Home > Apple > Minority Report: Will Apple Send in the Clones? Minority Report: Will Apple Send in the Clones? Thom Holwerda 2005-11-04 Apple 102 Comments Were Apple to once again start licensing its operating system to third-party ‘Mac clone’ hardware makers, it could reignite the OS wars. Yet whether Apple will go this route – and whether doing so would be smart – remains to be seen. About The Author Thom Holwerda Follow me on Twitter @thomholwerda 102 Comments 2005-11-04 7:57 pm The link doesn’t work 2005-11-04 8:01 pm I know that this is a popular hope amongst most PC users so they can have missmatched hardware with an first class OS… but its gthe fact that Apple creates both the hardware and software which creates such a strong selling point. As long as Apple continues to price its computers equally if not less than computers that that are equally spec’d in hardware software and OS, I’m happy. I only wish that they would give more options to buy less and spend less as you can with a PC. 2005-11-04 8:11 pm rattaro >I only wish that they would give more options to buy less and spend less as you can with a PC. Options only happen when you have competition. Competition only happens when you have more than 1 supplier. So, maybe you really DO want Mac clones. You don’t have to buy them, but it at least gives other people the choice. Maybe Apple will then have to give you more options. 2005-11-04 8:15 pm Robocoastie Well so far Jobs has a track record of saying one thing and then doing the other. Remember these statements? “We don’t see a need nor plan to create a media iPod.” Now we have media iPods, TV shows on iTunes (hopefully more to add to that line up) and media center like OSx. Earlier this year he stunned those who believe what Jobs says by announcing MacIntel’s are coming. So it seems that if Jobs says Apple is NOT going to do something they actually are but I think they’d monopolize it just like they do their “authorized resellers”. Only the big guys ie… Dell would get the contract and all the screwdriver shops will be furious. As OS News readers what we likely want though is just to be able to install it on the machines we build so we don’t have to look for the hacks that inevitably will come out. (another reason why Apple may as well just let people install it on anything but they don’t have to offer support on non-Apple hardware). Edited 2005-11-04 20:23 2005-11-04 8:53 pm >Options only happen when you have competition. No, Apple currently provides options. I just want them to provide me with more options. Really, Apple’s only failing is that they provide fewer options to buy less and spend less. If they did offer more, more people would buy. People think that Apple’s computer are more expensive. That’s really not true. They just give you fewer options to buy less and thus spend less. 2005-11-04 9:35 pm rattaro >No, Apple currently provides options. I just want them to provide me with more options. Ok, fine. I’ll revise my statement. MORE options only happen when you have competition. The rest of my original post still stands though. 2005-11-04 10:54 pm kellym What does there need to be more competition for Apple to provide more options? 2005-11-05 12:22 am rattaro >What does there need to be more competition for Apple to provide more options? By competition, I mean more HARDWARE competition. i.e. different makers of the hardware. If you have 50 different companies making MacOSX boxes, you are likely to get lots more variety/options than if you have only 1 company making the hardware. 2005-11-05 12:41 am kellym But by doing that…. you lose one of the primary benefits that makes a Mac better than a PC. If Apple could retain their control while also offering more options to buy less… that would achieve both goals. 2005-11-05 1:00 am rattaro >But by doing that…. you lose one of the primary benefits that makes a Mac better than a PC. Probably true, but there would still be more competition. >If Apple could retain their control while also offering more options to buy less… that would achieve both goals. Not quite. If we ask about “more options,” the next question that follows could be “more than what?” Apple may supply good options, they may be well priced, they may be wonderful in every possible way (I’m not making any value judgements), but if they did open up the OS, we, the consumers, necessarily would benefit from even more choice, with even more options. Unfortunately, you could probably lose some quality in the OS (I don’t know), but that is the give and take. And what is good for consumers is not necessarily good for the company. 2005-11-04 9:44 pm rayiner Really, Apple’s only failing is that they provide fewer options to buy less and spend less. If they did offer more, more people would buy. Are you high? How could you possibly buy less? A dual-core PowerMac comes with the absolute cheapest stuff they can get away with selling on a $2000+ machine. You want them to sell you a config with 256MB of RAM? With a hard drive that costs even less than $50? A sub $100 graphics card? There is really nowhere left to skimp. The stuff Mac folks tout as “value added” (Firewire, GigE), are dirt cheap and add maybe $10 to the cost of the machine. You’d save no money leaving those things out. 2005-11-04 9:53 pm ma_d Have you checked out their notebook options? They have two platforms: A nice one with everything, and a cheap one with crippled graphics. See, I’d love to have an ibook with a 64/128 MB card… Why? Cause I wanna run quartz 2d extreme (well, no swapping). I’d feel bad buying a new notebook that couldn’t run quartz 2d extreme. Personally, it doesn’t matter, cause I don’t even have enough for an ibook right now; but I’m sure there are non-college versions of me out there. Now, if you go to Dell’s website. You’ll notice they have like two seperate types of budget laptop. The ones with Pentium M’s, and the real junk with Celerons. That’s nice! I do think the single proc powermacs are overpriced, but the rest of their stuff seems pretty fair. I can tell you, when I buy a PC I buy one with a full case. Because I want to be able to open it up and add and remove components, and I don’t want to have 2 slots, I want 5! So, I’d love to see a lower model full tower Mac. And I think there are more people out there like me. It’d also be wise of Apple to consider offering a true gaming machine. A dual G5 is not a gamers dream, it’s a gamers waste of money right now. A 2.7GHz G5 (single!) with 1.5GB of RAM and a nice disk and your choice of gfx cards would appeal to gamers a lot more than spending extra money to have dualies… It does appear they offer a pretty good choice range for gfx cards on the single G5, but they need to offer a processor speed choice too. But they don’t want to, because they want you to buy a dual processor machine: Because they make more money off it. Apple’s choice could use work. What they offer is pretty nice, but it’s slim pickin’s for certain types of users. And as I stated previously, they have no loss-leader, and I think that kills them in the cheap market. 2005-11-04 9:38 pm rayiner This statement is pure fantasy. I have one of the new PowerMacs. This $2700 machine consists of (generously) $1500 worth of hardware. Throw in a large 20% profit margin for Apple (Dell’s is less than 10%), and you’re still faced with justifying the value of OS X and its bundled apps at $900. For some people (me, obviously), OS X is worth $900. A lot of people cannot make that same value judgement. 2005-11-04 10:50 pm Celerate “you’re still faced with justifying the value of OS X and its bundled apps at $900. For some people (me, obviously), OS X is worth $900. A lot of people cannot make that same value judgement.” I see this as agreeing with the argument for clones; I can understand why it’s an unattractive prospect to someone who already likes Apple’s systems, but for someone like me, who hasn’t ever tried a Mac or it’s software before, that $900 is astoundingly steep. Apple does have cheaper systems, the Mac mini is about the only one within my price range; however, for the price of the thing in Canadian dollars I regred that it doesn’t at least come with a free Apple mouse and keyboard. If there were cheaper Mac clones then I would be able to try the software which endears everyone else to the platform, then if I liked it I don’t doubt I would be more motivated to save up for a real Mac. 2005-11-05 10:15 am Lumbergh Throw in a large 20% profit margin for Apple (Dell’s is less than 10%), and you’re still faced with justifying the value of OS X and its bundled apps at $900. For some people (me, obviously), OS X is worth $900. A lot of people cannot make that same value judgement. I probably wouldn’t justify a $900 OSX on its own, but I might justify a $900 OSX, plus the ability to run windows and/or linux at near native speeds via virtualization and/or dualbooting. 2005-11-04 9:08 pm “As long as Apple continues to price its computers equally if not less than computers that that are equally spec’d in hardware software and OS, I’m happy.” Its a myth, they don’t. They are minimum 30% more, often double the price of equivalent spec non Apple machines. I am not saying this is a good or a bad thing, just that it is a verifiable fact. It will be even more verifiable after the move to Intel. You will be able to compare processor, disk, opticals, memory. Macs, if you can call them Macs, will then still be more expensive. A lot more. The cases will still be prettier. As to whether it creates a strong selling point, the numbers don’t bear it out. They are now selling just a few more than they sold ten years ago. Its not a resounding success. Its better than five years ago, which was a disaster, but its not a great vote of confidence in the strategy. Again, this is a matter of fact not opinion. The sales really are around 1.2 million, and this really is only a bit higher than 10 years ago. Anyone who followed the thread on this forum recently about the new OS X release, would also know that whatever the theory is, in practice, having a limited hardware environment does not seem to lead, in the experience of users, to any better performance. Most of the posters said their XP machines were more stable than their Tiger machines. The thing I don’t understand about the present strategy as announced is, they seem to have customers who want to buy the OS without buying the hardware. In the old days, this would have meant supporting a different architecture. After the switch, the only difference between a Mac and any other Intel machine will be a chip that says ‘we paid apple’, so there won’t be any architecture issues. So, why will they not simply sell the customer what they want? If they want to buy an OS, sell it to them. What’s the problem? If these customers simply don’t want the ‘total Mac experience’ why tell them they have to have it? Just take their money. 2005-11-04 9:36 pm ma_d Yea, if anything Apple should try and expand its offerings instead of letting others do it for them and make all the money… Apple might wanna forget its pride and try selling an ultra-cheap ugly-type box. You know, the $400 type PC’s with 5 years ago’s hard disk, the processors they can’t give away, not nearly enough RAM, etc etc. Then when they walk in to pick one of those up, the salesmen says “for another $100 you can get a mini with a slightly better disk, more RAM, a better processor, and it’s a lot quieter and more reliable!” I know loss-leaders are evil, but it seems to be the way to sell to Americans. 2005-11-05 3:16 am kaiwai Well, the thing is, lets hypothetically assume they choose a vendor; even then, the operating system would only be allowed to run on Macs OR that particular vendor; that particular vendor would then have to work directly with Apple to make sure that all their products work with MacOS X, that company would also have to devulge their up coming product line up so that support can be assured in MacOS X – I don’t know about you, but the required information that would need to be given to Apple would basically make any competitor uncompetitive because as soon as their ‘partner’ devulged the information, Apple would know what the future product line up was. 2005-11-05 7:37 am This short post, the first in the thread, is quite reasonable but really says nothing terribly insightful or surprising, yet it has been moderated to +5. Other posts, equally reasonable but not so enthusiastic about Apple’s current strategy, are moderated negatively. In short, moderation and ratings have become useless. Effectively OSNews has become an unmoderated site. Thom and Eugenia: Moderation is useful. You have to take away moderation on some topics, or take it back in the hands of the editorial team. You have a minority of readers who are just too much idiots to be allowed to use it. I expect this will be moderated down too. As Laing said, if you cannot talk about it, you cannot talk about the fact that you cannot talk about it…. 2005-11-06 1:49 pm Mage66 >> I know that this is a popular hope amongst most PC users so they can have missmatched hardware with an first class OS… << No.. If Dell or Gateway come out with MacOS systems… It will be FIRST CLASS hardware, with a FIRST CLASS OS. I hope Dell is able to license and sell MacOS X Systems… I can’t get Apple to approve and Apple Loan, but Dell approved $2,000 in credit. I’d be able to buy BOTH a new Desktop and Laptop from Dell, which Apple won’t let me do. And what’s funnier, is I’m a long time Apple Certified Technician, and I sell more Powerbooks by showing mine off to customers than salesmen in the Apple Stores. ROFLMAO!!! Apple can be SO backwards… Their Certified Technicians are an untapped sales force, and they ought to be MUCH nicer to them. 2005-11-04 8:01 pm Smartpatrol That would be a horrible idea. There were very few good Mac clones most sucked bad. 2005-11-04 8:09 pm nathan_c It would not have to be awful. Apple would just need a much more stringent certification process for the hardware vendors that want to come on board. I would love to see a few other vendors offer OSX on their machines because it would really drive the adoption of the operating system. Frankly, I like OSX, but I really don’t like Apple’s support policies and their secretiveness with future products. You can’t build a good IT infrastructure if you can’t see the roadmap of what your suppliers have in mind. My .02 2005-11-04 8:18 pm Smartpatrol You can’t build a good IT infrastructure if you can’t see the roadmap of what your suppliers have in mind. Ahmen! was wondering how Mac server installs managed that aspect. Is is a sustainable platform with a clear path that maximizes software investments? 2005-11-04 8:34 pm If Apple were to announce a product months before its introduction, it would give other vendors time to put out a crapified equal. That would kill apple’s revenues with people buying what they think are just as good as what apple offers. This is obvious seeing how many people are making copy-cat iPods and Minis 2005-11-04 9:07 pm Smartpatrol I agree not to mention that Apple is a hardware company and once they switch to intel i would guess that their harware cost is going to go way down making the platform high quality and affordable a combination Apple would be foolish to pass up. 2005-11-04 8:38 pm The problem with certifications is that customers tend not to place much weight on them or hold out for certified products, and product makers tend not to want to sink the time or money into applying for and obtaining certified status. Just look at the situation with WHQL-certified drivers in the Windows world. The certification process is costly and slow, so companies like ATI and nVidia almost never wait for WHQL-certification before releasing a driver. As a result, the vast majority of Windows device drivers are not WHQL-certified, and in fact most products (printers, scanners, etc) actually tell the user to IGNORE the “this driver isn’t certified” warning that Windows pops up when installing the drivers for the product. In the end, the certification is just a giant joke that everyone ignores. 2005-11-04 8:48 pm nathan_c You are right that certification processes can be painful and slow, but they can be effective. The differences with WHQL and if Apple were to sell OSX to certified vendors only are that with WHQL, MS can’t prosecute vendors that don’t comply, but Apple could. Also, for a long time there was no driver certification of any nature in Windows so the vendors don’t bother with it now. Also, certifications are much more easily enforced on vendors if you license something to them that they resell, which OSX would be that. I’m not advocating that Apple sell stand-alone copies that run on all x86 boxes – just that there are other vendors that get certified and sell hardware and OSX together (that complies with whatever DRM solution that Apple adopts to keep non-certified boxes from working). Sun is a good example of this with Java – they’ve actually been able to keep Java fairly compliant across implementations for different vendors. But, you’re right. If certification is done poorly, then it’s better not done at all. 2005-11-05 3:19 am kaiwai I think hardware wise,its a none issue; when Intel annouces something, be assured that Apple will be first on the bandwagon. In regards to software – when was the last time a company actually released a road map and actually stuck to it? how many times has Microsoft recycled their road map; the release date, product code names and scope have been moved more times than I’d change my undies in a week. Look at the WWDC conference, and that’ll give you the best road map there is for MacOS X – without all the hype and bulldust that goes with OS development and promotion. 2005-11-04 10:40 pm Captain N. Yeah, but PCs running Windows at weren’t any better at the time. The technology just wasn’t very solid in those days – accross the board. At that time, it was definately a benefit to control all aspects of the hardware and software. Technology has advanced, and I don’t think you would have the same problem with instability and general “suckiness” today that you had back then with Apple clones, just as you don’t have the same problems today with PCs that you had back then. 2005-11-05 11:44 am The problem with the original Mac clone program was that the licensing fees were too low for Apple to make a decent profit off clone sales. Upping the fees would also (hopefully) discourage fly-by-night companies looking for quick bucks from making cruddy clone Macs. The thing that Apple would have to watch out for is a clone maker with the economies of scale to put together clone-Macs that perform as well or better than real Macs but at a better price point. Most people don’t care if thier computer is pretty or not and if the clone makers can save a few bucks with inexpensive (but sturdy) cases they’d sell just as well. 2005-11-06 3:15 pm Mage66 >> The problem with the original Mac clone program was that the licensing fees were too low for Apple to make a decent profit off clone sales. << That’s not true… Apple is just spoiled because it has the HIGHEST profit margin of any manufacturer in the industry. Apple DOESN’T use higher quality components, or provide much more in the way of value on the hardware. They just have a higher profit margin, because they want higher margins, not more boxes sold… Apple was making PLENTY on each Clone, and could have made more with smart marketing.. Each Clone should have been offered AppleWorks/ClarisWorks at a discount. Claris EMailer (one of the best Email Programs EVER, IMHO) at a discount, OS Upgrades, and more… Apple never leveraged the Clone sales to make add-on sales. It was all whining because Motorola and Power Computing were making systems faster and more innovative than Apple. Apple didn’t want to compete. They want to dominate the Mac Market. Apple was letting it’s lunch be eaten, and so it used Monopolistic practices to force all it’s competitors out of the business. Rather than accepting the challenge and introducing compelling, competitive systems. Had they released the Blue and White G3 a year or more earlier, THAT would have been good competition to the clones. Apple didn’t want to. 2005-11-06 1:45 pm Mage66 >> That would be a horrible idea. There were very few good Mac clones most sucked bad. << In what alternate Universe?? In THIS universe, the clones either used Apple Made Logic boards, making them 100% clones of existing Macs, which DIDN’T “Suck bad”… Or, they were better machines. Every Motorola, and Power Computing machine was BETTER than the Power Macs of the time. They could use PC-Standard Parts. PC-Standard Monitors without an adapter. Some could even use PS/2 keyboards and mice, allowing a greater selection AND integration into a standard KVM. I have TWO Power Computing Clones, a Power 100 and a Power Center 132. And while they don’t run MacOS X, they are over 10 years old and working great! As good as when they were brand new. I can’t name a SINGLE clone that “sucked bad”. Can you? 2005-11-04 8:03 pm remains to been. is it “be seen”? 2005-11-04 8:20 pm Remember what Apple did before? No, they learned from that mistake. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Macintosh#Clones So, give up all your hopes of an official non-Apple MacOS X machine. It won’t ever happen, and Steve will try very hard to make it so it won’t be easy to do otherwise. 2005-11-06 2:15 pm Mage66 The Clones weren’t a mistake… They were eating Apple’s Lunch, and providing us BETTER Macs than Apple wanted to. The downside for Apple was that they made less money per unit. Except the clones were expanding the market. Microsoft makes Billions on selling Windows on LESS of a gross margin that Apple was making on the clones. The trick is QUANTITY, not the amount of money they made on each system. The idea that Apple was losing $100.00 on each clone is purely B.S. That $100 is a made up number. EVERY business wants to sell large quantities of product to make LOTS of money. I’d rather sell 10 million units and make $50.00, then a million and make $250.00 each. 2005-11-06 3:35 pm alcibiades To be fair to clone opponents, the problem surely was that they did not expand the market. It was just the traditional mac buyer who bought a clone instead of an Apple. You can see why that would be a problem. It did not expand the market, it just allowed more competition. The reason for this was that the clones were literally clones. They were still PPC based. The PPC market was not going to expand, so the effect was just lost sales. Now, if they had released the OS for Intel, it might have been different. The problem was, the hardware industry was geared up to produce Intel machines, and was shipping Windows because there was no other contender in the OS market. If MacOS had been released for Intel, this would have had a very good chance of expanding the market for it. This is why most reasonable observers think, at the moment, that Apple should not engage in a clone program. What it needs to do is sell the OS independently of hardware, to run on whatever the customer wants to run it on. Now, when people object to this, one of their main objections is that Apple will never be able to compete on price, and no-one will buy Apple Macs any more. They will just all buy whitebox machines and put OSX on it. As I have said before, there is something completely wrong with this argument. If Apple equipment is, as argued, better and cheaper than current Intel stuff made by the usual suspects, and if, as argued, the whole Mac experience, because of the integration of hardware and software, is better than that available on Wintel, then of course people will continue to buy from Apple. It is only if you really believe that Apple cannot and does not offer the customer value for money on hardware, and that the integration is not giving something better and good value for money, that you can think that licensing the OS can lead to disaster. Its just a matter of logic and consistency. You cannot argue at the same time that Apple hardware is better and cheaper, and that it will be undercut disastrously. You cannot argue that buying hardware and software from the same supplier gives a better value experience, and simultaneously argue that customers offered a choice will opt not to buy it. My own view is, the opponents of licensing are partly right and partly wrong. They are right to feel that to do this would require large scale modifications at Apple, to get the costs out. Because they are wrong to argue that Mac hardware is equally priced at the same quality and performance with what the rest of the industry is putting out. It isn’t. And if licensing happened, it would have be brought in line. But they are wrong to feel this is a good business reason not to do it. Its a reason why management might flinch from it, but those costs should be got out anyway, for the sake of Apple’s future. And generally, there is evidence that lots of people want to buy OSX who do not want to buy Apple hardware. Well, the usual rule is, sell your customers what they want. That is what Apple should do, and manage its way through the resulting rapids. If OSX is really all it is represented to be, the result would be a different company with a larger market share, a more secure future, and a healthier PC industry. 2005-11-04 8:26 pm rhowell Even if Apple does not license OS X to other hardware suppliers, Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller has said that Apple won’t prevent Mac owners from installing other OSes, like Windows. So Dell owners can run Windows, Linux distributions, BSD distributions, etc, etc. Mac owners can run all that AND MAC OS X. Will Michael Dell start screaming, “We need our own proprietary OS to compete!”? That would be cool. 2005-11-04 10:03 pm Adam Scheinberg Interesting idea, but they won’t, because Dell needs to mollify Microsoft, not piss them off. If Dell were to do that, I would expect them to run something specialized. They currently offer FreeDOS, because it’s simply not a competitor to Windows. Now, in the event that Dell DID decide to develop their own OS, it would be foolish to do anything but write a pretty, custom DE on top of Linux, because otherwise it would simply be too hard to compete with its own products. That said, Dell controls the hardware, so if they did develop an OS from scratch – which is not likely – drivers wouldn’t be a problem, and they could even lock it to their own hardware too. 2005-11-05 3:32 am kaiwai I doubt they would develop ANYTHING; they’re a zero R&D company; basically the PC manufacturing wing of Intel; the processor, motherboard, everything is designed by Intel, all Dell do is purchase the components and throw it together – hardly an IT company, nothing more than a gloried assembly plant. 2005-11-05 10:27 am Lumbergh Mac owners can run all that AND MAC OS X. As I posted earlier, that’s the big draw for me when the switch to Intel happens. If I can run linux or windows via virtualization or dualbooting then I can more easily justify the added expense for the hardware. 2005-11-04 8:34 pm Buck As one poster already mentioned, if they keep fair prices, let them have it. Clones will essentially mean very cheap and ugly hardware and it will bring the platform as a whole down a bit. Plus EVERYONE will buy the cheaper stuff and nobody would buy Apple’s and they’ll have a harder time selling iPods if their main platform is commodized this way. I mean, why not also license iPods then? Or what prohibits others from saying then: see, you buy that $300 crap, and it runs MacOSX, so don’t pay extra for an iPod (or whatever other gadget Apple may come up with), buy this cheaper crap, because it does the same stuff… No way, it’s just going to tie Apple’s hands and I’m sure they won’t like this idea. 2005-11-04 10:26 pm I mean, why not also license iPods then? You mean like this: http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/store_access.do?template… 2005-11-06 2:17 pm Mage66 None of the Mac Clones were ugly… ROFLMAO! 2005-11-04 8:35 pm My Mac Mini already uses non-Apple screen, keyboard, mouse, speakers, scanner, and external drives. I think the Mini is their beta-platform for making sure they can handle most of the Intel-world peripherals. The next logical step is run on Intel chips, which they have already announced they are going to do. Everything will be in place next year. 2005-11-04 8:43 pm “However, Apple’s sales began to suffer as customers bought the cheaper and often faster clones rather than the company’s own Macs” And this is the problem. The shit is too expensive and can be made cheaper and everyone knows it. They gouge. 2005-11-04 8:56 pm >”And this is the problem. The shit is too expensive and can be made cheaper and everyone knows it. They gouge.” Thats simply not true. As a matter of fact, Apple’s gear is typically less expensive than comperably equipped gear from other companies. Apple just gives you so much more, thus requireing that you buy more. When you match a competitor’s specs to that which Apple gives you… they typically come out to be more money. 2005-11-04 8:59 pm software wise MAYBE. not hardwarewise. you can get a beefy x86 crap tower for less than a mac that is slower. 2005-11-04 9:02 pm Tuishimi Please oh please don’t let this degenerate into PPC vs. Intel, Mac vs. PC war again!! 2005-11-04 9:13 pm Um no. if you compare spec to spec Apple hardware is usually priced at or below to PC hardware. In many cases you can’t duplicate Apple hardware with Dell simply because Dell doesn’t sell that kind of quality components. Also Apple has dropped all the old style connectors long ago. Try buying a Dell with out a PS/2 port, or with a firewire port. why is Apple the hardware company that actually drops outdated and substanard hardware specs? Look at how long it took Dell to drop the floppy drive after Apple did in 1999? 2005-11-04 9:20 pm some people like floppies thankyouverymuch 2005-11-04 9:23 pm “In many cases you can’t duplicate Apple hardware with Dell simply because Dell doesn’t sell that kind of quality components” Like, Samsung memory, Seagate or WD or Maxtor drives, Intel processors….various opticals. Get real. There is no difference in quality of components. There is a difference in the cases, at least now. The base unit cases of the PowerMac line are lovely. As were the Next cases. But its like go faster stripes. They don’t store any more bits any faster because of their cases…. 2005-11-04 9:38 pm Thom Holwerda Like, Samsung memory, Seagate or WD or Maxtor drives, Intel processors….various opticals. Get real. There is no difference in quality of components. Exactly. It’s a popular mith that somehow the chips, silicon and opticals in a Mac are of higher quality than those in normal computers. And now with the switch, even the processor is as ‘ordinary’ as normal computers. This means nothing as to if Macs are too expensive or not. That all depends on your needs and your financial situation, and cannot be answered with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. 2005-11-04 9:46 pm rayiner In many cases you can’t duplicate Apple hardware with Dell simply because Dell doesn’t sell that kind of quality components. What quality components? Don’t just regurgitate the shit you read on the Mac forums. Tell me what quality components you see in Macs that aren’t a dime a dozen on a Dell or Compaq. 2005-11-04 10:00 pm ma_d The “logic boards” hehe . Apple is pretty careful to choose good components, check out the list of radeon 9800’s on newegg, there’s a lot of junk to sort through before you get to the really good stuff.. I’m not implying that Dell or Compaq use junk (they have a higher tendency to just not include a gfx card). I’m no Mac fan mind you. But I do respect their eye for quality parts (quality indicating its reliability, aesthetics when important, reasonable performance). 2005-11-04 10:12 pm rayiner Except they don’t, not in the slightest. They seem to use whatever is cheaper. The use a 250GB Western Digital in my PowerMac, which is exactly the drive I didn’t get for my other computer because it always came in at the bottom of price lists. It uses cheap Kingston RAM, not Crucial or Corsair or any of the good stuff. They used Sapphire graphics cards on the ATI series, which were again the cheapest ones you could find. There is not a top-notch part in my Mac, except for maybe the motherboard. Certainly, there is nothing in there that I would personally put in a $1500 machine, much less a $2700 machine. Call me spoiled. I like good-quality components and don’t mind paying a bit of a premium for them. I *thought* that was what Apple was all about. 2005-11-04 11:16 pm japail I see Kelly McNeil is back to moderating your posts into oblivion. 2005-11-05 12:39 am kellym ya, because certainly no one else would ever disagree with you. 2005-11-05 1:22 am japail You write the same stock comments and you moderate the same posts. It’s funny because if you look at Rayiner’s comment history you can see overwhelming where the ‘bias’ lies. And agreeing with someone has nothing to do with moderation practices. I disagree with Rayiner quite often, and not once have I had to actually mod one of his comments down. It’s quite rare that they meet the requirements for moderation, which is something you never bother to grasp before doing it, because you’re first and foremost a propagandist. Right now, provide the rationale under the moderation guidelines for the moderation of: http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=12542&comment_id=55913 2005-11-05 2:59 pm japall, Note that your comment is modded to -3. If you cannot talk about it, you cannot be allowed to talk about the fact you cannot talk about it. All comments on improper moderating of a comment therefore have to be moderated down as well. This was how it was to live in Russia, except that the KGB were the moderators. Or in Europe in the Middle Ages, except that the Church did the moderating. Be very glad that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly. If it did, no criticism of it any sort would be permitted anywhere. This will be moderated down too. 2005-11-05 2:48 am kellym You’re still assuming that I’m the one mass-disagreeing with you. That’s kindof of pompus of you to automatically think that the public isn’t likely to disagree with you. So far, I haven’t illustrated who I agree or disagree with you. Should I adopt the disagree with you stance, It would appear that more people side with me than you on the matter. 2005-11-05 7:42 am japail Side with you on what? What are you even talking about? Stop moderating Rayiner’s posts down when they’re 1) not trolls 2) not flamebait Stop pretending that you don’t. 2005-11-06 2:22 pm Mage66 When I worked in CompUSA, the MOST purchased peripheral for an iMac, after a printer was… A floppy drive. So, dropping the floppy drive was WAY pre-mature. I STILL build one in all my PCs. 2005-11-04 10:38 pm ValiantSoul “software wise MAYBE. not hardwarewise. you can get a beefy x86 crap tower for less than a mac that is slower.” Key word: crap Edited 2005-11-04 22:38 2005-11-04 9:00 pm Hands Part of the what makes Apple products good/bad is that they like to have complete control over the entire design. Apple has used that control to deliver a very consistent and stable experience. Even the software exhibits this philosophy. Users can’t customize things to the extent that is possible with other systems. If you like what Apple gives you, then it is a fabulous product that a clone really wouldn’t be able to match very easily. If you don’t like the choices that Apple has provided, the software still has limitations on customization that will probably not make a clone appealing either. The only possible argument in favor of clones is a lower price, but once again, tradeoffs would be made to lower the appeal of even the lower price. 2005-11-04 9:15 pm Yes, this is the theory. But listen to what users say, and you find that it doesn’t actually deliver any more stability or better performance. Listen to the cries of hope with which the new release of X was greeted on OSNews, by committed Mac users. All the stuff they hoped to see fixed at last. Yes, its control. No, its not better quality. It may be because if you are using the same disks, memory, opticals, processors, even main boards as everyone else, and have your boxes made by Asus or similar, you really cannot have ‘complete control over the entire design’. You are just another PC supplier. You have as much or as little control as Dell. By the way: what is being suggested is not clones. And clones was a silly idea. What is being suggested is unbundling. You buy the OS and run it on whatever you like, not just clones of Apple designs. Unbundling, and open hardware, is what MS does. That is the suggestion for what they should do. 2005-11-04 9:42 pm if hardware mfg would build decent yet affordable motherboards and were available at places like TigerDirect or NewEgg i surely would build my own system and buy an official OSX from Apple.com 2005-11-04 9:47 pm Tuishimi WHo the fsck modded me down -2?? That’s b*llbleep! ANd I was right, this is degenerating into apple vs. intel platforms… 2005-11-05 8:26 pm alcibiades Who modded you down? Scientologists, is who. Taking over these forums. 2005-11-05 10:05 pm Tuishimi I dunno. You cannot tell. C’est la vie! FWIW, Apple will never ever relinquish control again. They will continue to sell their OS on ONLY their hardware. 2005-11-04 10:22 pm “Unbundling, and open hardware, is what MS does. That is the suggestion for what they should do.” That has been said numerous times, however, you must understand that Microsoft has ALWAYS been a software company first and foremost, and is just recently getting into the hardware side of things with the xbox and xbox360. Apple, on the other hand, has historically been a Hardware company. Only recently has it developed enough “killer apps” that they could *maybe* switch away from the hardware side of the deal. I still don’t think they are quite ready for that yet, maybe in time. They need something more than a sexy OS and GarageBand/FinalCut/ect. A few more killer apps an maybe they could pull it off. I really think all the people complaining about not being able to run OSX x86 on a white box really wouldn’t pay the $120 for a copy anyways. Usually its those same people running pirated copies of windows, so I somehow doubt they’d actually pay Apple any money anyways. If your seriously interested in running MacOS X, get Apple hardware. Simple as that. Sure you pay a little more, but I have yet to have one of my Macs die on me because of a hardware componet failure. Hell, I’ve had my MacPlus running since the 80’s. Apple doesn’t use shoddy componets to lower price, which in the end means your machine is going to have a longer life span. 2005-11-04 10:33 pm rayiner I really think all the people complaining about not being able to run OSX x86 on a white box really wouldn’t pay the $120 for a copy anyways. Usually its those same people running pirated copies of windows, so I somehow doubt they’d actually pay Apple any money anyways. Uh, your conclusion really does not follow from your premise. There are plenty of people who like to tinker with their machines or run unusual configurations. That doesn’t mean they like to steal software. 2005-11-05 6:56 am Celerate I agree, I know lots of people who have homebrew machines, I’m one of them and all of us use 100% legal copies of Windows on our computers. Accusing people of being pirates because they like to choose what hardware goes into their computer, either to save money or get something they can’t get in a store, is being intentionally ignorant and offensive. It’s no different than those people who say Mac users are gay because they use shiny white computers. 2005-11-05 6:48 am Celerate Have you considered that the reason people who build homebrew computers put Windows on them is because they can’t put Mac OS X on such machines? 2005-11-06 4:51 am alcibiades “If your seriously interested in running MacOS X, get Apple hardware. Simple as that.” That is not the issue. It is not about what any of us want to do, the interesting discussion, if we could only have it, would be about what the company can and should do. The argument is that the company can and should sell its OS to people who want to buy it, but do not want to buy the Apple hardware to run it on. The argument is, this might be better for the company. You can think this about business strategy, without having any desire to run OSX on anything. Business strategy for companies doesn’t have much to do with what we personally want to do. Somebody please mod this down to -5: the man is trying to make rational points, should be stopped at once. 2005-11-04 10:36 pm ValiantSoul Apple is a hardware company, and their hardware is of great quality so I certainly hope I don’t see any Dells running OS X. 2005-11-04 10:52 pm I bought an iBook last semester and it is the best computer I have ever bought. I used to use both win2000 and winXP and I thought that you couldn’t get any more stable. I have nothing against windows, but to not include viruses and spyware infections as a factor in stability is not fair. I have never had a crash with my iBook, except when I had to install Virtual PC to run some software that my school required for an algebra class. It crashed all the time. The $1000 that paid for it is definately worth the hassle that I DON’T get out of it. 2005-11-04 11:07 pm I see that some people don’t want Apple to sell OS X for use on other Hardware, and I cant understand their reason, as this will not stop the MacTel from running it. So why not, I believe its good for everybody (Except Microsoft). Apple will sell more copies of the OS, and maybe PC’s too since some people will buy their’s if they faced hardware problems or feel like its better. Maybe this helps them gain market share 2005-11-05 12:14 am poofyhairguy I see that some people don’t want Apple to sell OS X for use on other Hardware, and I cant understand their reason, as this will not stop the MacTel from running it We kinda like the idea of the more expensive “better than whatever you are doing” computer out there that is like a BMW to the many Fords of the PC world (Dell, HP, Linksys, junk web cam makers, don’t get me started). Little boys don’t have pictures of the cars that one day they can acually afford on a middle class salary or pictures of women that they could ever hope to sleep with on their wall. They have pictures of super expensive cars and fake women. Its nice to dream about having the high end. I mean, if the elite goes away what will all the Dells of the world aspire to be? 2005-11-04 11:18 pm Well now Apple is going to use everyday PC hardware. They aren’t going to have NVidia and ATI create specific video cards, they aren’t going to have manufacturers create specific soundcards. Apple is going to be using general PC hardware. The only difference being a security chip on the motherboard. I would expect the Intel processor to be the same as the ones Fry’s sales behind their metal cages in the front of the store. Maybe over time they’ll get enough driver’s written for OS X to support the majority of PC hardware already available, like bluetooth etc. They have contact with NVidia and ATI in the creation of video card drivers. Heck, I don’t know why NVidia doesn’t create a UNIFIED X driver for OS X… That would take care of video. Sound, well just support the most generic sound cards like Soundblasters, AC97’s etc… Then once they do all of this, sale OS X for a premium price, like $299 (people will pay this for OS X). Hardware vendors just might decide to support the MacX86 platform now that everything is standardized with the PC market. 2005-11-04 11:26 pm Apple, atleast now on the PPC version of OS X, seem to be mucking up the soundserver and it’s compability with third-party drivers, with every new release of the OS. Apple should stop that crap immediately. I’m confused. DOES or DOES NOT Apple want third parties to support their platform? It seems like they do sometimes, then they don’t other times. I can’t say that there are any big network cards companies, themselves, supporting the Mac. Linksys, D-Link, Netgear and Hawking really don’t support the Mac at all. Nor does Creative Labs. I think Creative has worked with the Mac before, but it failed (SBLive Mac)… Maybe Apple should stop being selfish for 5 little minutes and ask these companies if they would like to support their products on the Mac platform with help from Apple. 2005-11-04 11:36 pm doug Apple will never do this as long as Steve Jobs remains in charge. Remember he is the one who killed the clones back in the Apple war of 94. Wait for a new hope. 2005-11-05 12:26 am dukeinlondon Nobody is waiting for clones OSX machines to buy Mac. But a lot of people would buy cheaper Macs, but failing that, they’ll buy Apple Macs. There is no appetite for OS migration these days. Even MS will face a tough ride selling Vista. So, clones ? Absolutely no point to it for Apple, Jobs at the helm or not. 2005-11-05 12:46 am APPLE hardware, Microsoft hardware, all cheap crap made in taiwan/china/korea. Come on people. their powerbooks use ASUS motherboards. That should tell you something about hardware quality. It’s all cheap mass produced stuff. Yes Apple has better support plans. But stop arguing their hardware is better quality. more egg-like in shape maybe. more artlike sure. but not higher quality. (typing this on a G5 keyboard because it’s sexy.) 2005-11-05 1:57 am Part of Apple’s licensing program was the stipulation that clones do not undercut Apple’s price. Apple clones have always been superior to Apple’s offerings. This shamed Apple and they stopped the licensing programs because despite being higher priced, clones were a better value than Apple’s hardware. So Apple WILL NOT allow clones because their profits are based on hardware sales and if they allowed clones the company would tank financially. 2005-11-05 2:00 am But I will NEVER own a computer that I cannot build from scratch. 2005-11-05 11:28 am But I will NEVER own a computer that I cannot build from scratch. You can get used Mac parts off ebay and build your computer from scratch. Heck, if you get friendly with your local independant Mac service center (assuming you can find one in your area) you could probably buy the parts new. I love solving problems. 2005-11-05 5:04 pm Celerate The first option puts you at the mercy of all the other bidders on e-Bay most of which will compulsively go way over the original price of what’s for sale because they absolutely have to have whatever garbage they’re bidding on. I’m serious, I’ve seen people bid in excess of USD $500 for an old 386 B&W laptop with a broken screen on e-Bay. This option is also not good because the point of a homebew system is that you get to pick your own parts, not that you buy old mac parts and put them back together into a system identical to what they once were. The second option you present is most likely illegal, or at least in violation of the contract the Mac service centre has with Apple. Nothing solved here. 2005-11-05 7:36 pm Building from miscellaneous used Apple parts on eBay isn’t the point. The best thing about a PC is that you have a multitude of choices of hardware. Various motherboards, video & audio cards, etc. to match your wants and needs. What’s the point of building your own Mac if all (or most) the hardware originates from Apple? I love the PC platform. Just the only viable O/S right now is crap. 2005-11-05 5:53 pm marcushe “But I will NEVER own a computer that I cannot build from scratch.” And I LOVE having warranties from 20 different companies. Edited 2005-11-05 17:55 2005-11-05 7:39 pm “And I LOVE having warranties from 20 different companies.” Don’t buy crap? 2005-11-05 2:05 am JrezIN IF Apple stick with Intel as only hardware provider (CPU+chipset)… that could be true. why? because it’ll be a strong selling point for Intel hardware (Intel would like that with AMD getting stronger every day…), and Apple could profit from this case too. And why the bad clones could be avoid? Well, because Apple can make conditions to “license” it’s technology and software. They can make clone makes pass through a lot of quality tests to ensure the “Apple quality” they have right now. …Also, Apple has a change to become a lot bigger in Desktop market, and it’s now, before Windows Vista release! (not that I wish they take this change… I really don’t care at all… but they HAVE this change! ;] ) 2005-11-05 10:23 am Anybody will be able to get a real OS and it’s Windows Vista. So there’s no need of OS X licensing anymore. Mac zealots will buy the overpriced Apple machines with the overestimated OS X while all the others will have Vista. 2005-11-05 1:43 pm We can get a real OS that doesnt exist whose proposed release is almost a year away? Does this real OS replace a OS that is plagued by viruses, who most businesses replace with another windows variant? Methinks the word zealot applies here, and it has nothing to do with the Mac faithful. Sounds more and more like the democrat party ever day. Bitch bitch bitch about the competition but not a single good idea of your own. 2005-11-05 3:21 pm I didn’t read the article, nor all the comments here, but I think there’s something people are forgetting: Apple is a hardware company. All the software (Mac OS X, iTunes, Safari) is just there in order to sell more hardware (Macs and iPods). It’s that simple, really. So it doesn’t remain to be seen, it simply won’t happen. 2005-11-05 4:54 pm You can say that Apple is a harware company all you want and it won’t change one simple fact. Apple, and all successful companies, are money driven. If the fees for clone makers can be set high enough that Apple can make as much or more money than they currently make per machine then they’ll do that. 2005-11-05 5:45 pm alcibiades Everyone knows Apple is a hardware company. What some are still trying to figure out is the logic of the Mac community’s opposition to licensing. This is the best effort so far. It goes like this: The Apple hardware is argued to be superior to commodity hardware made in the Far East. The Apple experience is superior to the XP experience because one company controls hardware and software. And Apple hardware is the same price as, or cheaper than, comparable quality white box hardware. However, if Apple allows X to be bought independently and to run on non-Apple hardware, everyone, including the dedicated Mac users, will immediately stop buying the superior Apple hardware, forsake the superior integrated experience, and buy the white box hardware to run it on, which will, very strangely and inexplicably, now somehow be cheaper than the real thing made by Apple, undercut them, and put them out of business as a hardware company. It is a very odd sort of scenario, when you think about it logically. If the experience is so superior, the hardware so well priced already, and the hardware so much better quality, surely people will just carry on buying it? In fact, they will probably buy the Mac Intel hardware in droves, if it too is unbundled from the OS, just to run XP on such superior stuff? Edited 2005-11-05 17:47 2005-11-05 8:51 pm rayiner And Apple will never switch to x86. 2005-11-05 10:04 pm Jeeze people.. just make your own. http://www.i-hacked.com/content/view/202/42/ 2005-11-05 8:41 pm Keep those pink light sabers down, men, the timing for Apple to rise to x86 and the reason(s) why couldn’t be any more obvious: It’s Linux, stupid. The Bea$t of Redmond has a never ending shit storm of security problems in the news, and continues to charge for their OS. What better way to reshape the Bea$t’s image than to quickly counter the rise of FOSS/Linux than to quickly throw Apple to the x86 masses ALL THE WHILE selling Bea$tly Redmond software via the Apple x86 platform? People will slowly forget about the Bea$t’s OS and its problems, they’ll be satisfied with the shiny happy Apple desktop and still suck down the same old feces from Redmond, just on a new shit stick. 2005-11-06 2:58 am JohnX I got a Mac last week and Osx is really sweet. However the hardware wasn’t as good as i expected. It’s almost all generic parts or stuff you can buy elsewhere for your pc. Worse than that: they are cheap parts! What’s hironic is that some guys keep saying Apple is an hardware company. They aren’t. They do as much hardware as say… Microsoft and their keyboards/mouses. OSx = good “Apple’s hardware” = not so good Just my opinion. 2005-11-06 8:50 am Then Apple transition to Intel will complete they can license PPC based Macs to other firms or OS X PPC technology will die. That will be smart move to keep PPC based Macs alive Sorry my bad english. 2005-11-06 10:23 pm waunka001 Everyone knows how big Steve Job’s ego is, and he won’t be happy until he is a rich as that Gates guy is. To do this he will have to release it to the large oem’s. Don’t compare it to their past licensing agreements, which truly where an act of desperation for a dying company, with a technically obsolete os (poor multi-tasking, limited networking, etc). Well it’s taken time, and with much thanks to the open source community (probably a lot more then they will ever admit), MS looks like an old dinosaur, loaded down with obsolete layers of backward compatibility and security holes. Be sure the next armada of mac clones won’t be cheap beige boxes, and anyone who wants to sell, build, or put their chips in them, will have to pay heavily for the privilege. And if we are lucky, and they are successful, MS might just have to throw out their garbage and start all over with a nice and shiny new Unix core.