http://www.osnews.com/story/4037/Bringing_the_Apple_to_the_Masses_--_An_Alternative_Theory Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:03:46 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Isnt that what they are already? They are cheaply built computers with a huge price tag. Maybe it makes sense to offer the same thing with a different name.

Case in point:
My client has a Titanium Notebook, purchased one year ago. Half way through the warranty it broke the soldered power connecter on the motherboard. Apple acknologed it as a problem and fixed it. 6 months later, 5 days after the warrantee expired, it broke again. A call to Apple. The response was, its WAY to expensive to fix now. So please buy a new one.
Lame.
It should fall under a lemon law.
I have looked into Macs hardware and most is cheap and crappy and sold to the apple crowd at very expensive prices.

So I am not so sure they should sell cheaper MACs maybe they all should be cheaper, cause they just arent built very well to begin with. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Nice idea. I'd almost certainly buy such a machine to run OS X. No way in Hell I'd buy a 'real' Mac at their prices. I doubt Apple are forward-thinking enough for this though, sadly. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? PC users aren't going to fork over the cash unless there's a real benefit involved. Your solution looks like it's something cheap for something cheap. Why would I want a Brand X machine if I can't do all the things I could do with a Mac and OS X? Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? good idea, if something like this will be available, many users like me who are interested in trying "apple compatible" computers definitely can manage to get one. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >No.



Yes.



>PC users aren't going to fork over the cash unless there's a real benefit involved.



With the same logic, why wanna try out Linux? Windows XP can do everything for you too. This machine is targetting switchers. And PC users who were "that close" to switch but price made them step back.



Plus, PC users are not the only customers here. Old G3 Mac users will want to upgrade too.



> Why would I want a Brand X machine if I can't do all the things I could do with a Mac and OS X?



Because it is a cheaper machine. Why do you ask for the full monty when you are not ready to pay for it?? Software is not cheap to create you know. Engineers are paid $$ to wtite it. If you don't want to pay for a Mac, you will get OSX Lite. And as I said in the article, you STILL can do EVERYTHING you can do with a Mac. OSX Lite is 100% compatible with Mac OS X, so all third party apps will work (e.g. VideoLAN or Fire) if you are not willing to upgrade to MacOSX. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >"apple compatible" computers

Exactly. It is like bringing back the Clones, but instead of UMAX and the other cloners making money off Apple's back, the money stays at Apple! It is like "Apple and compatibles" all over again, but with the difference that Apple controls the thing completely. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Macs aren't disposable machines like PCs, they are entire "integrated solutions", and you pay for getting to run a good OS. If your money means more to you than your time or patience, then get a PC. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? > Macs aren't disposable machines like PCs, they are entire "integrated solutions", and you pay for getting to run a good OS.

YES. This is true.

But BrandX is NOT a Mac!! It is a DIFFERENT product!

A new product which is almost as good as a Mac, runs the same OS pretty much (minus some extra features and iApps that are replacable) but it is cheaper and competes with these "crappy PCs". It is the answer to these "crappy PCs". And again, this is NOT a Mac! It is very important to remember this, in order to understand the proposal. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? To complete the new brand though, you'd have to rebrand MacOS X as well. Otherwise people would be like:

"I don't have a Mac. But I'm running Macintosh Operating System. Waaa?!"

But then rebranding MacOS X would be very hard, and cause a lot of confusion. You'd have two operating systems, the same but with different names.

Also, I would question the wisdom of using G3s. Most of the CPU time would be sucked up by the OS! You can get cheap PCs that aren't slow (like mine , I'm not sure that would provide a compelling alternative. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? > But then rebranding MacOS X would be very hard, and cause a lot of confusion. You'd have two operating systems, the same but with different names.

I don't see the problem. Linux has a zillion distros with different names. Windows have a zillion versions: Windows XP HOME, and PRO. Windows 2003 Server PRO/Web/Enterprise and two more that I can't remember their names.
"OSX Lite" is a good name as it is still OSX, but it doesn't include the word "Mac" into it.

> I would question the wisdom of using G3s. I'm not sure that would provide a compelling alternative.

(Un)fortunately, this is what Apple can offer today on a cheap range. It is a take-it or leave-it kind of thing. Plus, I don't think that the AMD Durons or even worse, the VIA Cyrix at 1 GHz are any better... Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Outside the USA I doubt there is much demand for OSX or Apple compatible hardware.

In Australia Macs are just novelties outside the graphics and multimedia areas.

I don't know a single person who has a Mac at home. It is not a money thing either. I live in an affluent professional suburb. Even multimillionaires in Australia usually buy whitebox PCs (my sister and best friend included).

My next door neighbour teaches multimedia at a university -even he doesn't own a Mac.

Most universities in Australia are OSX/Mac-free zones except for very limited life sciences (mostly os9) and multimedia use. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? as it exists even an opensource implementation, I think RendezVous should go in this "OSX-Lite". In the other hand, I'm not sure for integrating X11 (what's the interest for the average PC user ? and for Linux users, they will know how to put the other implementation of X11 via fink ...)
The others misses seems fairs.

The whole idea is intriguing... I think it should be sold by apple, even in applestore (but be eventually available in others retailers) as they already provides a distribution circuit, and they will be able to redirect people on "real" macintosh when needed, and emphasis that it's an entry level experience. I quite agree that the brand shouldn't be Apple or Macintosh... and you need rebranding MacOSX in "OSX" (with two versions, "OSX lite" and "OSX pro") (so people undestand that it's really not an Apple "experience"

About the ibook : I wholeheartly disagree to include it :-) because in my opinion, it's not a PC crap, it's a really, really good laptop with good components (yes, I'm typing this on an ibook debian/ppc :-)

Anyway, I don't believe that there is a chance that Apple will do that... too much trouble for not so much financial marge. But hey, it could be an interessting movement. I'd like they will test it. btw this barebone idea is good, it looks cool. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >Nice idea. I'd almost certainly buy such a machine to run OS X.

>I doubt Apple are forward-thinking enough for this though, sadly.

Though I applaud Eugenia's genuine commitment and thoughfulness in thinking about this 'problem', I think this sort of plan would be commercial suicide. Westyvw, your comments seem based more on your own value system than anything else. I've always considered my Macs extraordinarily good value, even when I was struggling to pay over $3000 for one. Now the people I know and teach can get a very decent mac notebook for just over $1,100 they're buying them like hotcakes. It all depends on what you do with a computer, and what value you place upon the things it offers. I wouldn't exchange my iBook for anything (well, maybe a 12" PB :-).

Eugenia, I'm not really sure what the business aim of your plan is. To increase mac market share? To make Apple money? To secure developers for OS X? I'm not convinced it would do /any/ of those, though it might have a small impact on the developer base, which I'm certain would be offset by the cannibalisation that you hope to avoid.

Most mac users I know aren't in the business of paying for luxury. They buy low-end iBooks, not 17" PowerBooks. Sure they could get Windows boxes cheaper, but they see the things they're paying a bit more for (HW/SW integration, elegant physical design, ease of configuration, excellent included apps) as non-negotiable essentials, not as extras.

It would cost Apple dearly to maintain two codebases (Mac OS X and OS X Lite as proposed), and customer confusion would be compounded by developers ignoring the things you see as peripheral (Rendezvous, iSync etc).

So Eugenia, I'm not criticising you for thinking about this (far from it!), just disagreeing with your logic. And I'd be interested to know what you really see as being the problem. By rights, Apple shouldn't exist at all. All the 'laws' of a 'standards' based market like Hardware/OS/Applications point to only one system existing now. The fact that Apple is still here, developing the Mac platform more than ever it seems, is a measure of their success, and points to the marketplace being a much more complex beast than your model takes account of. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? > I've always considered my Macs extraordinarily good value

Yes, but these are not Macs we are talking about here.

> Now the people I know and teach can get a very decent mac notebook for just over $1,100 they're buying them like hotcakes.

Yes, but Apple has no machines to compete with the low end trend here in USA, the $200-$400 Dell and no-name PCs. I don't know about the prices in UK, but the PC prices in USA are rock bottom. And Apple has no products to compete with those, they lose market share everyday. Hence, my editorials.

>Eugenia, I'm not really sure what the business aim of your plan is. To increase mac market share?

Yes. Apple fell to less than 2.5%, and a few months ago one of its chiefs said that their MAIN concerned lately was to get market share.

>It would cost Apple dearly to maintain two codebases

Not really. Not more different than Mac OS X Server and Mac OS X. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >Outside the USA I doubt there is much demand for OSX or Apple
>compatible hardware.

>In Australia Macs are just novelties outside the graphics and multimedia
>areas.

>I don't know a single person who has a Mac at home. It is not a money
> thing either. I live in an affluent professional suburb. Even
>multimillionaires in Australia usually buy whitebox PCs (my sister and
>best friend included).

>My next door neighbour teaches multimedia at a university -even he
>doesn't own a Mac.

>Most universities in Australia are OSX/Mac-free zones except for very
>limited life sciences (mostly os9) and multimedia use.

What does this post mean?
1) Australia is a unhappy country, they have no Macs :-))
2) Apples PR in Australia sucks or
3) Anonymous does not know how to recognize Macs .-))
4) His sister is a multimillionaire and I want her telefone number :-) Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Eugenia,

Well this seems to me like a good idea as long as the product is a well built product. Even if it is not put to market as a Macintosh people will still expect something which works great out of the box and some kind of customer service.

Will this be handle by Apple or outsourced?
You will also need to advertised and sale the brand, will that be done by Apple themselves.

You have a product (low cost solution to run OSX)
You have a price 400$ 500$
You will need promotion (costly)
You will need a place to sell it (web or supermarket?)

I reckon the main obstacle will be the cost of putting the thing the market initially. It takes big pockets to launch such a venture and it takes people with experience to make sure this company returns a profit.

If it has to be done, Apple should setup and entirely independant company to sale it and bring in some non Apple staff to run.
Being an Apple fan is a very dangerous thing when it comes to run a business.

Phil Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Most of you are wishing cheap apple computer... but why? I don't think it's in apple future to become the next mainstream machine. Anyway, not in a market like today. First, most of you buy PC's for 500$, whitout paying for an os. Put the price of Windoz on top of that and you're around 700$. And that's a cheap pc with a naked OS and no screen. For a hundred more you get an emac, full os x, full iApps and a 17 inches screen. And don't bring that megahertz thing on me... SGI systems have been the graphic machine of choice fot so long and they still sell systems at 700 megahertz. AND DO NOT FORGET, APPLE IS A HARDWARE COMPANY, THEY WILL NOT SELL CHEAP HARDWARE TO PLEASE THE I-WANT-OS-X-BUT-TOO-CHEAP-TO-PAY-FOR-IT GUYS AROUND, YOU WANT A PREMIUM COMPUTER, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR A PREMIUM COMPUTER. And remeber, in three years from now, you'll be selling your top-of-the-line-2003 computer for 100$ but the Apple machine will still sell for 400$ Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Repost it without the capitals please. We are not Slashdot over here.

And if it is someone who don't understand, it is you. Read some of my replies regarding market share and how Apple is losing today. The product we are talking about is NOT a Mac. Put that on your skull next time you reply. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? With cheaper prices you'll get people that are interested in different OSses. The number of people who currently have Linux installed, or ever tried to install it.

People don't buy macs, because they are afraid to do something different. They don't want to risk their money for buying something that might not be compatible with the stuff they do at work, stuff that they will do at work, and stuff their friends do.

Quite frankly people still have the idea that macs are incompatible and only for graphics people.

What apple needs is better marketing, worldwide not just in the us. They need to offer people a way to try a mac risk free. This can be done in several different ways:

Try-a-mac, where Apple gives you an ibook or imac for 60 days to try out, at a low cost. If you like it, buy the mac minus the cost you paid to rent it. Put trial software on it, such as office x testdrive.

Software-switch, give a list on the apple website of windows software manufacturers where you can buy a mac version of their software at upgrade costs. Try getting as much people as possible on board.

Education market. Get allot more aggressive on the educational market. Huge discounts for students and schools, give an alternative to the microsoft-software-rental, more free software and courses for teachers.

Enterprise market. It needs to be on the normal enterprise desktop, secretaries, call centers, marketing people,.. Offer a hardware replacement kit, so you are not dependant on Applecare. Market how good the TCO is, and mention the industry standard support (pdf, opengl, mpeg4, xml,..) so they are not locked in. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >Price is a fairly small issue

I am sorry, but this is not true. Proof:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3971 Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I would certainly be tempted to buy one for my kids at that sort of price! Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "What does this post mean?
1) Australia is a unhappy country, they have no Macs :-))
2) Apples PR in Australia sucks or
3) Anonymous does not know how to recognize Macs .-))
4) His sister is a multimillionaire and I want her telefone number :-)"

1)Australia is a very happy country overall...regardless of Apple
2) Apple Australia couldn't run a free brothel (as we say in OZ)- massively overpriced hardware (~20% above US prices)and virtually no dealers
3) I've owned 5 Macs - Classic, IISi,LC3 LC630, 7100/66
4) She is 48yo and happily married with 3 children Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think the author has clearly put a lot of time and thought in to this concept, and while the Lexus vs. Toyota idea is an interesting one, it does not apply. Computers don't compare to cars. Why? Because to make a computer reach massive end users, you need to use them in BUSINESS. Cars don't have to be used in business to be successful. Apple already has a computer that's cheap enough, only $799, and that includes the full OS X and a G4 with a monitor (the eMac).

Price is not the problem... anyone who says that Macs are too expensive are drooling over the ones that they can't afford... People who don't know better want to buy PC's cheap or otherwise because that is what they use at work... or that is what all their friends and family have. The switch campaign was a great idea... it may not have been taken to it's fullest extent though.

Apple is making moves to make their stuff more desirable to the business world, and that is the track that they need to continue to push. If businesses will switch (mostly because they are so freakin' fed up with Microsoft), then home users will also. Apple has stated that they have doubled their home user market share as a result of the switch campaign, but they have had little impact on business. They need some more stuff that makes them attractive to business users... some high end accounting software perhaps would be a good start.

Microsoft has a good product with Windows 2000 and XP, but there have been how many security flaws? More than I can count and they keep on coming. Not to mention the new SCREW-YOU pricing on their software licensing! Nahhh, Apple has a good thing. They just need to get a little more business desirability and leverage the security and licensing issues to their advantage. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I really don't see the point of trying to sell a Mac (or a PC for that matter) in this price range. The people that buy these types of systems just aren't good customers.

I seriously doubt that they are going to spend more on a copy of MS Office than they spent on their computer.

Regardless of the brand name, most people will still consider it a Mac. The main problem with the idea is the very real risk of damage to Apples brand for very little benifit. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I don't have much time, so I haven't read the other comments.

I think this is a sound plan. Thoughts:

- Apple should position this in its "digital hub" strategy. It should really come into its own when connected to other Macs. For example, information kiosks or near-ubiquitous home/work access of shared resources.

- 3-button mouse is good to bring up, but I think that these boxes should represent a "taste of OS X" so a 1-button mouse should be used. It shouldn't be as pretty as the current jelly mouse, but should have the good ergonomics.

- Should not be conveniently expandable.

- Should serve as advertisement for Apple. Also should make clear it's a Lite version somehow, perhaps in the Dock, menubars, startup and/or mouse. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If you use a PC (or Mac or Linux or BSD) at work you probably aren't going to use a different OS at home because of familiarity. Geeks are different - most people aren't geeks though.

Most people know Windows because they use it at work.

Many Munich city employees will probably install Suse Linux on their home machines. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Base eMac is 800 MHz G4, 128 MB RAM (many resellers boost to 256), ATI Radeon 7500 32 MB (not shared), higher quality 17" monitor, CD-ROM, bunch of free apps for $799.

Dell Dimension 2400 Value Model is Celeron 2.2 GHz, 128 MB RAM (shared) w/ Integrated Intel 3D graphics, not as good a 17" monitor, CD-ROM, WordPerfect for $699 (shipping extra).

Thus, I think that the eMac compares pretty favorably with the low-end Dell. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Lets all moan about how expensive and unatanable it is, lets make a SGI Lite as well that way more of use can have the power and a SGI machine at work or at home.

Mercedes...yeah they are expensive as well, lets make cheaper versions of them for the masses.

If you want an SGI workstation but an SGI!
If you want a Mercedes then buy a Mercedes!
If you want a mac...buy a mac!

I doubt Apple would ditch OS9 while trying to hype OSX and just for the masses create another OS, that being a lite version. Why don't i buy that as well and forget OSX alltogether?

What features should be missing from this lite version?

MacOS kernel is Darwin, it runs x86, you can use it if you want...its opensource...if you don't want to pay for the full thing then get linux instead...its another variant either way isn't it.
But people will say "its to difficult learning linux and implementing a Darwin kernel", its only as difficult as paying for a mac it seems. Some people are lazy and expect cheap computers, some other people just don't think to help themselves while alot of others make the effort with no fuss, buy it or don't buy it.

A better idea, leaving aside this nonsense is to better educate potential buyers when it comes to macs and forget this price/performance ratio we have when it comes to computer machines spitting out needless CPU cycles.

Example, i have a friend who is after a new machine which is fairly speedy, has optical disk writing capabilites and is easy to use, doing work from home. He is on windowsMe right now, discussing with him i find that he would be interested in a mac or another windows pcs, coming from win9x he would have to learn a new operating system either way. He also has a small house so he wants something space saving as well...and its got to be cheap. He is going to buy an eMac once he comes back off his holidays. He has simple needs so he is getting something simple...he doesn't need 3Ghz of processing power along with a Geforce FX either.

Better education of technology all round and with regard to apple as well. Not all power want suped up specs, some have real life items they search for in a computer, is it big, does it weigh alot, is it loud, what colour is it, will it go with the room i recently decorated?

Once people realise those attributes and apple is selling them with these characteristics as well, they can make better decisions on buying a computer and maybe they might see value in buying an apple once seeing them for what they are and what they do. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Apple needs to lower their prices, not raise them. The introduction of the G5 vastly improves the performance/price ratio and that's the way to go. I wouldn't want to run Mac OS X on a non-Altivec CPU (suich as the G3s of today) and I'd like to be able to upgrade the GPU rather than having it soldered to the mobo.

That said, I'm not targeted by Eugenias idea. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Base eMac is 800 MHz G4, 128 MB RAM (many resellers boost to 256), ATI Radeon 7500 32 MB (not shared), higher quality 17" monitor, CD-ROM, bunch of free apps for $799.

Dell Dimension 2400 Value Model is Celeron 2.2 GHz, 128 MB RAM (shared) w/ Integrated Intel 3D graphics, not as good a 17" monitor, CD-ROM, WordPerfect for $699 (shipping extra).

Thus, I think that the eMac compares pretty favorably with the low-end Dell."

Both are pretty crap machines. The Radeon 7500 is an graphics card...it has almost no 3D capability at all...about 1/10 of the GF4. Most shared graphics sets are pretty useless except for office apps.

256 MB RAM is the minimum needed.

A quality 17" monitor (Phillips, Samsung, Mitsubishi, CTX) is about US$150...cetainly better than the Apple or Dell. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If it looks like a Mac, runs like a Mac... Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? the title says it all, stupid fucking article--shame on osnews! Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1.) Most people (at least here in Germany) don't see any difference between Apple and the Mac. So if Apple would sell BrandX, people won't notice that it's no Mac and they would think all "Apples" were like them. Therefore I think Apple should not sell the BrandX machines at all, they should found a subsidiary company, so that people don't consider the BrandX to be "Apple computers"->Macs.

2.) I don't think Apple should stop offering cheap Macs. The BrandX computers should all be in the 250-350$ range while Macs are starting at 799$. That way, if you don't have much money, you can still get a Mac with great design, all the iApps etc (as it is now) and the BrandX would not compete with the Macintosh at all. No one would compare a 350$ machine with a computer that's more than twice as expensive. You could only compare BrandXs to cheap PCs and that would be a good thing, because that way the BrandX would not be seen as entry-level Macs, but as a differend Brand.

3.) iBooks have to stay Macs. PowerBooks are too expensive to be the entry-level Macs. And why should there be BrandX notebooks at all? Wal-Mart, e.g., offers very cheap Linux-PCs, but they don't offer notebooks. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? now these have come out, the G4's and G3's should have some sort of discount, a newer model has this effect whenever its realeased, just like the discounts with the current powerbooks, everybody who is in the rumour loop knows updates are on the way hence the price reduction.

Rather than Apple drop the price and the lowest machines however, instead they should stay the same price but upgrade them instead to something more recent. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Reminds me of how Commodore produced an A600 and an A1200 machine. All cost cutting and desperate dan marketing measures.

If Apple get into a cost cutting, depreciative spiral with PC makers, Apple will lose.

Apple needs to continue to work on the niche markets and keep its reasonable cost/profit margin.

Thus, you sell on 64 bit, Unix roots, Solid workstation, Good technology, Good OS, good software basis.

Apple has an opportunity to attack the high ground of SGI, SUN and others. It will not and cannot win a dog fight with low and medium PC areas, there is no money in that area and wishing for it just hurts Apple if they go there.

Do you really want to enter an area where a new machine gains the company a paltry amount of money? These machines would also simply be poor mans macs, and would put people OFF, which you do not want.

Apple should also cull the Emac and replace with a FLAT TFT screen and ultra small case design. Why? Ok, I'll tell you why, the number one request we get today is 'Give me a nice PC and I want a TFT screen so I get my desk back', and that is going to be massive. Apple are not going places with an Emac with CRT screen.

And no, people do not want an Imac that looks like a table lamp, sorry.

AdmV Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I wish i had some statistics regarding the mode of PC pricing. My understanding is that it is somewhere in the $1000 range. Perhaps it is lower now. Apple does not necessarily need to do a $300 computer. They just to be at the price point that people and companies usually pay for a PC. I don't think that is $300. It is a bit higher from what i last read. Apple will get more sales from the $1299 G4 and i'll bet they'll lower that in time to the $1000 to $1199 range.

Still the proposal could be a good way to stimulate adoption of the OS X. It makes it easy to enter into the market and easy to get into apple. Many people would likely buy a real apple after that. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Macs are nothing like Mercs.

Mercedes is the worlds fourth largest car maker.

Mercs are built to order in Germany - radios, alloy wheels, metallic paint, carpets etc. are optional extras.

Most vehicles with the Merc badge are vans, trucks and buses. Mercedes makes Freightliner heavy trucks. Mercedes also makes aircraft.

The cheapest C class Merc sells directly against the Ford Escort in Germany.

Most taxis in Germany are diesel Mercs.

Merc has cheaper brands - Chrysler, Mitsubishi and Smart

Merc is like Dell, HP and IBM - nothing like Apple Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >>No.

>Yes.

No!

>>PC users aren't going to fork over the cash unless there's a real benefit involved.

>With the same logic, why wanna try out Linux? Windows XP can do everything for you too. This machine is targetting switchers. And PC users who were "that close" to switch but price made them step back.

Hit the nail on the head. That's another issue preventing Linux takeup. XP comes preinstalled, why take the bother to repartition, install, blahhdy blahhdy blah when everything's already set up with XP and Office? The only incentive for Jane/Joe User to switch to Linux is if one is running a more unstable Microsoft Windows version, such as one running off the 9x kernel.

>>Plus, PC users are not the only customers here. Old G3 Mac users will want to upgrade too.

Not all of them will. Since Classic's not included, how will pre-OS X customers transfer OS 9 applications for use on their OS X machine? The only winners here would be G3 users who have bought OS X, and applications already and are merely seeking a cheaper but faster machine.
However there's still no clear incentive to "switch" from a PC: applications won't be transferred (unless one purchases Virtual PC, an extra cost overhead), and re below, iLife apps aren't included.

>> Why would I want a Brand X machine if I can't do all the things I could do with a Mac and OS X?

>Because it is a cheaper machine. Why do you ask for the full monty when you are not ready to pay for it?? Software is not cheap to create you know. Engineers are paid $$ to wtite it. If you don't want to pay for a Mac, you will get OSX Lite. And as I said in the article, you STILL can do EVERYTHING you can do with a Mac. OSX Lite is 100% compatible with Mac OS X, so all third party apps will work (e.g. VideoLAN or Fire) if you are not willing to upgrade to MacOSX.

I'm not asking for the Full Monty, but potential users of this new hardware will be. The key issue is the incentive to switch: this hinges around what this new offering has that will make a PC user want to use this offering. Since software's not included, as you said yourself: "Non-core applications that are not included: iSync, iChat AV, iMovie, iPhoto, DVD player, Sherlock, iCal", and the nontransferrence of a PC user's existing software, then it hinges on speed, and that's a whole another ball game -- and speed's becoming less of an issue anyway

Then all this machine is useful for is to use other Mac OS X apps such as Office et al. So the uptake for the machine becomes dependant on a "killer app". The iLife suite you just described is somewhat better executed on a Mac, so without that, then it hinges on paying for the upgrade to the 'full' OS X, then there's an extra cost. This hypothetical machine would fare much better with the full OS X suite of applications. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It doesn't work. People will not buy these new brand because they want Macs for theirs design and charm. People will not buy a crippled, unknown and incompatible (with the PC world) hardware to run linux. Geek people (that likes linux) will prefer to buy a powerfull PC to run linux.

And if this new brand comes with MacOS X "Lite", people will use pirated copies of MacOS X on it, as people use pirated Windows XP Professional Corporate instead of the crippled Windows XP home. This fact will be bad for Apple sales...

And Macs or Apple products are not popular outside USA. The only chance to Apple's hardware becomes popular here is licensing to chinese motherboard makers, like Asus, Soyo, etc. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? you missed the point...if you want to buy something then buy IT, not some carbon copy or lite version.

I wasn't comparing mac TO mercs. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Eugenia, I think this is a brilliant idea. It targets the correct audience and it will do so without taking sales away from the higher end line. The only change I would make would be to include iPhoto with the list of apps. Other than that, I think we have a winner. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? During the 20s and 30s Mercedes was forced to build affordable bicycles because the German economy was so bad.

Apple is more like TAG - a glitzy case covering a cheap mechanism - backed up by heavy marketing hype. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I sympathise as a fellow aussie but...

30% of computers in NSW Department of Education are Macs
also these large organisations use Macs
University of Melbourne (5,000 Macs; they also have PCs)
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne (500 Macs and 180 PCs)
Burnett Institute, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne
Edith Cowan University, Perth WA (600 G4s, 100 iMacs, 50 Powerbooks)
Queensland Police Service (but not as many as they used to
University of Queensland, Faculty of Biological and Chemical Sciences
Department of Cartography, Government of Tasmania
Phillips Fox (lawyers) several large practices in Australian cities
Flight Centre chain of travel agents
Optus (have some in some of their stores)

Let's both you and I write to the new MD of Apple here in Australia - he's from Dell so he should know something about marketing ;-) Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Eugenia,

From the reaction on this board it looks like you are onto a winner, everybody would like it too work but.

There are many worries about brand cannibalisation:
If it looks like a Mac, if it works like a Mac...

There are worries about not finding the iApps:
I need iPhoto, or without the iApps it's not worth it etc..

Nobody sees the point as a Linux box:
If I want linux I build my own PC box.

Usuers want to be able to upgrade the Videocard:
This card sucks, I can't play game and so on.(joe/jane average used to spend 400 bucks usually to play game.

To get back to my original post

You have a product (low cost solution to run OSX)
You have a price 400$ 500$
You will need promotion (costly)
You will need a place to sell it (web or supermarket?)

There is a way out of it, don't sell it to the general public, don't sell it on the web but sell in the enterprise market.

This price is exactly what corporation pay for their machine, they usually want low specs, they don't care about videocards or iapps.
All they want is a cheap box which runs Microsoft office.

So you OEM office with it, you offer it with or without screen and you let IBM sell it under their brand.

IBM will be able to sell more G3, rentabilise their factory investment and will be less dependant from intel.

The users will be able to test a Mac at work and eventually buy one for their home.

They will not be installing pirated softwares on it to get MacOSX features.
You are not cannibalising entreprise Mac sales because theyre is no such things as entreprise mac sales.(I mean more than 1000 presons entreprise and government office)
and the support issue can be handle through your usual IBM helpdesk.

This is the only scenario where you will sell more Macs increase the market share without killing Apple sales or without going downmarket with the usual quality issues.


Phil Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Sure this would attract the consumer who's just looking for a cheap machine to do simple word processing with, but the reason I, for example, have always shunned Macs, is the price/performance ratio, not price period.

I'm not interested that much in how much it'll cost, but I do care if I'm getting better value for my money. The main use for my PC is music production, and I need all the raw calculation power I can get for software synthesizers, samplers and audio effects.

Sure, G5 when it comes out will probably -- unless the benchmarks are completely fabricated -- be faster for that than any PC. But the price tag will be already SO much higher that there is simply no point for me, as I'm not, yet anyway, making millions. Same for Pro Tools and its hardware DSP solutions.

And after the programs that divide audio processing load over Ethernet become reality (Steinberg already provides one that works with optical audio, but obviously it's not as handy), which will be soon enough, that'll effectively signal the end of the hardware DSP era and will just incredibly increase the amount of PCs in the music industry, unless Apple has some really competitive pricing in mind and soon.

I never buy the fastest PC a money can buy when I'm upgrading. You always pay a pretty big "fastest computer tax" for that. I always get the second or third fastest solution, whatever indeed has the best price/performance ratio, from either Intel or AMD depending on which one is, again, offering a better ratio. Unless Apple can sell me a computer that competes in this category and wins in simply raw performance, I don't consider myself a potential buyer at all, despite my interest in MacOSX and other Apple-only commodities. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Eugenia, great post and great idea. This is the sort of interesting discussion I enjoy here at OSNews.com.

However, I disagree with your thesis. In my opinion, I still think the right idea is to cut the price on the low end eMac and sell it for say $499 or something like that. Treat it as a loss leader. People are going to have to shell out money to make the switch software-wise, so the thought process should be gathering as many users as possible. Once people have made the switch by spending $499 on a cheap eMac plus who knows how much to switch their software (MS Office, games etc) then you have people hooked. They'll pay $129 to upgrade to Panther. They'll pay $99 for the .Mac service (which rocks, btw). They'll buy music from the iTunes store. And, maybe, just maybe, they'll one day upgrade to a nicer iMac, or ibook, or G5 or whatever where the profit margins are higher.

Selling a cheap eMac won't cut into the sales of the higher end machines because established Mac users who already own a G4 or an iMac won't buy the cheap machine. They've already made the switch, so it's not as expensive for them to move up to a nicer machine. Once you buy Office and RTCW for the Mac, then it's easier to upgrade machines in the future.

I honestly think the way to get people to switch is to offer them a cheap eMac with regular OSX. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I cannot believe your article!!!!!!!
"OS X lite"??? Please, my friend, go get some rest and think it over!

Even on crippled PCs you can run a standard edition of windows that HAS an addressbook, a messenger, and email program and so on and so forth! Apple cannot compete if they have OS X lite! (or whatever the company is).

Furthermore, I think this idea is OK for brandX but for apple... I think this is a bad move! Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "I sympathise as a fellow aussie but...

30% of computers in NSW Department of Education are Macs
also these large organisations use Macs
University of Melbourne (5,000 Macs; they also have PCs)
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne (500 Macs and 180 PCs)
Burnett Institute, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne
Edith Cowan University, Perth WA (600 G4s, 100 iMacs, 50 Powerbooks)
Queensland Police Service (but not as many as they used to
University of Queensland, Faculty of Biological and Chemical Sciences
Department of Cartography, Government of Tasmania
Phillips Fox (lawyers) several large practices in Australian cities
Flight Centre chain of travel agents
Optus (have some in some of their stores)

Let's both you and I write to the new MD of Apple here in Australia - he's from Dell so he should know something about marketing ;-'"






This probably represents at best 20,000 Macs in total.

Many of them would be older OS9 machines. A lot of life science software is only available on OS9 (I was a biotech postgrad). They often bundled a 'free' Mac with the (very expensive) software. I wouldn't be suprised if many of the machines are in use are pre-G3 vintage. My lab at Griffith Uni was still using a Mac Classic as late as '97. I expect a lot of this type of scientific software has or will be ported to Windows or Linux.

The 45 or so Australian unis have around 1 million students - and probably no more than 20,000 Macs between them, probably more than half are running OS9 or earlier.
The Windows:OSX ratio is probably something like 50:1 or greater in most Australian universities. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I like this idea. Sell it cheap to the enterprise segment. That would give apple a huge boost in sales and use and save the brand and image. Plus, it would stimulate consumers to buy macs since they'd be using them at work. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I was to add on to that point about the exaggerated demand for OS X.
As is little known I grew up in greece. Now Macs in greece are viewed by greeks for

1) people with a lot of dough
2) graphic artists
3) Multimedia Specialists
4) Hobbyists
5) The academia

In Greek colleges and universities not many macs exist, and people look upon them as inferior even though they are not. EVERYTHING is windows in greece, and this wont change for the foreseeable future. There is only a small percentage of hobbyists around in greece that even wants to experiment with other OSes (for the x86 architecture). What makes you think that people would buy brandX as opposed to a cheap as dirt PC? And secondly who would market it? In greece Rainbow S.A. has the apple dealership rights (and in my opinion they have royally f*ck*d up the platform making it inaccessible to people, only have 3 apple stores in all of greece and not having any leasing/payment options when the sub 1000euro PCs COME WITH SUCH LEASING/PAYMENT OPTIONS!!!!!

Furthermore with an OS X lite, you only get the eye candy of OS X, you dont get much of the functionality that we mac users like about OS X, therefore you are tainting people's image of OS X and the Mac hardwaren that it runs on.

Yes I know it's brand X, but people who buy these cheapo PCs and want them to do serious graphics work (misconceptions) might think that since this cheapo PC cant do it, the whole platform cannot do it...therefore it further discourages people from going one step up and getting a real mac! Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Unfortunately Apple has already tried this; remember Umax and Power Computing? Most people don't, Apple put the nail in that coffin a long time ago. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You're wrong on a few points, although the idea has merit.

The G4 doesn't cost much more than the G3. Apple can already sell an eMac with an internal display for $700 in the education channel. Instead of creating a whole new G3 design, just repackage the eMac mobo and parts in a case without a display. Maybe this turns the eMac into something Apple can sell for $500. People will spend $700 for a PC plus monitor.

The new box should be Apple branded. It should include the full version of OS X. It should support classic mode. It should be a full Mac in every respect. It should also come bundled with AppleWorks and the other apps that come with an eMac, iMac, or iBook.

The machine should have enough memory for decent performance under OS X -- 128 MB just doesn't cut it. 256 MB is adequate, and the stores could work to sell consumers another 256, 512, or 1024 MB stick for really good performance.

The design should be attractive, but not as refined as the current Macs. It should have two internal drive bays, two bays for CD/DVD drives. It should look like a personal computer and fit comfortably with a run of the mill CRT display. Add a new CD burner and it *shouldn't* look out of place.

It should include support for Windows USB keyboards in the OS. No more need for a third-party driver.

As you suggest, no AGP. Onboard video. A single built in speaker -- and sell nice speakers as an extra. Room for an AirPort Extreme card.

Two new features: USB and FireWire ports on front (not just the back -- like the G5) and a PC Card slot (instead of PCI) for future expansion, flash card readers, etc.

Size? Maybe 8" wide, 8" high, and 8-10" deep. Give it a handle so it's easy to take to LAN parties. ;-)

Call it the iCube -- unless Jobs has a coronary at the suggestion.

Dan Knight, Low End Mac Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >The Windows:OSX ratio is probably something like 50:1 or greater in most Australian universities.

Not at UNSW. Most of the labs are running Debian Linux on x86. There is 1 Windows and 1 Macintosh lab running OS X. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? First of all let me say im really surprised at the people who basically say they don't want to fork over money for a new system or something to the equivalent. Do you plan to keep your old POC system forever or what? Because every PC Company (DELL,Gateway,HP,etc.) are selling many PC's so apparently lots of people are forking over the money for new systems.

Personally as a switcher long before that campaign ever started i think apple has a lot to offer but is going about their advertising all wrong. They need to have more commercials showing Mac OS X in general and it's capabilities. You should show students in mixed environments (like me) and them using Mac OS X and Virtual PC or RealPC/Softwindows (if it comes out soon and is good) and teachers using OS X and so forth and show commercials for their hardware. I mean if nothing else continuosly advertise the PowerMac G5/eMac and another commericial for the PowerBook/iBook. I mean thats all DELL does is attempt to make some quirky joke and then show their hardware. DON'T show pro graphic designers,etc using it (we all know people think of this when they think Mac and we don't need more of it.) Just show lots of people like the switcher campaign ads and show them actually using Mac OS X and the iApps or whatever. If they did that and hardware commericals and kept the consistency going like Dell does then they could do wonders for their marketshare without publishing another product. :-) Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Hell yeah. I'm a Mac user now and it would make an excellent second computer. The thing is, in terms of usability and technology Apple are ahead of Microsoft now, and OS X makes Apple suitable for power users too, in particular the astounding number of Unix apps available through Fink etc. (i'm writing this on Konqueror in OS X, having the KDE panel and OS X dock sitting next to each other is rather frightening!). This would be the perfect time to scoop up some converts. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I have to concur with one of the other posters. Home users get Windows PCs because they use them at work. They don't want to learn a new system. Plus, they can take (pirate) software from the office to use at home. This has silently been encouraged by Microsoft until recently (now that they no longer have to strive to gain a monopoly). Look at the old license scheme that took a string of 1's to install their products!
When businesses start seeing a value to adding Macs to their environment, they will bring them in and train their users. Once the users get familiar with it, if they like the experience, they will get a Mac for home (assuming they are available at a reasonable price).

So how do you
a: Get businesses to buy Macs
b: Give the users a good experience

a: Integrate easily into an existing environment so that the IT department is willing to accept them. This primarily means good Active Directory support. Good support for NDS or NIS is a plus.
They must be remotely manageable from windows PCs - IT doesn't want to machines per desktop just to manage these things. Windows PCs can currently administer Windows, Unix, Netware, Vines, OS/400, Mainframes, etc with graphical tools in most cases.
They must support business apps compatible with existing Windows ones. This means getting vendor support or building a Windows emulation layer into the OS. Many offices use Access - often written by a small vendor who can't afford to support multiple platforms. You can't force the business to rewrite these, they won't do it.
You have to do these things better than Windows, else there is no reason to switch except for political reasons - that ain't good enough.

b: Provide good performance so that the users don't groan when they switch.
Give them some easy to add eye candy (they love screen savers, wall paper, sounds and icons)
Don't force them to change all their habits right away - common keyboard shortcuts, r-click menus, etc can't change all of a sudden. Give a 'Windows keyboard' option like Word used to have a WordPerfect emulator.

I'm sure you can add more to this. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Not everyone uses computers in their line of work. May sound foreign to the geeks here, but when you think about it, a relevant fact. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? MacOs X Su> Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? First, and most glaring, is your idea for OS X Lite. Bad, bad idea this is.

DVD player is essential. Combo drives are under $50 retail. Any box - even a low end one - needs a DVD player. And what good is a DVD player without DVD playing software? Bad call.

iMovie and iPhoto are big selling points for Apple. Yes, you want to brand your box something different. But these boxes you propose will not win the business market. That's still a few years off. Any low-end box will have to be initially aimed at the home market. Stripping out two of the biggest selling points to home users is not going to be a winner.

Why take out Rendezvous? Mac OS X is all about ease-of-use. Yet you want to remove a feature that makes them easy to use? Same goes with iSync. Why take out iPod and .Mac sync support? It's silly.

No, this whole OS X Lite idea is just plain daft. Apple already has OS X. It doesn't have to piece it together from 3rd party apps that cost money. In fact, creating this new version of OS X is going to cost Apple to make (lowering even further the margin on these boxes).

Now, on to the boxes themselves. Apple would be foolish to dilute their brand. It would confuse the marketing effort and lower their marketshare numbers. (aside: do you know why the Toyota Solara was called the Toyota Camry Solara? so its sales would help the Camry become the best selling car in the US) Apple doesn't need those kind of problems.

Mac can be a premium brand without being an expensive brand. It just needs to be "more expensive" than a comparable PC (with better design, great OS, etc...) to achieve your goals.

I totally disagree with the premise that a new low-end box will leech sales from the PowerMac line. It would steal sales from the eMac/iMac and it would cause sales of used Macs to drop. But even if an 867Mhz G4 was put in the box it wouldn't be close enough in performance to a 1.6Ghz G5 to warrant attention from someone needing that much power.

And there is no reason to come out with 3 models. A new low-end model should be a single configuration (for store sales) or configurable when ordered over the web. A low margin model shouldn't have three different configs sitting around in stores waiting to be sold.

The new model would just replace the eMac. Again, why confuse the marketing effort by having three low end systems (iBox, eMac, iMac) and different models of two of them? That's the kind of foolishness that hurt Apple in the early-mid 90's. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I was cheering along with the contents when it was about making another brand name for the Mac. I completely agree. The Mac has evolved from its "computers for the rest of us" roots and gone to "the best computing money can buy."

So yes, Apple would do well to make an intro computer with another brand. Agreed.

However, when the article started talking about crippling things... that's where I disagree. This new brand should simply have the goal of, "make a streamlined computer that is as cheap as the PC equivalents" and let it go at that. If it means onboard video, fine. If it means having an AGP slot, fine. Whatever. But having a "Lite" version of OSX will just be more of a PITA for Apple than anything else. Better to keep the OS as simple as possible: Server and Client. That's it.

Where the user will be limited is in the hardware. If the computer is a G3, no altivec optimiziation. No superdrive. That is a lot of why people are buying the higher-end Macs nowadays. The user will be able to do simple stuff, but why get rid of iSync, Rendezvous, Inkwell, and the rest? The point is to evangelize those products, to make them have wide appeal and to show the power of the platform, esp. to people that might later go on to buy more expensive stuff (and if they aren't going to but more expensive stuff, then you wouldn't have gotten their money anyhow). Also, the point is to move the average consumer's money from Dell or gateway to Apple, to extend the userbase. If you cripple the system, people are not going to adopt it, and the point of the cheaper system is useless.

Also, I think many people in the PC world are afraid of the way Apple traditionally cripples their machines. Onboard and crappy video, integrated CRT/LCD, and no upgrade path except in Apple hardware (no 3rd parties). I know that MacHeads rail against this, but darn it, let people upgrade their machines! Sure, have integrated everything, but add an AGP and 3 PCI slots for those people that want to add the extras that they need. Let people pick what monitor they want to have. Make a list of compatible hardware easy to find so people can go out and grab that extra optical drive, or PCI card, or whatever.

By the way, that is another reason the Mac doesn't get the support it needs: the computer industry sees Apple as wanting to get ALL of the pie. MS just wants the OS and application pie, but lets the hardware people fight amongst themselves for the hardware. Apple wants it all, and therefore doesn't get the support in drivers that it needs.... what if that chnaged a little? What hardware would be supported based on a detente with component manufacturers?

The thing is, Apple is so worried about canabalizing PowerMac sales (and by extention, MacHeads are worried about it, too), that they are losing sight of this whole computer revolution we are having: cheap computers for the rest of us, not just the rich. Which is why the Mac is no longer the computer for the rest of us....

What will be cannabalized is the iMac line, and good riddance. The powermacs I can see being expensive because they are Power Power Power, but the iMacs have gotten progressively MORE expensive in a market that has demanded less expensive product. The new LCD iMacs are slick, but they are way too expensive, when I can get a comparable Dell box for 1/2 the price (and the only real difference is that it runs XP instead of OSX). And I hate saying that, because I am as loyal a MacHead as anyone.... Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The specs listed are, no offense, pretty stupid. the whole point of making an integrated machine is that you don't want different mobos. The "ultimate" would require a different mobo because of the firewire800 (??) and USB.

Why be skimpy on the USB connectors? Jeez, give all of 'em 4 USB 2.0 slots, keep the Firewire400 instead of the 800, and lower the Ultimate price to about $699 (even that is pushing it). Without firewire, you won't evangilize all the really cool stuff out there, like iChatAV, etc. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I Agree. I Live in Israel, and here the conditions are the same.

I'd really want a Mac, mainly because of the "Apple Touch", but I won't I will get
one any time soon mainly because of these reasons:

1) Hebrew support: I wouldn't use something that does'nt support my native language,
would I? This area probebly got better with recent Unicode support and support for
viewing hebrew web pages with Safari and Mozilla (But it's not enouth for the average
israeli user to use a Mac for home and office tasks which are a bit more elementry then
editing video).

2) The market is controlled by one and only company, so the prices are high and the service
is not so high.

3) Price: the most important reason: For instance an "authentic" first-hand entry level eMac
consts at the Yeda Apple Store 5067 New Isreali Shekels (which is 1164 USD). A high-end
one costs 7976 NIS (which is 1833 USD).

When I checked the prices of the new G5 Macs, I got stroke: 11,473 NIS for entry level (2637
USD) and a whooping 17,302 NIS for high-end (4000 USD). Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >"The Windows:OSX ratio is probably something like 50:1 or greater in most Australian universities.

Not at UNSW. Most of the labs are running Debian Linux on x86. There is 1 Windows and 1 Macintosh lab running OS X."

I agree-Linux on x86 is probably much better choice for general use computers in Unis than Windows or OSX. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I can just read the review:

BrandX, a purposely crippled machine made by an Apple subsidiary...

...if they'd only spend a couple more dollars to add some of the missing features, like an AGP slot instead of their limited built in video...

Conclusion: why buy a crippled Mac, even if Apple isn't calling it that? Either save up the money for a real Mac, or buy a good low-end PC. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? What does this post mean?
1) Australia is a unhappy country, they have no Macs :-))
2) Apples PR in Australia sucks or
3) Anonymous does not know how to recognize Macs .-))
4) His sister is a multimillionaire and I want her telefone number :-)


1) There is one Apple store in the whole of Canberra. The size of Canberra is 300,000-400,000. Even Wellington has more Mac shops that that and its population is only 115,000.

2) Apples Australian PR does suck. Again, as I have said, they are too US centric. It is though Steve Jobs considers that the world stops at the shores of the US. Maybe he should jump on a plane visit this mystical "over seas".

3) The average computer in Australia is $1500-$1800 including a screen, normally 17 inch. There is nothing stopping Apple from competiting in such a market.

4) The US can keep those crap $200 computers. If it is anything like the beef industry, I'll be happy to pay for them NOT to come to Australia. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? " In Australia Macs are just novelties outside the graphics and multimedia areas"

lol- a suprising comment from a fellow ozzie.. So you can speak for all of then, eh? --LOL
A sweeping statement such as the one you posted- really shows one of two things:
1) You just have a personal dislike for Apple, so you choose to direct negative information at them at every opportunity given. or
2) You honestly dont know any better )

you really cant be that missinformed.. can you? Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You don't like it that Apple is the only company that controlls the mac, when your pc is really controlled entirely by Microsoft (unless your running Linux) the only difference is that there is a different hardware company that will attempt to help you if something goes wrong hardware wise. But pretty much Microsoft owns your PC for the most part, and when the Palladin comes out then your system will really be owned by Microsoft. I know people who are aware of macs and have tried OS X some who say the instant palladin comes out they will go out and get a mac.

Nobody complains about Sun Microsystems and Solaris or IBM and AIX or their other OS's, yet you have a problem with Apple? If the only problem with this is when the company is bad and makes bad decisions for their products. People have gotten the wrong idea about some companies controlling aspects of their products wrong mainly on account of microsoft being monopolistic. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You were tired! You want to not include features, fune, but your list includes things that are WHAT MAKES A MAC A MAC and things that are PART OF THE OS ITSELF! AAAAAAAAAAAAGGHHHHH! Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You mean, you want a reasonably priced PowerPC+OpenFirmware that is able to run PC-components? http://www.pegasosppc.com should help. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Holy shit....

I think a majority of us Australians are really missinformed :O

"The average computer in Australia is $1500-$1800 including a screen, normally 17 inch. There is nothing stopping Apple from competiting in such a market."

Good job they are, eh


com'on fellas- this is embarrasing. For the record- we're not all hermits ) Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "" In Australia Macs are just novelties outside the graphics and multimedia areas"

lol- a suprising comment from a fellow ozzie.. So you can speak for all of then, eh? --LOL
A sweeping statement such as the one you posted- really shows one of two things:
1) You just have a personal dislike for Apple, so you choose to direct negative information at them at every opportunity given. or
2) You honestly dont know any better )

you really cant be that missinformed.. can you?"

Yeah I really must hate Macs...thats why I have previously owned 5 of them. The point is Macs no longer have a compelling reason for most people to purchase. OSX is no easier to use or more stable than XP Pro. The hardware is mostly cheap oem wintel. Lack of software, poor price/performance. Lack of retailers in Australia. Apple lost most of its advantages by the late 90s.

I don't hate Macs...I just think they are largely irrelevant- so does 90+% of the population. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? html never has my strong point Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Actually Apple doesn't controll all of the Macs in Israel. Yeda soulutions does it on Apple's behalf. I'm not talking about them to controll your computer directly. I'm talking about Yeda being the only one that imports and sells them, unlike the PC market where you have lots of compettion so the prices arn't so high and the support of the users is better.

Speaking of Paladium, you can never know for sure in property operating sytems. Mybe tommorow Apple will put something in OS/X and won't tell about it. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You've got me sold! I want one!

Although I think the one market this will really eat into is the Linux market. But then I would rather run OS X "lite" over Linux anyday.

Think I'll pick up one of the $500 models. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? compiled a version of OSX that ran on intel hardware and sold it for $99? I'd buy two or three. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "I don't hate Macs...I just think they are largely irrelevant- so does 90+% of the population."

well thats a fair call- as far as your personal opionion goes- however market share doesnt reflect the sentiment of a nation.
Most people dont know any better than wintel, but thats forgivable )
I do agree the 90's really fucked the perception of Apple here in Oz- due to Jobs getting arsed; but since he came back- I can see a sdeady flow of people who are finding Mac's preferable. and now with King promoted to MD here, coupled with the release of the G5, I think things will get even brighter.

further, who gives a toss about market share?
I have a fantastic wallet- I'll keep it till it crumbles, because its my personal preffrence. I really dont care about the manufacturers market share in the walet making word- All I care about is the fact that its still making wallets for some time in the future.
Same princible goes for Apple )

And please- enough with the sweeping statements regarding what our nation rational Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? While your idea is cool, I don't get one point:
Why do you doing this? Don't get me wrong, this isn't ment negative.
But why are you investing so much for your time in workung out this concept? Did Steve call you and ask for assistence? ;-))
Or is it just foolin' around with business-concepts and ideas?
Too bad that you're not allowed to work in the US Apple could hire you to build the new BrandX unit.

regards,
Ralf

P.S. Did you know that BrandX was a rockband of the seveties? Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? RE: IgKh (IP: ---.inter.net.il)

Or do you mean YODA systems; "Buy a Mac you will" ;-)

Reply...

I've been contemplating, and here is a solution. Scrap the iLamp and eMac, start from sratch:

1) Replace the Openboot with EFI. The benefit to Apple is this, rather than requiring the graphic card BIOS be compatible with Apples firmware, as so long as it supports BIOS (EFI has backwards compatibility), it should work.

Net result: Apple can source graphic cards from any vendor without the need for special modification to get working.

2) Replace the case with something simple. The cost of the eMac and iMac casing make up atleast 1/3 of the total cost of production. Make the case simply but funky. Take a look at SGI's desktop line up such as the Indy, Octane or even the O2 for inspiration.

3) Offer CRT screens again. The vast majority AREN'T going to pay AUS$1299 for an LCD TFT display.

4) Boost the CPU and FSB speed. 133Mhz today is a joke, infact, a very BAD joke indeed. I am not saying to have a 800Mhz bus, but atleast get G4 FSB running at 266Mhz and the CPU speed at around 1.25Ghz.

5) Outsource production. The make the same mistake as SUN, continuing to think that they can make it themselves. Look at IBM, as soon as they outsourced their PC production, costs dropped, prices dropped and IIRC, their PC division turned a profit.

6) The world doesn't stop at the borders of the US. Market to every tom, dick and harry who can afford a Mac and make the case to them WHY they should run a Mac instead of a PC. Use REAL LIFE examples no pre-arranged "customers".

7) Listen to grevinces that developers have. Don't dismiss them as "anti-Apple", sit down and listen. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Yes, that's right. Here, we find a iMac G3 600 Mhz CD(CRT) for US$ 1400, while a cheap PC (celeron 1800 15 inch CRT) costs less than US$900.
Is a big difference, since the average worker have a income of US$500/month. Actually this income is a little above the average worker, since the minimum wage is US$80 . I dont have statistics, but, i.e. a person with a good position, like me (i'm a java senior developer) usually don't make more than US$1500/month.
But the brand apple is very respected and wanted. And OS X is just lovely. Everyone want this.
A US$1000 Xbrand machine, backed by apple would be successful even here, in Brazil. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Yeda and rainbow are monopolies in Israel and Greece. They are the only ones that are "authorized" to sell macs in greece (and israel). As a result if I import a mac from another EU country or the USA, or if I buy from a non-authorized dealer, I am refused assistance and even when I have FULL WARANTY from apple herself, I cannot get my equipment repaired in Greece, I have to send it ti the UK or some other country to take advantage of the warranty! ARGH!

As for x86 MacOS X... how short memories you have! It was tried, it was called Rhapsody! It ran on PPC and x86, and developper spoke! There were double the amount of applications for the PPC than the x86!

Furthermore take a look at what offering an x86 version did for other companies like NeXT and Be! It killed off their own brand eventually killed off their OS! Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I built the following machine:
Athlon XP 2000+
512MB PC2100 DDR RAM
Geforce 4 MX440 SE 64MB DDR
40GB WDSE HDD with 8MB cache
52x24x52x CDRW
All for $314.

Will this pseudo-Mac be able to compete with this machine in terms of performance, gaming and otherwise? Not a chance. Why would I want to run a half-ass Mac compatible that is not even half the machine perofmance wise as the PC I built? To run OSX? Well the OSX that will come with this so-called compatible will lack iApps and other bells and whistles, which I can install Linux on the machine and enjoy the full benefits of games and office applications on a much faster machine. Even if I install Windows on it, the machine will be very fast and will be able to run anything but the very latest games at high resolutions. So I think I would stick with my little AMD. If I am going to get a Mac, I'll get the real one.

Just my $0.02 Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I have a 700MHz iBook, I'd love your OSX lite. Maybe they could turn off a lot of the annoying eye-candy to speed things up too!

Me, I _never_ use the iApps. Heck, I find OSX a little annoying and have been finding myself using YDL 3 on it more and more these days.

(Oh, and I like the idea of your low-end not-Apple Mac. They could just license Terasoft to do it to start, as a bit of a pilot project.) Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Buy used Macs! Deals can be found on used G3's and G4's.

When was the last time a PIII 500 was worth something? Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? To my knowledge, you cannot compile darwin without smp support. So squizing SMP from osx lite is not an option.


--
http://www.bebox.nu/registry.php Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Holy shit....

I think a majority of us Australians are really missinformed :O

"The average computer in Australia is $1500-$1800 including a screen, normally 17 inch. There is nothing stopping Apple from competiting in such a market."

Good job they are, eh


com'on fellas- this is embarrasing. For the record- we're not all hermits )"


eMac $AUD2499
1GHz PowerPC G4
256MB SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA drive
SuperDrive


CPU- slower than Athlon XP1800+ - an AUD$100 processor
Monitor - oem quality 17" - worth AUD$180 (about Likom quality)
RAM - obsolete, expensive, slow PC133
Radeon 7500 - worst performing 3D of almost any AGP card on the market (1/20th 3D performance of GF FX5200) - AUD$50 value (approx 1998 vintage)

Realistically thesystem is worth no more than AUD$1000 inc software.

Back in PC world:
All the following are available in an $AUD1500 system:

512 MB DDR333 . A 128 MB GF FX5200 AGP card. A P4 2.4 GHz . 800MHz bus speed. SATA. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'm not even sure if a Xbrand is even needed. It was mentioned earlier that a cheap, OSX solution would be a great entry for fulfilling the "digital hub" strategy. A small box(which can be used as a set top box) with a 700-900MHz G3 processor, integrated graphics card with S-Video, 40G HD , 256 system RAM (hell it could possible be shared). It would of course have the bells and whistles like USB2, Firewire (hold off on Fire800) and digital/ analog audio out (so that it can be used as a set-top). The computer can be marketed as a settop box (by one for the grandparents and buy them an iSight connected to the TV), however, include all the features needed for it to be a viable home computer. I would hope this would be Apple's goal when they are able to attain a large enough gap between their pro-sumer products and this Xbrand equipment. I right now, this sort of cheap box (400-700, depending upon capabilities) would cannibalize sales of eMac, iMac and possibly ibooks. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You must be either lying or stole that hardware. I have just tried to add that up and even taking into account the exchange rate plus GST, I still can't get a system priced that cheap.

Sure, PC's are cheaper, but not that cheap. When you hit $300, you hit the shit-house quality zone which one in the right mind would want to buy unless they're absolutely despirate to by a computer. When I mean despirate, I mean like an addict to getting his daily fix despirate. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I really like the idea of a cheap, headless system capable of running Mac OS X. But without upgradeable graphics it doesn't seem much less crippled than an eMac. If Apple were to create a system like that, I'd hope that they'd make it as upgradeable as equivalent cheap PCs. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I live on a college income and most of my money goes to purchasing books and I have a iMac and a cheapo Dell. If I can buy one anyone can. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I saw mentions of "OS X lite" and OS X for the PC. I think the lite idea is a bad one. But OS X for the PC a great one. Let me explain: first off IMHO Apple has a developper problem it uses Obj-c, as great a language as it can be it has a barrier to entry that is high: you need a mac!
Now for all of you thinking GNUstep, think again, it's visual appeal and user adoption is not that great. Hence I suggest apple try (because of the digital hub) create what the new Amiga was(should) to be an OE(operating environment). This means abstracting as much as possible from the hardware.
And this can be done in at least two ways:

1) port Aqua to work on all versions of Darwin (or *BSD) (PC and Mac) and sell Aqua separatly (for PCs) now all of you moaning here please note that Apple only supports the GUI for basic users not the underlying *nix. Apple should also tie it to the *BSD but just to Darwin will be enough. This will bring PC coders to actually have a use for Obj-c, to use something else than Windows, Something with a name that people recognise (linux is getting there among neophytes). Apple doesn't even need to support the hardware the GNUDarwin team is well on it's way to port driver support (this would be the easiest, and by far best choice from a marketing point of view)

2) Actually port their whole OS to PC and sell it. But with either:
a) specially chosen hardware
b) a driver's certification program where manufaturers pay to be certified

I really like number 1) because, it makes use of the userbase Apple is reaching out to : the geeks! I know that if I can get my "farm" to work with another OS than windows and be productive in the same way ( a state the gnome or KDE has not yet achieved to my liking). Plus the fact that I as a geek, influence many as much as 30 people on their computer buying habits. I know I would pay to buy Aqua for x86, heck I buy linux (Suse), openBSD, and FreeBSD CDs to support them.

But back to the digital hub an OS running on many platforms , ie an OE, with a programming API that makes porting just a matter of recompiling (no adjustments). it would make it a lot easier to push those expensive toys like the iPod, or their new webcam, because their user base, technology would be more present.

I think that apple staying on one platform is a bad move for a company doing so much R&D, look at IBM, the power4 is their technology but apple is using it! will they lose money? lose customers from their low-end linux workstations? no because they have made the best product for their consumers.
And for the analogies I can buy a BMW motor and hook it up to a Ford!! BMW doesn't loose when I do so it actually wins because it shows that they are the best in what they do.

( sometimes spending 200$ just for an OS is better than changing the whole computer) Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? What a waste of mental effort Eugenia...unless it wasn't that much effort.

Here is the solution, and it is very simple. License all G4 and below technology out to 3rd party cloners, while keeping the G5 to themselves. Apple keeps the cutting edge, and cloner can come out without harming the Apple high end. Apple sells more OSX to the cloners. Everyone wins. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Now for all of you thinking GNUstep, think again, it's visual appeal and user adoption is not that great. Hence I suggest apple try (because of the digital hub) create what the new Amiga was(should) to be an OE(operating environment).

1) It won't happend. Not while Apple is still largelly a hardware business.
2) GNUstep or related project already exists... If you are so interessted by OpenStep (and I fully agree with that you better try to join us and improve GNUstep rather than wait for a totally irrealist move from Apple. GNUstep's problem is lack of developers. GNUstep's advantage is the use of really good foundations (OpenStep + ObjectiveC).

on a side note, the GNUstep's look could be changed. I made various tests and even started a theme bundle (http://www.roard.com/camaelon). It needs works, but other things are perhaps more interessting in the short range than themes... Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? So I can buy a sloooooooowww G3-based Mac from 2 years ago (with a different label) for the price of a low-middle-range PC? Sweet!

The thing you forgot is that the G3 runs OSX slower than a turtle and is ancient technology. I had an iBook last year, and it lasted almost three days before aggravation destroyed any Mac lust I had ever had. Now I'm quite content (nay, happy) to cruise on my Pentium hardware with Windows 2000 - speedy, reliable, and I don't have to wait all day for a program to respond. Also less than half the Mac sticker tag. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Most people who buy PC's in the "Bargain basement" range want to spend the least amount of money. They get most of their software (games, etc) from PC owning 'friends' or through file sharing. They would not be interested in buying a mac because pirated software is limited in availability -they "don't know anyone who owns a mac anyway".

Selling cheap PC's is the way many smaller PC companies have gone out of business over the years - the only ones who can offord to stay in business recoup their costs from quantity of sales or from profits on the higher range systems. They would rather make a small profit than see a competitor make a sale. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "CPU- slower than Athlon XP1800+ - an AUD$100 processor"

Actaully- I think u'll find the value of a 800 - 1GHz G4 quite a bit more than a 100 bucks- correct me if Im wrong? + the resale value of a G4 is conciderably higher than an equivalent PIII

"Monitor - oem quality 17" - worth AUD$180 (about Likom quality"

I think you'll find that the eMac 17" flat screen is just a tad higher than Likom quality, and you would be hard presed finding a 17" flat screen for $180.. LOL

"RAM - obsolete, expensive, slow PC133"

hardly obsolete I will give you that it is no longer competitive however

"Radeon 7500 - worst performing 3D of almost any AGP card on the market (1/20th 3D performance of GF FX5200) - AUD$50 value (approx 1998 vintage"

2001 vintage actually - and on this one I have to agree, it is shithouse gfx preformence as far as todays cards go.

"Realistically the system is worth no more than AUD$1000 inc software."

hmm- I have to dissagree on that comment.
factoring all the other features like HDD size, firewire ports, 5 usb ports, software, OS, etc- its about righly priced. maybe 100 or so over- but then again if you like paying for quaility, then you wont worry about the extra buck ) Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? So I can buy a sloooooooowww G3-based Mac from 2 years ago (with a different label) for the price of a low-middle-range PC? Sweet!
Ahem.
The thing you forgot is that the G3 runs OSX like my Grandma's P-233 runs WinXP, ie, it's completely useless. I had an iBook last year, and it lasted almost three days before aggravation destroyed any Mac lust I had ever had. Now I'm quite content (nay, happy) to cruise on my Pentium hardware with Windows 2000 - speedy, reliable, and I don't have to wait all day for a program to respond. Also less than half the Mac sticker tag. So long Apple! Bad experiences kill any desire to switch, and I'll guarantee anybody trying to run OSX on a G3 (WTF!) will stick to Wintel next time. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "I'll guarantee anybody trying to run OSX on a G3 (WTF!) will stick to Wintel next time."

You "guarantee"? Really? Gee, I run OSX Jaguar on my 700 megahertz iBook and it runs awesome. So what do I get for proving your "guarantee" wrong?

Look around, first, before making blanket statements. There are tons of users over at the macaddict forums who are running OSX on iBooks and other G3 Macs without any problems. Maybe some, such as yourself, have problems of some sort. But, from my experience, those with problems are in the minority.

So, before you start flaming, ask yourself: am I making a stupid blanket statement? If yes, don't post.

Sheesh. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Please be so kind as to explain why G4 clones will increase profits for Apple.

And please refrain from magical handwaving (ala "it will increase market share") without any solid analysis to back it up. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Incredably poor idea. You are creating an illigitimate child and believe that the buyer will not recognize the parent. If Apple wants a loss leader they will probably use an existing box whose costs have been amortized and build it on the third shift in deepest China.

Apple supports software development with hardware profits. Buyers of a bare bones Mac/Chery will still demand Apple service. No profits, ergo bad idea. The enterprise market is Apple's target as can be seen in X-Serve and the generous license terms.

I am writing this on a B & W 400mg. G3 with lots of memory and OSX 10.2.6. Works fine for what I do. (If I need more capability I use my wises G4 iMAC.) If you want an entry MAC cheap, buy used. Mine cost $300 us.

Cheers,

V.M. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If Apple really wants to boost mindshare for OS X they only need to do one thing. License OS X to IBM for their portable and desk top offerings. If IBM was the only clone license, I don't think it would canabalize Apple sales. But instantly, apple would have a way into enterprise computing, a market from which they are almost entirely excluded. This new offering would reinforce IBM's linux/unix offerings by adding OS X and therefore add to it's stable of software. Also, IBM is not known for undercutting price. Further, in one quick move, it would change the world wide opinion of Apples position in the computer industry. Can anyone say Apple/IBM team work breaking down the Wintel Monopoly. Oh well, even though this is a great idea, I somehow don't think it has a snowballs chance in hell of happening. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? well, just a couple of things.

these ideas are cute and all, but i can't believe all the discussion that goes into them. i applaud the effort, but its really kind of silly to sit around and go "this is what they should do..." you aren't involved with apple, and for you or anyone else to be so vain as to believe you have a better strategy for them is ridiculous. i don't mean to be harsh, but its true.


secondly, apple (and windows) articles are mostly flame bait. so posting opinions as news just adds to the flaming wars and we all know how much those are liked anyway.

thirdly, having read the article, i simply dont agree. the computer industry is not like the auto industry and i'm fairly confident that this strategy would fail here. i can't site any facts of failure, but neither can anyone else of success so i'm safe in my statement.

the thing is, a mac is a mac. its not cheap, but its doable. you get a unique product for your price. it almost gives an elitest look to it, but thats kind of what it is. not everyone can run os x on every pile of metal out there and that makes is kinda special. i say let apple do what they do best. stick around and make good products. you can't fix what isn't broken. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >Price is a fairly small issue

I am sorry, but this is not true. Proof:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3971

I am sorry, but your poll isn't statistically interesting. It is targeted to people who actually give a fuck about computers. Polls on osnews are fun, but they don't mean squat. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Personally I think it's not a bad idea. On the other hand...
The whole OSX lite thing is the most horrendous, awful idea I've ever heard. DON'T FRAGMENT THE OS!!!! In doing so, Apple would be sinking to the depths of other OS makers. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? then start a company and write a business plan to Apple and try to get real money behind it. Instead of talking about it here on OsNews, do it.

Personally I think that you'll have a hard time finding the production capibility to make these computers for cheap as you say. But if you can, and still want to sell them and people still want to buy them then go for it. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You said: "You must be either lying or stole that hardware."

No, I got the parts from Fry's Electronics Sale and Newegg.com. I usually build very high end machines, get the best desktop components I can find and build a monster that has no rival for the next few months, but this time I decided to try the cheap market. I got the cheapest possible components I could find and built me a nice machine, and it runs fine, with FreeBSD. I also tried Windows XP and is plenty fast.

Regards,
FreeBSDer. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I am sorry, but your poll isn't statistically interesting. It is targeted to people who actually give a fuck about computers. Polls on osnews are fun, but they don't mean squat.

Yeah, I have to laugh every time I see a linux user here say that they would buy into an idea - as if that alone were evidence that a large market exists for the product. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Hi all,

Does any one know where can i find some thing like this;

max 1Ghz G3
no vga
9 pin console
2 or more ethernet 10/100
2.5" ata controler
SODIMM

Some thing like a Soekris.com but faster with G3 ?

-Fanny Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Apple does need to get into the business market. My dad's company used to have all macs for every employee, but they switched over to PCs probably around 10 years ago. Probably because Macs were too expensive and they needed to upgrade their hardware. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "I also tried Windows XP and is plenty fast."

Is FreeBSDer actually GWB?

Oh, and the prices you quoted DONT EXIST OUT SIDE THE UNITED STATES! and half these bone held, shit-box operations don't ship outside the US. In otherwords, the idea of a cheap PC is bullcrap. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Such a low-end Mac will not run OS X with reasonable performance.

I assume such a machine would be targeting existing Windows users? If so, then OS X performance will disappoint the majority of such users. Windows performance on low end PC hardware (which these days is Celeron or Duron machines running at >1.5 GHz) is very good compared to OS X running on a low-end G3.

If it were OS 9.2.2 instead of OS X, then I'd say performance wouldn't be an issue, but it definately is with OS X. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The hardware specs are OK, no problem with that. I think it will cater to the masses who shop at CostCo, Winco, Fry's and other no-frills shops. Mac users probably don't shop at these places anyway so they won't see them on display.

One thing about software though, ship the OS with only the basic accessories. No MS-Word or Excel type-of app installed. Instead, sell the tools as add-ons packaged separately, off-the-shelf boxed apps costing 25 to 50 each.

Add a PS2 or XBOX emulation software so kids can play their favorite console games on these as well. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? > The specs listed are, no offense, pretty stupid. the whole point of making an integrated machine is that you don't want different mobos. The "ultimate" would require a different mobo because of the firewire800 (??) and USB.

That's where you are wrong. YOU DO NOT need another mobo design. You design the mobo to have the space for the FW and USB chips, but you just don't add them for cheaper models. It takes no time/money to just add these chips for the high end model. As for the case, you just need to change the plastic back end, not the whole case. And the price of the Ultimate is that high that it is paid to be able to different. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'll leave it to others to dispute the merits of this idea -- but I think an important cost issue needs to be addressed for the purposes of discussion.

The problem with the proposed G3 clone pricing is that it may be impossible to attain. G3/G4 Macs are filled with custom ASICs, designed in-house by Apple and manufactured in (relatively) low volume. Apple's custom components are a significant factor in overall system cost, and perhaps the only way to drive prices down is to manufacture them in much greater volume. This represents a catch-22: Apple could gamble the farm on a huge run of chipsets to power Strawberry clones, hoping that volume sales will cover their investment. This is risky, and has an "opportunity cost" in that it ties up financial resources that Apple could otherwise use elsewhere.

One possible solution might be a "FrakenBerry" platform. A FrakenBerry would be an Intel-powered PC with an Apple ROM, running the rumored "Marklar" port of OSX. This box could be farmed out to a myriad of Asian OEMs, who would compete for Apple's business solely on price. No custom chipsets, and minimal hardware R&D costs for Apple (i.e. - the ROM).

This may not completely meet Eugenia's binary compatability requirement, but thanks to OSX's Mach microkernel and Marklar's (theoretically) compatible libraries, a recompile of code might be all that is required to port apps to the FrakenBerry.

Of course, "Count Chocula" is arguably a better name for this box... ;-)

c0mpil3r Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >No.

Yes.

>PC users aren't going to fork over the cash unless there's a real benefit involved.

With the same logic, why wanna try out Linux? Windows XP can do everything for you too. This machine is targetting switchers. And PC users who were "that close" to switch but price made them step back.

>> Although this machine is targeting "switchers", when they install linux, they can dual boot, or if they don't like, go right back to Windows as they are on an Intel based system. What are they going to do with a G3-Based system if they decide they don't like it? And do not say go back and get a refund, we all know that doesn't work very well.

Plus, PC users are not the only customers here. Old G3 Mac users will want to upgrade too.

> Why would I want a Brand X machine if I can't do all the things I could do with a Mac and OS X?

Because it is a cheaper machine. Why do you ask for the full monty when you are not ready to pay for it?? Software is not cheap to create you know. Engineers are paid $$ to wtite it.

>> Again, Linux can free and both aspects of the word.

If you don't want to pay for a Mac, you will get OSX Lite.

>> Or you can get Linux for a lot less and have multitudes of applications over OSX Lite.

And as I said in the article, you STILL can do EVERYTHING you can do with a Mac. OSX Lite is 100% compatible with Mac OS X, so all third party apps will work (e.g. VideoLAN or Fire) if you are not willing to upgrade to MacOSX.

>> I actually admire you for trying to get new ideas into the mix and help out Apple, but I just don't see what value this idea could bring to an end user. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? This just doesn't make sense, an apple that's not an apple?
Look, the reason I don't want an appl...beside its price, I don't want to be control by just one company on softwares as well as HARDWARE. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? My thoughts have always been around making it difficult but not impossible to join Apple to x86 but making it more of a developer unit (a crappy PC no special look). It would work as followed...

You buy x86 Mac OSX thats $199, it supports one computer out of the box thats Mac x86 developer center. No programs made for it but ones apple makes. Like iTunes, and so on.

Next you are forced to join a developer unit group with Apple. Which cost #199 dollars, so no a total of $400's, and it allows you to access more source code, and so on. They have a website up that doesn't have anything thing to do with them but they fund it. It has the best resources for programming tips, and sharing ideas and so on. Also of course it would be a way to get drivers that 'people' make, which still Apple never puts them into MacOS x86 OSX.

It would get people programming for MacOSX, it would bring people together,and force people to shutup about not having MacOS X x86. IF you want MacOS X x86 fine right a driver for it and learn to program for it and so on. And watch your development grow into MacOS X PPC.

It would force you to learn something about MacOS X and of course the benefits of MacOS X PPC, it would bring more people together programming for MacOS X PPC, and so on. The biggest thing is buzz and developers. Thats why Linux got so big. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I have been close in the last year to buying an apple. I run Gentoo on workstations, and OpenBSD on my firewall/router. I have a windows partition around just for gaming. I would use an apple box for a desktop, and it would be able to run the types of games I usually play (strategy). When my laptop screen died, I almost bought a powerbook instead of fixing it. Costs keeps holding me back. So what would I do with this proposal?

I probably wouldn't buy one. Why? The G3. All my mac-head friends tell me it's too crippled for OSX. With G5's being released it's too far behind the curve. Especially the $900 model. You'd be crazy not to get a G4 for that kind of money. Besides, why intro people to OS X on a crippled machine?

I still like something close to the first idea. A headless Emac. Let it work with a standard VGA monitor. I have 3 spare sitting around home. A headless Emac at 499. I would have bought one 2 months ago. Sure, an Emac comes with a 128MB of ram, but at www.pricewatch.com, I can buy 512 of mac Ram for $62. And If I want to add a DVD/CDRW driver later, I just get an external one.

This doesn't kill Apple's elite base. You want a pretty mac? Get an Imac. You want a powerful one? Get the workstation.

-b Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? > The thing you forgot is that the G3 runs OSX like my Grandma's P-233 runs WinXP

what a massive overstating lie. i have an ibook, and a win2k. the winders machine is twice the ibooks speed if you buy into myth, but the ibook responds faster, encodes to mp3 faster, encodes video faster (a lot fast. windows has yet to encode jack for me) and my wife argues with me every time i tell her to give me my laptop and use the windows machine. she hates it. i hate it. my 4 year old complains it is too slow. but we fight over the "slow" ibook!

the good news? if i keep fighting with my wife on the ibook, she might let me get a 12" powerbook!

take your weak, old, often disproved "slow" argument to zdnet, where the trolls care. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? lets get this outta way again. x86 OS X _will_not_happen_!

why is it so hard for people to understand that a company that makes their money on hardware, and makes sales based on "user experience" will never sell a version of their software that runs on someone else's hardware and where they can't promise the slick apple user experience?

just let it go. if you want OS X so much, buy the damn mac already. you won't get it on x86. ever. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? How would this not devalue the Apple name even more? I don't care if it doesn't SAY apple anywhere, it still will.

OS X Lite would be the biggest mistake. If you want to attract people to OS X, you don't do it by cutting out the things that make it cool. Give the user a DVD, but don't include DVD Player? oi oi. I agree some things aren't needed such as multi-proc, multi-mon, colo(u)r-sync. If you want to compete with XP you have to include the things that XP includes.

Cheap PCs sold three or four years ago were crippled. They aren't as bad now and many even include AGP and other fancy expandability options. It was often said that if one wanted to see the state of the Wintel industry three or four years into the future, one need only look at the state of Macintosh today. Let's not make Macintosh the same as Wintel was three or four years ago. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? In 5 years, going by the steady trend in market share, apple will cease to exist as the computer computer we know today except they:

1. Offer OSX on Intel platform.

2. Make OSX on Intel freely downloadble and available as Free BSD/Linux is today.
3. Offer free emulators that will let all Mac software run
at reasonable speeds on all flavors/Platforms of Unix/Linux.(Intel,Sparc,RISC etc.)
4. Re-position themselves as the vanguard for quality, affordable, pre-installed desktops and small servers for Unix, Linux and all who dare to think outside
the Microsoft box.
Selling to 50% of 50%(companies and institutions that use
different variants of Unix/Linux/Mac) is a better business
model than selling to 100% of nothing. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Apple's problem is not the low-end, the eMac at 799 is a better value than any Dell out there when you consider all you get in a eMac that actually makes it a usable PC right out of the box.

Apple's real problem is their is no product in between. The iMac is not what I am referring to. I'm talking about a Mac PC that has slots and where you can change the display. Any small business, medium business and Enterprise wants this type of PC. Apple basically needs to release a desktop version of the G5, single processor, AGP 8X and up to 4GB RAM, three PCI slots. They should have an onboard GPU chip-set, couple of USB2.0 and couple of FireWire ports, display sold separately, Firewire and bluetooth adapters sold separately and why not include a SATA drive and a combo drive to start.

It would be a computer for the SMB, enterprise, and government. it would start at 599 and peak at $1199. Apple will have all the accessories at the store, such as their displays, AGP graphics cards for the gamers, bluetooth adapter with bluetooth mice and Keyboard upgrades, Wi-fi adapter and airport extreme. Ipod's, iLife, Keynote, Digital cameras, etc. Apple would significantly increase their sales overall even if some of their other lines were cannibalized. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It takes no time/money to just add these chips for the high end model.

It takes little money to produce them but you're forgetting about inventory (or maybe you just didn't read my note earlier in the thread). Apple would be foolish to make 3 new low-end models that retailers would have to carry. In retail inventory is the enemy.

As for the case, you just need to change the plastic back end, not the whole case. And the price of the Ultimate is that high that it is paid to be able to different.

The iMac and PowerMac are there to be "different". The iJunk is there to be cheap. It's an entry point. We don't need to have a whole line with differentiation between the models.

Your idea is a recipe for disaster. Thankfully one that Apple shows no signs of adopting. Rumors have pointed to them considering a single Apple branded headless model costing $500. That would be a smart business move. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? What would I have to pay now (today) to buy new or used a Mac with the main features that I like in Eugenia's proposed new computer, namely:

1. At least one free PCI slot
2. USB 2.0
3. Headless design that supports standard PC monitor
4. Graphics card that fully supports latest version of OSX
5. Enough CPU to run latest version of OSX well
6. Enough RAM to run latest version of OSX efficiently
7. And a copy of the latest version of OSX.

I can add my own multi-button mouse. :-)

I disagree completely with her idea of spinning off a new brand, however. This would cheapen the Mac brand and confuse shoppers.

I just want to know the thriftiest way, new or used, to get what I want today -- and her proposed design had it, or most of it.

BTW I do not want a Mac with built-in monitor. The video circuitry is what seems to fail in one-piece Macs. I want a monitor of my own choosing -- and I want a PCI slot so that I can use SCSI peripherials. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Why would Apple even do such a thing? With their lower priced units, they are currently tempting people that are already VERY tempted to buy a Mac into buying a Mac. Once those people become hooked, they end up getting sucked into the Mac Mantra...

Besides, that isn't going to change the Mac target audience, which is typically people that either...

A) Don't give a patooty about needing to know how to do anything on their computer.

B) "Creative" types that like to sneer an lear at the "lesser" people that use that Linux thing or that vile despicable Windows thing. (Don't get me started on this.)

C) UNIX Geeks/Admins that think that MacOSX is the panacea to all of their dreams and desires... (Meaning an excellent dekstop environment laying on top of a UNIX core.)

Hey that's all great for those people. For the most part the needs of those people are handled with a Mac Computer. For everyone else, that is not the case...

For Engineers, (Automotive, Architectural, Electrical, Chemical) they need something that will run, not only the business apps they need to interact with the rest of the company, but also will run the applications they need to do their job. Hint: Those apps typically only run on some flavor of Microsoft Windows or on one of the BIG "Indusrial" UNIX OSs like AIX, IRIX, Solaris and HP-UX.

Some of the more scientific applications, like chemical analysis and others are beginning or have always had decent open source versions available, which will run on Linux and also, with the right libraries, on MacOSX these days.

Other then that, the other VERY powerful demographic are the computer game playing demographic. Hardcore computer gamers don't buy Macs, they buy PCs. They do this because just about all the computer games are released for MS Windows or some other x86 compatible OS (Linux) while only a small number of those games make it to the Apple platform. Sure, that increases the noise level on the PC platform, but it also increases the chances of getting some really "wicked" games on the PC platform.

I have not and likely never will, hear of MacOSX versions of the following games... (Just as a for instance.)

Freelancer

Mechwarrior 4

Mech Commander 1 and 2

ANY of the Star Trek games

Star Wars; Knights of the Old Republic

Planetside

Anarchy Online

There are many more... but I don't have all day...

Perhaps a few of the above titles will make it to the Mac in a year or two or maybe 4 years, like Everquest took...

Face the facts, Apple is a VERY niche computer manufacturer that doesn't exactly do much to break their mold besides prettying up their computers and making things seem so "modern", "artistic" and "posh". If they start beating the streets and get some game producers to whip out MacOSX 'Exclusives' of some destined to be killer titles then perhaps more people would be interested in buying Macs.

Creating a substandard line to a VERY niche positioned computing platform isn't going to do ANYTHING to help that platform grow...

Show me Catia running on a Mac. Show me Unigraphics running on a Mac. Show me MasterCAM running on a Mac. Show me some killer BRAND SPANKING new gaming titles on the Mac, like Star Wars Galaxies and then maybe... Just maybe the Mac will be able to expand outside of its expensive niche market. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Why not just bring back the clones and liscensing? If you sell a bargain-basement box, and make little to no profit off of it, why not just liscense it out, and skim the profit with liscenses?

as it was in the olden days, liscensees were not allowed to ship a box without apples' final stamp of approval. They could keep those terms, and restart the liscensing. Except. after the way the last round got halted, I think we'd see a much slower uptake - I'd be afraid to liscense from apple. They're worse than M$ with respect to you never know when they'll yank the liscense out from under you. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Amen. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Where is the market? Cheap slow computer with minimal software and gimped functionality vs midpriced fast computer with lots of software (windows). You also confuse the market place.

What Apple needs to do is create a cheap computer with the Mac name, but make it non-expandable so that it doesn't compete with the high end. Imagine one of the 15" flat-panel iMacs ($1,294.00) without the flatpanel display (-$450.00) or the latest version of the iLife software (-$49) the Apple Pro Speakers (-$59) or the internal modem (-$29). That gets it to $707 right there. Use the previous generation of chips and you can shave even more off of the price. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? or the internal modem (-$29)

I always thought it was weird that Apple still puts modems in it's computers. It's like putting a tape deck in a new Mercedes.

-b Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? hmm, what about the old Performa and LC series aka the pizza box macs? Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? performas were horrible (for apple)!
They fragmented the market, and companies could not get rid of the inventory fast enough as soon as the new ones came in!!!

for the os x on x86 guys, PLEASE READ MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS (and historical note), and learn something.

Finally, modems are good! Not everyone has DSL//cable (I dont) and this is especially true in non North American countries. Modems are not obsolete yet Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Not everyone has DSL//cable (I dont) and this is especially true in non North American countries.

And just how many of those people who don't have or can't afford broadband are part of apples market? They could sell a USB modem, or someone else would.
-b Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Everybody recognizes Mac OS X as a good operating system with an excellent GUI. Max OS X is a unix based system, so is Linux.
Why is the Linux community not able to create such a
pleasant GUI? (and not a kde, a gnome, a ximian, a bluecurve or xxx)
Creating an OS X Lite for x86, is not recognizing a Linux fail? Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? How about this:

Port MacOSX to x86!!

I'm a Linux and before that MS, PC user. I just bought my second Apple laptop (G4 15" 1Ghz) (First that was stollen (hey I guess sombody wants them) was a Lombard 400Mhz).

If Aqua, OsX, Jaguar, Panther, whatever would run on PCs, people would buy (or steal) it. Once you have people running your software, then you sell them the hardware where it runs better. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Actually, I think rather than create a "Brand X" company, it would be more to the point to create a "Mac OS X Lite" for licensing to 3rd party white-box PPC vendors. That is, license an OS that has some, but not all, of the features Mac OS X has. This would encourage 3rd parties to persue different, specialty markets that wouldn't be cost effective for Apple to persue on their own. It would also create an incentive for 3rd parties to grow the Mac market, while still leaving Apple with the full featured "Cadillac" of the platform. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Well as long as they are in the same price range they are comparable. If you believe that there is no market for a low-cost SFF Mac compatible, consider this saying...

A shoe company sent 2 scouts to Kenya to evaluate possibility of a market for their product. After a few days since their arrival, both reported back to the company with their findings.
First scout: "Bad news boss, the natives don't wear shoes."
Second scout: "Good news boss, the natives don't wear shoes!"

Which one of these guys are you? Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? this idea is well meaning, but if it was so good, why not just keep selling old OS 9 imacs forever and ever (which might have been the smart thing to do). Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I agree, Eugenia, that Apple could use a new low end system to satisfy two markets; those people who just want to do really basic functions - a bit of WP, some email, some web searching plus music, and maybe digital photography - and need a really usable UI that doesn't take forever to remember; and enterprise desktop usage with a constrained set of applications.

What was described reminded me of the old Intel/Microsoft 3 tier model still embodied to some extent in the multiple Office offerings (Works+Word, Office, Office Pro). The Works+Word entry point is a give-away sucking people in until they find that it doesn't really meet the need. Then you move up the chain. But Apple needs sensible profits from software even at the low end from the get-go and can't afford this type of give away.

I'd prefer Apple to put up a $500 Mac package based on the eMac without a tube - still lots of life in 17 inch CRTs. This plus a sizable effort in marketing the advantages of Apple's attention to detail especially with the UI. $200 for the software, $300 for the hardware, very little expansion capability (but be generous with RAM), no support - it has to be a white goods commodity item. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The reason why Apple is so "popular" is Apple's PR and that is good. But I don't think that current Apple's offerings are so interesting for desktop users. There is not so much in terms of quality to convince an ordinary user to switch. Because Mac users like the comparison to the cars I would suggest thinking not about German but rather Japan cars. They won US market because they offered better quality for less or equal amount of money. This happened when US auto market was really weak. Unfortunately PC market is in pretty good shape today. So to win the battle Apple should offer much better product for the same price (definitely not less), and that is why Eugenia's proposal will not succeed as it offers barebones systems only, without any incentive to switch. Yes, I did use Mac before and it is very nice machine. If I would be owner of G4 with latest OS X installed and someone would try to convince me to buy a PC I would laughÂ… as I would laugh if someone would suggest to switch from PC to Mac. See the problem is that both systems offers equally good experience so neither for Mac nor for PC user there is not enough reasons to switch.

So, Eugenia, design system that will offer "more for less" and will justify learning curve (change habits, learn new software) and that is hmm... quite impossible today. I would like to emphasize that price although important is not decisive (people are buying very cheap and very expensive PC, with for example, video card that cost more than $1000 - 3DLabs WILDCAT4 7110 256MB, SCSI HD and so on. By the way this video card will not work under OS X as most of 3DLabs offerings) Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Needs fleshing out, but it has potential. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? For every G4 or eMac that Apple sells I think that a PC vendor would have to sell at least 2 or three PCs to approach the amount of profit that Apple generates from one unit. When you start talking about a high end G5 I bet Apple stretches that number to five or six.

PCs will continue to go down in price. The thing is as prices get lower the margins for PC vendors get thinner, for Apple they stay the same or get better. Their business model allows them to sell less units and still be profitable in a bad economy. Other companies have to move volume to have the profit like Apple does, who moves a low volume of machines.

Companies like Gateway are loss leaders, lowering prices has not and will not help them. SGI selling PC clones did not help them and that decision damages them to this day. Companies that continue to refine, focus, innovate and improve on things they do BEST will do well but part of what a company is is its brand. When people are asked to name computer companies Apple always comes up despite the fact that they control 3% or less of the market. They still have the same brand recognition as companies 10X its size.

Apple would not succeed in creating a "cheap brand" and it would only serve to dilute the quality of the brand.

I don't see the point of MacOSX Lite. You buy a brandx mac compatible and you get a MacOSX that is not feature complete and it runs on a G3. This platform may do more to actually turn people off from using a Mac or could give people a bad impression of MacOSX from using the Lite version.

I think Apple should consider selling a mintower G4 with only one 5.25" drive bay, one 3.5" drive bay and using a standard/modified ATX power supply. The 5.25" combo drive will define the max width of the device. 4-USB 2.0 ports, a single FW 400 port and video that will support ADC or VGA. 2 memory slots and no PCI slots.

The idea is to build this system with as many off the shelf components that Apple already uses. The motherboard can come from the Powerbook G4 12" The R&D for the enclosure is the current G4 case minus the additional 5.25", 3.5" bays and room for PCI slots.

You will basically have a machine that has already been built by Apple but the R&D came from different product lines like they did with the PowerBook and the iMac G4.

The most important thing is that the end product is still a Macintosh and not an "almost but not quite a Mac" machine.

You will have a low cost system with a good processor using standard PC components and components that ALREADY exist in Apple's product line in some fashion. Expandability will be limited but the intent of this mini-G4 is to introduce people to a Mac while still allowing them to use their PC monitor, LCD annd printer.

Everybody say that Macs and PCs are equivalent but this is not the case as you can see from the number of responses to this article from mostly people who use PCs. If you have used both they are not the same. The same can be said for the driving experience of a BMW and a Honda. Unless you have driven both you will not know. Just because you've driven the Honda doesn't mean that you've driven the BMW or even know what it is like. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Hey I love my Shuttle SN41, I like your photoshop job, looks almost more like i want it, ala less front ports, still I did a double take on it. But in concept i think you nailed it. Thats the mac....errr brandX I have been looking for.

On a side note, the Shuttles, mainly the G2 cases as shown are beautiful. When ever I hear mac people talk of Wintels being boring ugly grey boxes i look over at my shuttle and scratch my head. And Soldam of japan who works with shuttle makes some of the most beautiful computers ever made.

I think your idea is right on the money. No matter how some mac people see it, apple needs to grow. The auto maker stratgey of differant makes, while still all the same company, ala Ford Mo Co and GM is the way to go. Lincoln makes a damn fine luxcury car, but its brand isn't hurt by Ford Mo Co making Fords, and Lincoln doesn't hurt Jaguar and Aston Martin sales. Most people don't even make the connection between those 4 brands. But it's all one company and Ford Mo Co makes money off them all and gets to cut cost by resource and component sharing.

I think Apple could remake the whole eMac, iMac, and iBook side of things into the low end company, and the power books and powermac into the Apple line. It's not like one things high end, superior or luxcury when they see the iMac and iBook, they see them as cheap, but they arn't do to the pricing structures.

Did you send your idea to Steve? Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >Did you send your idea to Steve?

Nope. Email? Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I don't see the point of MacOSX Lite. You buy a brandx mac compatible and you get a MacOSX that is not feature complete and it runs on a G3. This platform may do more to actually turn people off from using a Mac or could give people a bad impression of MacOSX from using the Lite version.

But I didn't say that Mac OS X Lite should be restricted to G3s. That would negate the point of doing it.

The idea is to encourage 3rd parties to develop markets not already served by Apple. They wouldn't compete head to head with Apple, because they would be selling a less functional product. That would force them to look elsewhere than the typical Mac market for customers.

Conversely, if a 3rd party developed a profitable niche, Apple could design and sell full featured products into that market as well. They can let the 3rd parties take the risk of developing new markets at no risk to themselves. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? " The idea is to encourage 3rd parties to develop markets not already served by Apple. They wouldn't compete head to head with Apple, because they would be selling a less functional product."

Bruno I understand your point but this was exactly what the Mac clones were suppose to do for Apple. Instead they started competing directly with Apple and were in fact cannabalizing their sales. They did not broaden Apples market and basically took buyers away from Apple. Apple does not need a repeat of this.

Apple has to take a cautious approach in serving the low end. Macs are not the "be all end all, everything to everyone computers". They never will be. I think that Apple can create a low end machine that can reach out to a wider range of people but at the same time it will not be price competitive with WalMart PCs.

Low prices are a losing battle. Gateway is familiar with this with an expected loss of 24 cents per share. It is also likely that they MOVED MORE UNITS than Apple and still lost money.

I would like to see a low cost Mac but I DO NOT want it to be equivalent in quality, looks or feel to a WalMart PC.

Also when people say the Shuttle PC is nice, it looks OK. The G4 Cube has much cleaner lines and is actually smaller. The Shuttle PC is also an exception in the PC world as far as looks go, its not the norm. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? This editorial is well thought out. While my own conclusions would have been different (not much though) these are all very agreeable. I strongly suspect by giving it a generic name that it will not cannibalize the present apple customer base, most apple users seem to take pride in the ownership of their 'apple' computer or they know enough about what hardware to buy that they would tend to avoid these machines. But by putting a computer in the retail channel next to PC's on a large visible basis makes MacOS based machines appear to be a real windows competitor and much less of a risky proposition. I suspect that many people buying these generic machines would be much more compelled to make the greter investment in a real apple a year or two later. This idea seems to be a very well thought out way to grow the MacOS base. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Also when people say the Shuttle PC is nice, it looks OK. The G4 Cube has much cleaner lines and is actually smaller. The Shuttle PC is also an exception in the PC world as far as looks go, its not the norm."

First, there is lots of nice PC's in the wintel world, even the oems are looking good, sony's, HPs are pretty slick looking anymore. My one HP is 4.5 years old and still looks pretty nice, granted it was one of the first to not be a grey box.

I don't think the G1 shuttles look supergreat, but the G2s look very nice.

The cube was not that great. In pictures it looked great. In person it was a massive let down. It was much bigger then they make it look in person, by this sites specs for dimensions http://www.2ndchancepc.co.uk/apple-cube.html
the Apple cube was 1.5 inches shorter then the shuttle in one direction and 1 inch longer in another and the same in the third. So basicly the same size nearly to a tee, 4 cubic inches differant, 644 vs 640.

The cube was plastic which doesn't go over well with many. Also in ads it was shown with no wires, but when you see it with the wires it makes it look messy since they don't nicely hide away, since with all the clear plastic and it's front and center concept on a desk they stand out. I loved the cube till I saw one, then i didn't like it at all.

More then anything it just bugs the hell out of me when people call wintels ugly big grey boxes made from cheap parts. Most look very nice any more, remember for many apple styling is not so great. The G4 case was very dated and everyone seams to have mixed feelings on the G5. The iLamp iMacs are like the cube and look nice in pictures, look awful in person. So to each there own.

" I would like to see a low cost Mac but I DO NOT want it to be equivalent in quality, looks or feel to a WalMart PC."

I don't think anyone is thinking that cheap. But really the wal mart ones aren't to bad. The thing so many in the mac world get lost on is thinking wintel boxes are cheap parts. Well simple, yes the cost of most parts is cheap, but to find actual cheap parts as in quality is pretty hard. Even no name stuff holds up great. You can have a great motherboard with all the features one would ever want for 75 bucks and it will be rock solid, the cpu, well thats a given to be solid, and cheap, most people who build pick their CPUs up for around a 100 bucks since they avoid the latest and upgrade later. The big guys like dell get the stuff for cheap as well. Yes wintel box parts are cheap, nice cheaply priced high quality parts. There is no reason apple could not do the same. All other parts out there are the same for both.

You can put together a high quality machince for 500 bucks. Mine cost me about 600 with shipping for all high solid parts, and could be built for 200 less now that the case is much cheaper. An OEM could build my computer for 300 bucks no problem.

This is where the apple disparity hits, Few people buy high end dells that people often want to compair with, most people buy sub 1000 dollar dells since they have no reason for more. In this range apple has nothing. What they do have is stuff people don't want. Also though it doesn't matter much with how cheap wintel boxes have gotten, a good number of people are building their computers. More and more as time goes since the bulk of the computing world is moving onto their 2nd or 3rd computer and have made upgrades to their computers along the way. To build one is easy for them. I have freinds and relitives with zero computer skills that have or are thinking of building one. It's an idiot proof process, you don't need to do much research really. It's a good 99.9 % plug and play world with building them and most issues are solved with a call to freinds. This is the hurdle apple needs to clear. They want to gain market share. But currently cannont and will not. It's understandable they don't want to mess with their price structure. That't why the BrandX apple plan is perfect. I could sell of enough computer stuff in my room to buy such a machine. If i don't like it i could sell it. To buy anything I would want and to be worth my money I would not be able to aford right now. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? ">Did you send your idea to Steve?

Nope. Email? "

figured you knew it, maybe stevejobs@apple.com , one could always put up a billboard by his house or work with a add with your idea

"Think Differant Steve: Strawberry"

on a side note, it has to be a fruit or very that looks good from a silhouette veiw. The stawberry works, though is long and the short verys or Straw sounds odd, remember machontash (sp) is a type of apple, so open up the name ideas.

I think Orange sounds good and would fit nicely but the logo would be hard. Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? @Brad
I was at compUSA today and saw a Sony VAIO all in one unit which looked very slick. I didn't care for the keyboard but the specs and cosmetically it looked very good. the same can be said for the VAIO laptops. I didn't care for the VAIO towers or other PCs from HP and Compaq.

The Cube is a mess once it is assembled. The cords run along the botton and can be cleaned up but Apple should not show the Cube next to a display with no wires attached to it. its not real. Regardless I still prefer the looks of the Cube over the Shuttle. The Shuttle has it beat on power and expandability.

Contrary to what you migh think the majority of inexpensive PCs in peoples homes looks awful. They are beige boxes for the most part or some kind of crazy color scheme. We are jut talking the looks here. I have a plain jane PC right next to me built from very good parts but no one will mistake it for a high end PC or a G4.

I personally do not care to have a "low end" or "beginners" brand that was mentioned in the article. Most people who purchase Macs for the first time but have used Windows or Linux in the past and have the intention of moving away from those systems if they consider a Mac. Purchasing a Mac is not cheap so they tend to ask around and consider what they gain and what they give up. Like it or not a decent Mac today runs you at least $1000. Its a big ticket item for a lot of people so people don't jump into it blindly. With that said, the people who I have known to purchase a Mac for the first time are happy with their selection regardless of the MHZ. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Actually if it is to be a low-budget machine it should be called something more like "Collard Greens" or "potato" :-P Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I agree with what others are saying, they could simply reintroduce the cube. That should bring down the cost to somewhere in the vicinity of 500 bux. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Apple has done well for itself in recent years to avoid the commoditization of its products and therefore the cheapening of its brand. IMHO Apple is on the right track and simply lacks the killer office suite required to deflate MS market share. Keynote is a step in the right direction but I think a replacement for word and excel are must haves before apple gains corporate ground and high volume sales numbers on par with Dell and HP

Apple has done well for itself in recent years to avoid the commoditization of its products and therefore the cheapening of its brand. IMHO Apple is on the right track and simply lacks the killer office suite required to deflate MS market share. Keynote is a step in the right direction but I think a replacement for word and excel are must haves before apple gains corporate ground and high volume sales numbers on par with Dell and HP

In response to an earlier reply to my post regarding the Performa and LC series Macs - you are correct, the move to low cost Mac was at the time very bad for Apple, its customers and its customers I would certainly hate to see Apple return to this type of tactic in hopes of reaching out to the bargain shopper. With apple the adage you get what you pay for has almost always been true and I would like to see this remain part of the apple brand. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'm glad people recognize there is a problem with Mac pricing, however this isn't the solution.

You can get all the hardware for an essentialy top of the line X86 PC computer for under $350 (prices from Price Watch, Circuit City, and Best Buy...some after mail-in rebate):

Athlon XP 2400 with Motherboard $114
512 MB PC2100 DDR Ram $35
160 GB 7200 rpm hard drive $100
400 watt ATX Mid tower case $22
ATI Radeon 9000 Pro 128 mb Video Card $61
Soundblaster Audigy Platinum $17


Your solution of buying outdated slow hardware for the same price as relatively new PC hardware makes no sense. Why would I do that? That's not gonna draw me to Apple.

Also...my scenario leaves me with a very cheap upgrade solution. If I want a faster machine...all I gotta do is replace my motherboard and cpu (for a measly $115) and possibly the memory (for $35).

In my oppinion, a better solution for exposing OSX to the masses is releasing the OSX Lite that you mentioned, onto the X86 platform, but then not offering an upgrade to standard OSX. If you want standard OSX, you gotta buy a Mac.

I'll personally never pay over $1000 for a desktop computer, and will also never pay $300 for a slow PC. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You know, I am a pretty devoted Mac user, I started with a Quadra 840AV and that was the beginning (or should I say during) the "Dark Period" Post-Steve Jobs. I loved Apple and the Mac and I really learned on the thing after only briefly experiencing DOS and Windows 3.1. The Windows interface just wasn't "clean" to me.

At the time of the PowerPC chips I was really excited about the clone posibilities and almost bought a Power Computing in it's hey day. Their computers offered many great incentives to Apple itself. Well, that, was the well-documented problem with the whole clone thing - addressed here previously ad nauseum.

I bring it up, because while I looked at clones seriously, I really wanted something from Apple in the end. I know brand had a lot to do with it, but I think it was also the unkown and uncertainty with going with one of the clone makers. Obviously, since Apple's situation changed drastically after that and the clones were killed, it was a good choice, but a well-established brand is a powerful thing.

Is it rediculous to prefer a brand? Eh, maybe, but more it's usually a comfort and trust thing. I mean, I certainly buy what I want and need. It's just I want Apple's OS experience. I'm not rich, but i run a business and have many Macs that have never let me down and are very easy to set up. Could I do this with Windows PC's? Yeah, I'm sure, though I'm constantly reminded of problems that friends with other businesses have. Seemingly little things from my perspective.

But what I do believe is that what you know - be it grown up with, or use everyday at work - is as powerful as the brand, and that is the biggest stumbling block for Apple: Marketing. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Now that their pro line is back on track with G5,the only thing Apple should do is to slap faster G4's or new rebranded IBM G3's into iMac eMac for consumers and to keep line of cheaper towers with new G4's. Prices should come down a bit as there is more stuff that apple sells these days(Pro-stuff,iPods,music store,software)to offset lower margins. With computers is almost like with cars.There will always be pepople who'd be willing to pay more, for coolest looking computer with trouble-free operation. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "or new rebranded IBM G3's"

what would that be? Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? New G3's(Gobi and up) from IBM that include 1MB L2 cache,200 Mhz FSB. It is also rumored that these may include Altivec soon. When i said re-branded it was just my speculation because despite all these changes to G3 CPU,people would still percieve them as being generation behind current G4's, which of course isn't quite true.
This problem comes from fact that IBM never manufactured G4's and kept improving G3.

Hope that answers your question. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 03:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Is it rediculous to prefer a brand? Eh, maybe, but more it's usually a comfort and trust thing. I mean, I certainly buy what I want and need. It's just I want Apple's OS experience. "


Exactly! And that's whole problem with making the switch to Apple. As much as you trust the products that Apple makes (and I'm sure I would too), I trust the products that Intel, AMD, Maxtor...Creative makes. But the thing is, I can get the products made by those companies for a much cheaper price than I could get the products from Apple.

Let's face it. They could put OSX inside a pretty box all they want, but in the end, the only reason I'd really be buying an Apple is for the operating system. There is no real performance gain in Apple computers, so I'm obviously not buying it for the hardware either. And, as I stated before, I'm not buying it for the Apple brand name as I have equivalent X86 brand names which I trust too. I'm just getting it for the operating system. OSX, that's it.

An Apple computer is on average at least $1,200 more expensive than any PC I could make at similar speeds and memory. So, since I'm not buying it for the hardware, to me buying an Apple truly means spending an extra $1,200 on a computer just for OSX. Impossible. I would never do that.

Not only that, but I'd also be asking for much more expensive future upgrades.

If Apple wants to truly compete, they need to drop the power pc architecture and go X86. That's the only way they'll gain true Market Share. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Eugenia, great idea, but it is only part of the story. Let me explained below.

Why does Apple have a small market share, or rather, why does Windows have high market share? There are lots of issues, but these are the only one that I can think of right now. Let us discuss each point in detail below.

First the bad news for Apple:

1. Cheap PC's

2. Windows PC's have no hardware vendor lock-in

3. Windows has business productivity emphasis, Macintosh doesn't

4. Windows is now the defacto standard

Gee, maybe by becoming more "standard" than Windows, apple could also have advantage over Windows?

5. Windows PC's (used to) have better price-performance ratio

Windows used to be the winner here, but with Apple's G5, that is not necessarily true any more. Intel and IBM might play leap frog with CPU's, but I think Apple has caught up, and then some. Windows users (including me) – accept it and live with it!

6. Lots of users' home computers are intentionally the same type as their work computer

Most of us use Windows in the office, we need our home computer to interoperate with office PC. One might need to take work home, for example. Also, some users might have a Mac at home, but still keeps a Windows PC to keep up with job skill.

However, if Macintosh gains enough market share so that there's enough Mac-related jobs out there, then those users would have less reason to keep a computer with Windows.

7. Windows sneaked into IT through the back door

Remember (or maybe you're too young to remember) that Windows/DOS used to be banned from IT (then called MIS) shops. Some brave souls sneaked in DOS and then Windows PC's through the backdoor. Why did they do that? If you ask the mainframe guys to do a report program to calculate some month-end totals, it takes a few weeks and Change Management meetings and some paperwork. But with Lotus 123 on a PC, you could accomplish the same job in minutes.

Then it begs the question: why didn't Apple get sneaked in through the backdoors of corporations as well? At that time, when people thought of productivity and Lotus 123, they thought of IBM compatible PC's with DOS or Windows, not Apple computers. I don't want to delve into the history further, because it is moot, for this subject.

How about today? Can Macs "sneak into" stodgy corporate departments? What would compel me to be so brave to "sneak in" a Mac into my office (creative shops aside)? Well, in order to do that, I've gotta fight off expected criticisms and have compelling reasons so that my immediate supervisor can "look the other way" (and maybe hide the fact from the IT guys). Maybe these are some small reasons that I might:

* It fixes the "/" vs. "" annoyance
* Mac gives me UNIX prompt like our UNIX servers

But there are also reasons that I might not:

* Macintosh doesn't run some of our critical groupwares (I could run it in Virtual PC, but there is slight overhead)
* IT controls everything... and they prefer Windows – ooooh, scary

Creative shops have their Final Cut Pro and others. Genome research companies have their DNA modeling apps on the Mac. For others like my office, I am sorry to say that right now there is no killer office app that compels me to fight the odds and put a Mac on my office desktop. But, who knows, maybe there will be a Mac-only killer office app that turns that around?

8. Macintosh counter-culture image is too cute for the stodgier offices (really, I'm not joking)

Apple has a "counter-culture" image, as shown in the classic 1980's TV ad showing a woman throwing a hammer into a auditorium screen in a "big-brother-looking" world. That image is great for creative types, but the stodgy corporate types are "not moved".

When I suggested: "how about migrating to Mac OS X" to my coworker (I was talking about migrating a UNIX server), he kinda gave me a glassy stare (this is not a "creative professional" type shop that I am talking about, at least not mainly). Macs still doesn't have the attractiveness as UNIX servers, which is probably expected, because Apple is not pushing OS X Server as a general purpose UNIX server, but maybe as render farms. On the desktop, I myself would use a Mac, but my workplace is not even considering Macs, even though it is *NIX. And Macs don't natively run some groupwares that are critical to my workplace.

I can't say that it is because our office managers and tech workers consciously think that Macs have a counter-culture that is only good for artists and rock-and-roll at home, but apple doesn't even enter their minds as a choice. This has gotta change if Apple is going to make any headway in the mainstream corporate market. Steve Jobs understands the psychology of iSight being at the eye level, he probably knows what I am talking about here.

If Apple has x86 version, maybe it could have the "corporate" image: competent and "consistent with the corporate image", then again, it might not. It doesn't need to be ugly, mind you, especially since Windows is getting prettier, too.

9. (Stodgy) Employers don't want employees playing with digital media stuff on Macintosh
Now how about some things in Apple's favor:

1. There are anti-Microsoft feeling that Linux is benefitting from, maybe Mac too

2. As mentioned above, Macs have more than caught up in price-performance competition, with the introduction of G5

3. OS X attracts UNIX-lovers

4. Digital media is growing in homes

People are still using more and more digital cameras and DVD's. And the iSight is greate for video chatting with your best friend and boy/girl friend. No question, Mac is the far superior platform for that.

I read someone wrote that Apple is catering to smaller and smaller segment of population, I respectfully differ, unless the numbers prove me wrong. Few people are artistic, I give you that, but I think digital media in homes are becoming the mainstream – like digital photo, some elementary digital video editing. People do collect music and videos on their computers, and that seems to be growing as it gets easier. With Windows PC, there is a lot of learning curve in putting a digital media station together, but with the Mac, everything just works, right off the box.

In Conclusion:

Finally, for Macs to grow in the (huge) corporate world outside creative shops, it needs a different product image (maybe even a product line that goes with it). And it needs killer office productivity apps that are more compelling than Windows me-toos.

For the creative world, Macs are doing a darn impressive job. Applauds and keep "pushing the envelope", guys.

For the home market, Macs are on the right track. Keep going.

For Eugenia's Strawberry computer segment, I defer to her.

And computers are not everything -- witness iTunes. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Tony,

Ok I was just checking, I had no clue what you ment by that, it sounded more like you meant rebranded as if you where thinking motorala G3 rebranded to IBM. This of course is not the case, since IBM always made them. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Too many ppl think that users are idiots.. point in case last night.. "maybe u should show your dad how to make a slide show in xp".. "its ok he allready knows"..


Perhaps its not allways worth paying 4k for a g5 mac (that u cant even buy yet).. just to do multimedia.

Perhaps real ppl with normal brains can do it in XP or even shock horror.. linux.

If ya need MAc osx to open a photo or to use photoshop.. your a very inexperienced computer user.

This is the essential problem for apple.. 1 set of its users buy it becuase they think its easier (ie they arent very good at computers) .. and the other set buy it because they think a translucent cube will make them cool amoungs there friends with beige boxes.

You will never "join" the mac communities.. and it will never be mainstream.

Hasnt anyone ever thought that 4-6% of the pc market is the proper amount apple should have and and allways will have.


If u want a cheap computer ya buy a PC.
If ya want a fast computer (fastest computers in the world are intel/amd as well as the best bang per buck) ya buy a pc.
If ya want to run all the common applications and games ya buy a pc.
If ya want a translucent box or belive itunes invented mp3s.. ya buy a mac. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 05:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think you need to look past initial cost when considering "cheapness" - there is enough data out there to show that PCs cost more in the long run

There are lots of "common" apps for Macs, in fact over 16,000 of them and they cover all areas from consumer, through prosumer to high end

We'll have to wait and see real world tests re speed of the G5s Wed, 16 Jul 2003 05:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I don't know a single person who has a Mac at home. It is not a money thing either. I live in an affluent professional suburb. Even multimillionaires in Australia usually buy whitebox PCs (my sister and best friend included).
Nice to have two multimillionaires in the family!

I live in Australia. My brother, my parents and my aunt all own Macs. My brother is a Vet, my parents run a farm and teach professionally, and my aunt (who has two Macs) manages a global not-for-profit organisation and studies part time. I'm a full-time developer and own both a Mac and a PC (the PC never gets turned on anymore). I have many friends who own Macs. You must have a very sheltered life. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 06:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Look at Mercedes Benz for example.
A Smart or an A-class car apeals to a different kind of customer than the E-Class.
BTW, as they intoduced the SMART or A-Class it didn't have any negative impact on the sales of their top of the range cars. A Merc is a Merc. It stands for a quality, longlasting product.

Apple can do the same, even with keeping their logo on every product they put on the market. What they would have to do is improve their marketing strategies to target the right people for the right product. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 06:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Ya know thats been thrown around alot. I have yet to see it. I am thinking that might have been the case a few years ago but not now. We are working on computers that are faster and cheaper then ever before. I have a Mac. I have many PC's. Some of the older PC's are firewalls and Web servers. The Mac I have is broken. Re-read the fist post, my clients 1 yr old TiTanium powerbook is a doorstop.

It should be of no shock to this crowd that Apple used to overclock ram instead of buying the right part for the job.

PC's are easy to upgrade, my 750mhz is now a 1.4 Gig and cost me all of $40 to make it that way. Added 128 Megs more of ram for $9.

My basic problem with Apple is that they treat their customers like crap, sell them off the shelf PC parts for way too much, and make mistakes they wont own up to in hardware design.

If you bought a Rolls Royce in the past, if it broke down, they fixed it and picked you up.

I say if Apple wants to be the elite computer, thats fine, but lets have some GREAT customer service for the cost. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 06:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? ..but rather Pegasos/MorphOS doing this. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 06:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I don't want pay $1000 more for an apple logo on a box. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1 set of its users buy it becuase they think its easier (ie they arent very good at computers) .. and the other set buy it because they think a translucent cube will make them cool amoungs there friends with beige boxes.

Good lord. Yeah, and when you're done making sweeping generalizations, there's people (like myself) that choose Macs for objectively-informed and productive reasons. I've never owned a cube and I bought Macs back when they were beige like the rest of the PC world AND I could make most computer OSes do what I need, AND I still prefer a Mac. I'm not afraid of the extra steps in Windows and Linux, I just value my time enough to want to get done my work and do something away from the computer. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Try these for a start

1. I work in a cross platform school: the PCs take about twice as much time to maintain as the Macs.

2. Reliability and service references follow. Do you have any Glenn?

PC Magazine Service and Reliability Survey July 2003
Apple desktops, laptops and servers in top category.
Macs rates best in setup experience, never freezing and first year satisfaction.
"The stability of Linux and Mac OS may have also helped with the rise of overall user satisfaction. These OSs, our readers say, crash even less often than Windows XP".



Desktop computers: Readers report (June 2003)   CONSUMER REPORTS .ORG
Apple rated most reliable and best for technical support
http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv3.jsp?CONTENT%3C~*~@...
162693&bmUID=1052484936384

The consumer organization ConsumerAffairs.com has only two computer manufacturers rated as "good guys" : " companies who do well by providing great products and good service". One was Hitachi, the other was Apple. Here's what they write about Apple:

Surely there's no product that enjoys greater customer loyalty than Apple's Macintosh line of computers. Apple remains the gold standard in building brand loyalty. Apple users ... are loyal to the core, and rightly so. ... user reports below tells why -- Apple machines work right out of the box and when there's a problem Apple fixes it ... pronto. Can't beat that. We think the Mac deserves all these accolades and we would recommend Apple to anyone but most especially to those who are new to the world of personal computers or who want one for their children.

You Call This Service? 30,000 readers speak out: PC support remains shaky, and reliability is slipping. And the best-backed computer may not be a PC. Brad Grimes From the December 2002 issue of PC World magazine
http://www.pcworld.com/resource/printable/article/0,aid,105854,00.a...
"Last year, PC World readers told us they were unhappy with technical support. This year's survey shows little--if any--improvement. Dell, for example, tumbled in service overall--especially in hold times. The other big news: Apple rated higher than any other computer maker. ...Apple topped every system maker in the desktop arena. The company's customers said they received especially good service. "

Australian Consumers' Association finds Apple most reliable computer - 99% brand loyalty - September 2002
http://www.choice.com.au - membership fee required to view this report
"Apple computers stood out for reliability ...."

Consumers unhappy with PC support By Ian Fried Staff Writer, CNET News.com August 8, 2002.
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-949018.html?tag=cd_mh 1

While consumers are paying less for their computers, a new survey shows they are also increasingly unhappy with the level of customer support they are getting with those PCs. ... The lone bright spot in the survey was Apple Computer, which grabbed the top spot in the survey with a score of 74 out of 100 and was the only company to earn higher marks this year than it did last year.
Original report from consumereports.org

Apple laptops get A from PC Magazine in 15th Annual Service and Reliability Survey (July 2002)

Which? Magazine
http://www.which.net/media/pr/nov00/which/compsurv.html
Results out today (2.11.00) from the largest ever Which? computer survey, consistently rate Apple, ... as top brands for reliability, user satisfaction and speed of support helplines. ...Apple was the clear winner for laptops - four out of five owners would definitely recommend them, way ahead of the other brands in the survey.

Apple Computer: Winner of ZDNet's Support Star Award Satisfaction
Apple Computer successfully makes its customers happy with courteous and prompt technical support service. By Wendy Dittamore, October 16, 2000
http://www.zdnet.com/special/stories/main/0,11415,2635820,00.html Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >In Australia Macs are just novelties outside the graphics and multimedia
>areas.

>I don't know a single person who has a Mac at home. It is not a money
> thing either. I live in an affluent professional suburb. Even
>multimillionaires in Australia usually buy whitebox PCs (my sister and
>best friend included).

>My next door neighbour teaches multimedia at a university -even he
>doesn't own a Mac.

>Most universities in Australia are OSX/Mac-free zones except for very
>limited life sciences (mostly os9) and multimedia use.


This is completely untrue. Most major universities in Australia use Apple extensively. I've worked at several (WA, SA, NSW) and all major universities use macs in several departments (including mathematics and hard sciences). See the Apple Edu Mag "Wheels of the Mind" to see how many Aus Universities are members of AUC! Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Apple machines work right out of the box and when there's a problem Apple fixes it ... pronto."

Maybe. I stopped recommending Macs to my friends after one of them had their new iMac in the shop for 6 weeks -- mainly waiting for parts for a lemon video sub-system.

And this subsystem failed again after the year warranty was up. Fortunately they had shelled out extra $$ for the AppleCare extended warranty.

During the time that this friend's iMac was in the shop, Apple repeatedly removed from their support forums people's comments about this wide-spread problem. And as far as I could tell, Apple never officially 'came clean' and admitted what the problem was.

This friend's iMac has now spent at least 3 months in the shop for the same video problems. So much for "pronto". Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "This is completely untrue. Most major universities in Australia use Apple extensively. I've worked at several (WA, SA, NSW) and all major universities use macs in several departments (including mathematics and hard sciences). See the Apple Edu Mag "Wheels of the Mind" to see how many Aus Universities are members of AUC!"

What percentage of the desktops in Australian tertiary institutions are current) OSX machines? Has any Australian university replaced large numbers of PCs with Macs in the last two years? Sure most Australian unis have Macs...but very few of them have thousands of OSX machines.

I doubt greatly whether there are even 20,000 OSX equipped Macs in the entire Australian tertiary system. A 10,000 PC rollout is barely newsworthy but Apple Australia goes all ga-ga over a school that has 100 Macs.

Total OSX sales have finally reached 7 million after almost 3 years. It took MS less than two months after the launch to sell the same number of copies of XP. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/index_e.htm?/news/top/2000/t00110_e....

"DaimlerChrysler is one of the world's leading automotive companies. Its passenger car brands include Maybach, Mercedes-Benz, Chrysler, Jeep®,
Dodge and smart. Commercial vehicle brands include Mercedes-Benz, Freightliner, Sterling, Western Star and Setra. It offers financial and other automotive services through DaimlerChrysler Services. With 365,600 employees, DaimlerChrysler achieved revenues of EUR 149.6 billion ($158.8 billion*) in 2002."

4.05 million units Passenger Cars
485,400 units Commercial Vehicles
(in 2002)

http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/index_e.htm?/news/top/2000/t00110_e....

I like the comparisons...DaimlerChrysler sold more cars last year than Apple sold computers.

More than 1 million Mercedes branded passenger vehicles were sold in 2002 Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Re-reading some of the comments, I'm getting the impression that dirt-cheap PC-pricing makes sense if the PC is thought of as a disposable, consumable item like a video player -- while Mac pricing makes sense if thought of as an automobile, i.e. something that has re-sale value. You re-sell (trade in) your old Mac and apply that towards a new one.

If you choose the right moment to sell, maybe this works out well for some folks -- but it certainly imposes a high barrier-to-entry for first-timers.

My problem is that I generally can only afford the end-of-life Mac models, and these have little re-sale value when it's time to buy another Mac. But people who buy $2000-$3000 Macs and trade-up every 8 months, probably make out ok. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Re-reading some of the comments, I'm getting the impression that dirt-cheap PC-pricing makes sense if the PC is thought of as a disposable, consumable item like a video player -- while Mac pricing makes sense if thought of as an automobile, i.e. something that has re-sale value. You re-sell (trade in) your old Mac and apply that towards a new one.

If you choose the right moment to sell, maybe this works out well for some folks -- but it certainly imposes a high barrier-to-entry for first-timers."

My problem is that I generally can only afford the end-of-life Mac models, and these have little re-sale value when it's time to buy another Mac. But people who buy $2000-$3000 Macs and trade-up every 8 months, probably make out ok."

People also know that a much better PC will be available for less money in six months.

I bought a multizone DVD player last week for AUD$98 (about $60 US). It is much smaller and has a better picture than the AUD$500 Pioneer purchased two years ago. Even if the new DVD only lasts a year it will still be a good buy. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Lots of you guys are way off base here. First thing; this is OSNews.com, which makes you guys/gals not the typical pc user. An average user is my girlfriend or sister. My sister has a Compaq Presario 2800 laptop. This is what she uses her laptop for: listen to music, surf the web, talk on aim, edit pictures and write some word docs. My girlfriend does the exact same thing expect she also uses kazaa to download mp3s. My dad does the same thing as well except he also uses it do our taxes every year. That's it that is the average user (some of the apps may change). The average user only uses a couple of apps and some games. The average user does not build a power spec box for $300-$500.The average user pays $700-$1000 for their pc. Macs are within the average users price range. So all this talk about Macs being so expensive is rubbish. Also the average user is not a power user. I upgraded my gf's computer from a 1ghz Duron to a 1.6ghz Athlon. Was is faster? Yes it was and she noticed the increase in speed. Did it make her do anything faster nope? Did she need the speed upgrade? Nope. Why does the average user by these new powerful machines? Because that's what they are sold, what they are told to buy, and believe they should buy. So this performance difference between Macs and PCs is hogwash. I don't know what Apple needs to do to gain market share, but here are some of my ideas:

First, they need to get in the business community. Reason for such is that selling to corporations is more profitable then selling to a home consumer and also getting into business will lead to the consumer. How do they get into business/corporate market? They need to play up the power of the G5s and the Unix aspect of OSX. Most importantly, then need to erase the stigma/view that IT depts. have of Apple and it's Macs. On my desk at work I have a PC and Mac. Whenever someone passes by they make a negative comment about the Mac. Apple has to break down that barrier. They need to push the X-Serves. Also, I think Apple missed an opportunity with Virtual PC. Microsoft now owns it, and if done right they will do a lot of big things with it. I think Apple should have bought Connectix and bundled Virtual PC with the Macs (or just those they plan to sell to businesses). Since many people get accustomed to PCs at work. If they work with just Macs, when it comes to time to get a computer at home, they may get a Mac.

Second, they need to get back into education, like they once were. When I was in the grammar school, the first computers they introduced us to were Macs. In high school I didn't know how to use the PCs well. In college, I first started using the Macs, especially as I was learning to do web dev. Eventually I began using the PC as everyone else was using it and it had more apps to use for what I needed. Apple needs to get more Macs into schools. Train them when they are young on the Mac and as they get older, they will want to use the Mac in college and in the workplace.

Advertising. A lot of young people see Macs as cool. But not useable. Apple needs to push the power of the G5, the great advantages of the iApps. They need to push the built in AIM and iChat. IMing is HUGE and Apple should jump on it. People need to be informed that the main apps they use are on the Mac and that they can use virtual pc for apps they must have but that only work on the pc.

Unix/Linux. Apple need to play up that OSX is built atop UNIX. Play this to the corporate world and to the unix/linux geeks. As a geek, if I had a choice of Redhat on a homebrew box or OSX on a G5, I'd pick G5 all the way! I'm surprised more geeks haven't gotten on the OSX and G5 bandwagon. After seeing Steve Jobs presentation in SF and seeing the G5 specs I'm considering getting a G5 at the end of the year.

Upgradeability. If I get a Mac, I want to be able to upgrade the video card (even if I have to buy it from apple), the ram, etc. For the past 5 years I've built every pc I've owned/used. Now I've come to realize that it's better off to buy a pc from dell as the cost is not much different and it's less of a hassle as I can get dell to build and support it. My one concern has been upgradeability. If able to lay my fears to rest, then I will skip Dell and go Apple.

Accessories. First the iPod and now the iSight. They next need to get a PDA. I know some people who've gotten an iPod and loved it. So when it came time to get a new computer, they got a Mac. Apple should build more products around the Mac.

Media. Apple key strength will pay off for them. Everyone is getting into media these days, whether it be MP3s (iStore), digital cameras, DVD, camcorders, etc. A lot of people I know have digital cameras. And now that stores like CVS and Riteaid are offering free digital prints at stores, I'm sure more people will be open to the digital media experience.

These things will not help Apple take over MS or even be on the same level as them or some of the PC manufacturers like Dell, but it will increase their market share and keep Apple around for even longer. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? As I was pondering the new G5 while booting up my newly purchased used G3 mini tower that I got for 95.00$ to network with my original desktop G3 and my ibook, I was wondering what will I do in two years to upgrade the new digital music server I am buiding with several large hard drives and the new MP4 codec, I thought to myself that Apple for all it has done, and it has done amazing things now that we have a Unix based OS, needs to have a cheap deaktop machine. I dont want an imac or another laptop, I have a beautiful 17 inch LCD screen that has inputs for two computers. I dont want a machine that runs ultra fast SCSI drives, IDE drives are getting cheaper by the minute and I can swap them in and out of my two G3s. What I want is a basic machine, with a small footprine that can I can network into my system and run a few applications like itunes and a web browser. Surely, I shouldn't have to pay 2000.00 for that. Without a machine like the one describe in this article, my next Mac will probably be a used G4. How does Apple profit from that? But with this nice little box, I can have a new one, hopefuly a G4 for 350.00$ and Apple gets my money, not some nameless dude on Ebay. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Couldn't you do that with an EMac? Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Maybe. I stopped recommending Macs to my friends after one of them had their new iMac in the shop for 6 weeks -- mainly waiting for parts for a lemon video sub-system.

Not to take away from an obviously ill-handled manufacturing problem by Apple, but I think that you'll occasionally find problems with anything here and there. Even really high end tech gear (which the iMac isn't). When you're around someone that has such a problem, it tends to skew your perception a bit. I mean, you're in a great restaurant and someone gets a hair in their food. You may avoid the place. Things happen. These systems have to move around in trucks and get stocked by some guy that could care less about handling them with care.

Occasionally things need to be repaired. When it happens out of the box, that sucks. But then you complain your ass off and get it taken care of. Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments