook.
Font Book 2
Again, who cares?
DVD Player 4.5
Most machines come with WinDVD or the equivalent.
Preview 3
Are you seriously desperate enough to trumpet a PDF viewer? Adobe Acrobat, then!
Xcode 2
Your one decent point.
iLife ’05
You’re duping like Slashdot. iLife is a suite consisting of apps you’ve already mentioned.
QuickBooks New User Edition
Demo.
Art Directors Toolkit
Which a grand total of four people will find useful.
FileMaker Pro Trial
Demo.
GraphicConverter
Not even worth mentioning.
OmniGraffle and OmniOutliner
Microsoft Office.
Microsoft Office 2004 Test Drive
Most PCs include either Office or an equivalent suite. Very few only bundle demos like Apple is doing.
Zinio Reader
What the hell is this? Again, who honestly cares?
Apple Hardware Test
You can’t be serious. This is post is satirical, isn’t it!
In summery, Apple bundles a bunch of stuff that’s either freely available anyway, is useless, or is a demo. Thanks for the info!
Apart from the comments already made on this “bundle”, it should be pointed out that Quicken or Quickbooks for Mac is only available in the US, possibly incl. Canada, let alone the disparaging comments these receive on various Mac forums, especially when compared with the Windows versions.
Besides Xcode (although freeware compilers and IDEs are available for various X86 OSes) there is nothing in that list that is compelling.
So, now we know the facts, why does it matter to the clone debate?
It matters to, rather, the unbundling/licensing debate, because it shows the real reason why Apple cannot unbundle, or thinks it cannot. It has higher margins on hardware than anyone else, not because it has lower costs, but because it has dramatically higher prices for the same hardware. Or, as the example showed, it sometimes has higher prices for less hardware. Not a lot higher prices, but a lot, really a lot, less hardware. Just look at the difference in graphics!
This is not sustainable. You cannot behave like this and be a force in the computer business. Just as Louis Vuitton is not a force in luggage, and Bang and Olafson are not a force in consumer electronics. It is a strategy of retreat to the designer niche.
This is why those of us who are old Mac users, and still regard Apple with a mixture of exasperation and affection, want it to do two things. One, get the costs out and become at least more competitive on hardware. And change the marketing message to suit.
Two, make OS X available to people who want to buy it to run on their own machines.
We think this is in Apple’s own best interests, and will ensure the long term survival of the company in the computer business. In the end, it is not sustainable to charge, as in my example, more money for machines which have less disk, less memory, worse graphics, and no screen. We also think it will be better for the industry. We don’t see that keeping a bloated Cupertino going to run self indulgent advertising campaigns at great expense is in anyone’s interests.
But people are right to argue that, with the facts as they are now, licensing will be a disaster. The example shows why, if they license and carry on as now, over time even the committed Apple users would switch to Evesham type hardware. And why not? It is one thing to support a company. It is another thing to get ripped off by it. So, licensing only makes sense as part of a committment to get competitive on costs and prices.
My conclusion on the clone, or rather the unbundling, debate is: this is a real fork in the road, and there is one right choice, which is unbundling, getting the costs out, and remaining as a seller of bundled solution as well as of the licensed OS. I also think the first step to getting this decision right is to look honestly at the facts, and stop pretending the pricing and features are not what they obviously are. I just hope Cupertino is not under the same illusions that it seems to cultivate among its loyal customers.
This article is about clones and apples and not intelpc and macpc prices. Geez.
Discuss the article, please.
The last poster mentions 10.4 comes with Safari 2, Mail 2.. are you crazy? Isn’t safari the default browser on Mac OS X? How many Dvd Players does apple ship?
Clones will take a sizable market away from apple, imagine if you can that apple allowed clones of the ipod.
Where will apple rank in terms of ipods sold? why is apple suing everyone who even attempts to mimic their interface? think before posting rants.
1. StevieJ makes sure his hand is in everything and that everything is tailored to his liking. He has no control over clones built by someone else. This could “tarnish” the Apple reputation and quality of OSX.
2. Apple doesn’t need to launch an all out assault direclty at corps. It knows it can build its following by putting a mac in everyones home which would have a bigger drive into the corp. market better than them going at it alone.
3. OSX works as well as it does because of 1. Apple knows the config of every machine their OS is supported on. Apple does not have the support infrastructure to support clones and the hardware within. Trying to get OSX to support as much hardware as XP would negate much of what makes OSX stand out against XP.
But, whos not to say that with the transition to x86, they will garner better support for the larger assortment of hardware in the x86 community. Creating drivers for OSX86 would be easier and akin to writing linux drivers, w/o the GPL requirements.
Fisrt of all i would like to say the article is interesting to say the least.
Apple’s biggest competitor is Dell, not Microsoft. When will people learn that Apple sells HARDWARE (as if the millions of iPod everywhere doesn’t tip them off) first and software second?
Right,but i think Apple does a better job at developing software,iLife, GarageBand, Final Cut, DVD Studio, Keynote, Shake, AppleWorks, QuickTime, iTunes etc.
When developing/finetuning OSX and other software in their repetoire Apple doesn’t have to beg for new hardware innovations or CPS’s that finally reach 3GHz.Apple could earn a lot of extra money via Dell (for example) in the small-medium buisiness market by selling clones.The corporate market doesn’t give a damn about style but wants rock solid support and service besides stable products,preferrably with the most value for the buck.So in this referential fit i think licensed clones aren’t that bad after all.
Is there a case for licensing at the low end, or is the hardware equally uncompetitive there? I looked at what Macwarehouse is selling in both Wintels and Macs. This is what the lowest end gets you for £295 ex vat:
Apple Mac mini – DTS – 1 x PPC, G4 1.25 GHz, RAM 512 MB HD, 1 x 40 GB , CD-RW / DVD-ROM combo, Mdm – LAN EN, Fast EN, MacOS X 10.4 – Monitor : none
To make the comparison fair, here is the lowest end item, £200, from the same retailer: Its a tower from Esys.
CEL 2.4GHz ,256MB 40GB, CDRW LAN XP Home Midi Tower Word Perfect 1 Year RTB ESYPC003
This is a bit lower spec probably, though the processor means it will be a lot faster. You might need to add some memory, and you’d want a DVD Rom. But, it is £100 less, and its perfectly good hardware, and you get WP Office bundled in. If you want to spend the extra £100, (and there are lots of other offers from people like HP, Fujtsu, NEC and IBM in between) this is what you get:
Acer AcerPower FV – MT – 1 x Celeron D 335 2.8 GHz – RAM 512 MB – HD 1 x 80 GB – DVD – LAN EN, Fast EN – Win XP Pro
So basically it seems like the same story. But there is a catch, the Mini is a real one-off in terms of style, compactness and so on. The others are all traditional tower systems.
Question: if you could buy OSX to run on systems like the above, would it put the Mini out of business?
I would have thought not. I don’t think it would affect the Mini sales at all. If you really want that compactness and elegance, and are prepared to make the performance compromise (I couldn’t find a low end system with a 1.2G processor anywhere else!). It would just be all incremental revenue and profit.
So at the low end the situation is the same – comparable hardware is a lot cheaper, or at the same price, you get a lot more performance – but there is real differentiation, at least for now. If you look at fully built Shuttles, you get a much higher level of performance, but the prices are higher, and they are much bulkier.
So here the argument against unbundling fails for a different reason. The reason is that it would not be a threat. In fact, there might be an opportunity: to sell the Mini to run Windows or Linux or as a thin client, for people who want the unique hardware properties it undoubtedly has. And you would get all those extra OS sales.
It seems that the problem really is confined to their cost position at the upper end of the product line. Well, fix it, and you’ll do very well. What is the problem?
One thing you can’t value by comparing prices, or bundled software, or even hardware specs is this…
I spend more time USING my Macs than fixing them.
I spend time EACH DAY repairing problems with my Windows PC’s that I don’t spend with my Macs.
I’ve had to reload my main P4 3.2 Windows XP Pro machine 5 times since the first of the year, and my Mac Mini… not once.
I reloaded my G4 500 ONLY because I upgraded the HDD to 80gb and felt like doing a clean install of Tiger.
I could have just imaged the 40gb drive onto the 80gb without a problem.
The fact that I spend MORE time actually using my Macs than my PC’s (although my PC IS my main machine), is VERY valuable.
Also.. My Linspire machine is also just as stable. It also, has never been reloaded since I first loaded it up two years ago.
I upgraded it to 5.0 last year, as I upgraded all my Macs to Tiger, but that’s all.
It took about half a day to get my G4 back up to snuff. It takes a WEEK to reload my Windows system and reinstall everything…
Yes a lot of XP users might want to use OSX too but it’s a bit to much too buy also the hardware that comes with OSX,since they allready have the hardware.
Mac clones won’t and shouldn’t happen. Apple is a hardware company like Sun Microsystems rather than a software company like Microsoft. Letting in the clones would lead to Apple’s demise and hence I truely hope that it won’t happen. Not until Apple has been transformed into a software company with a GOOD share of the market, say 20-25% of the market. Before that Apple can’t survive and prosper on software sales alone.