Cheaper things fail more often, true. Better support for more expensive things, true.
The catch is that other companies make more expensive things as well. At work, having to deal with support from HP, Dell, Apple, and Sun, the support scales. The more expensive the product, the better the support. The brand has little to do with it. From a software support perspective, Sun supports their items far better then the rest. HP is often required to support problems that I blame on them.
Longer service life is also a bad claim to make. Yes, other companies home lines do not have a long service life. For their business lines this is not the case. It's also one of the core reasons to have multiple lines.
Apple is small enough they do not have to deal with the complications of other companies, or diversify.
One of the reasons Sun has such a large server share is their support. They support their hardware, some of which is theirs and unique to them, their OS, and their applications over it. Apple doesn't even compare.
You can't keep comparing a "high end" niche company like apple, to the lowest end products of another company not even in the same price range and say it's better. That doesn't work. Take a similarly priced niche product from another company and then compare it.
That's true, however I was simply trying to point out a flaw in how Apple's hardware failure rates are compared to other manufacturers.
Also, Starbucks isn't 'hip, trendy and cool' it's bourgeois mainstream. Welcome to 2009, I take it you haven't received the cultural update briefing since coming out of your coma?
It's hip trendy and cool still, sadly. Trends tend to be mainstream no?
In that case, presumably Apple isn't hip, trendy and cool but Windows is?
That's exactly my point. How is an iPhone or iPod hip or trendy when everybody has one? Maybe they sell good because they are actually... fairly decent :shock:
Then, by that logic... I suppose Apple must make fairly decent products... and maybe that's why people buy them. !! MORE SHOCKING :shock: !!
Also, Starbucks isn't 'hip, trendy and cool' it's bourgeois mainstream. Welcome to 2009, I take it you haven't received the cultural update briefing since coming out of your coma?
It's hip trendy and cool still, sadly. Trends tend to be mainstream no?
In that case, presumably Apple isn't hip, trendy and cool but Windows is?
That's exactly my point. How is an iPhone or iPod hip or trendy when everybody has one? Maybe they sell good because they are actually... fairly decent :shock:
I believe someone already elaborated on that--the aesthetic image that Apple sells that other companies do not. See earlier posts.
Bourgeois is often trendy because, surprise, not everyone who uses a computer is bourgeois. But that's not really related to Quo unless they can offer a competitive machine comparable to Apple's popular models for less.
Not to interrupt the wild derailment of this thread, but Quo's website has actual content now. I can't help but notice that they never explicitly state the computers come with OSX installed -- just a strong implication that the computers can run OSX.
Saying nothing about the content itself, I really don't like the way you have to navigate around their site (er... "page"?). I hope that does not catch on.
That's exactly my point. How is an iPhone or iPod hip or trendy when everybody has one? Maybe they sell good because they are actually... fairly decent :shock:
Then, by that logic... I suppose Apple must make fairly decent products... and maybe that's why people buy them. !! MORE SHOCKING :shock: !!
That's exactly my point. How is an iPhone or iPod hip or trendy when everybody has one? Maybe they sell good because they are actually... fairly decent :shock:
Then, by that logic... I suppose Apple must make fairly decent products... and maybe that's why people buy them. !! MORE SHOCKING :shock: !!
It's still hip and trendy to shop at abercrombie and hollister.
Not to interrupt the wild derailment of this thread, but Quo's website has actual content now. I can't help but notice that they never explicitly state the computers come with OSX installed -- just a strong implication that the computers can run OSX.
They think they are sneaky. I suspect they will ship the PCs with a separate installer to avoid breaking the EULA themselves. They will still be sued. You can sue anybody for anything...
Really, these Quo guys shouldn't bother with OSX anyhow. There is clearly little money to be made in this market and that's why Apple is staying out of it. If a PC manufacturer was smart they could put some development work into Linux. (*cough* Intel *cough*) With a little bit of effort and a little more money desktop Linux could be better than OSX. There are things about desktop Linux that are already better than OSX.
The future of personal computers is going to be diversity. Different platforms on different scales... Your going to have your smart phones, Atom based lightweights (netbook, tablet, or desktop), personal servers, media centers, etc... Interoperability and open standards are a must, and one operating system isn't enough to cover it all.
Honestly, apart from enthusiasts, professionals, and gamers, I believe that the desktop PC as we know it is heading into a decline.
All Quo is trying to do is ride on the coat tails of an Apple resurgence, using technology developed by hobbyists. It wont work.
Just because the prediction hasn't fully come true quite yet, don't mean it ain't coming true as we speak. Laptops have been outselling desktops for a while, and that's probably only going to get worse. Laptops are just so much handier and more convenient and go ahead and guess what the only thing you can't do with one is:
You can't replace or upgrade most of the internal components.
This is only an issue for one category of home users: gamers. Anyone else buys a laptop that's half decent, and they use it until it breaks. If you buy a GOOD laptop, that can be a very long time. Lots of people are even realizing that they don't even need the horsepower of a normal laptop these days and are switching to netbooks of all things.
And what's the other side of that coin? Oh, it's way cheaper to build your own desktop, and it's not nearly so difficult as it was 10 or 15 years ago. Children are doing it now. Companies making "gaming" desktops are not doing well.
The companies that make hardware are quickly realizing that they aren't making money selling desktops to casual users the way they used to. The profit incentive there is evaporating. Laptops though, no normal user can make one of those, and certainly not for less money, and certainly not at a build quality level comparable to a reasonably mid range pre-built machine.
It's a slow progression, yeah, but the market for the consumer level desktop is disappearing. You'll still see them being made for commercial use, as laptops grow legs too easily and the internals are too difficult to repair. So offices will be full of desktops forever, but pretty soon that's what people are going to think of when they see a pre-built desktop, if they don't already: an office machine.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Show me a laptop with 1,750GB of hard drive space and I might agree. Desktops still have roles and aren't going anywhere. They're being outsold because everyone already has one, and they don't need to be replaced as frequently.
Show me a laptop with 1,750GB of hard drive space and I might agree. Desktops still have roles and aren't going anywhere. They're being outsold because everyone already has one, and they don't need to be replaced as frequently.
hurfa durfa durrr it might be possible that I suggested not that desktops were going to disappear but that they would be relegated to corporate and niche hobbyist roles rather than retaining any significant share of the normal consumer market
oh but hey fuck reading posts before writing condescending replies mirite
I mean, laptops have gotten cheap. But desktops are even cheaper (ridiculous cheap, in some cases), and can last much longer. I'm confident we'll continue to see desktops in offices worldwide for years, since you simply don't need to move every computer all the time.
Which is not to say laptops don't have their own roles. But if you need a cheap computer with a large keyboard (an advantage for many older users in an office environment), that isn't going to be moved, you've pretty much eliminated the chief advantage of laptops.
Show me a laptop with 1,750GB of hard drive space and I might agree. Desktops still have roles and aren't going anywhere. They're being outsold because everyone already has one, and they don't need to be replaced as frequently.
Well, alienware claim one of their laptops can have a storage capacity of up to 1500GB (500GB of this seems to be in a hot swappable drive which, once filled, can be swapped out, or can be swapped out for a dvd drive). It isn't 1750GB, but near enough is good enough (unless it isn't...).
Anyway, does anyone live close enough to the quo store to pop in and have a look, maybe have a chat with the dudes that run it? I'd be interested to see if they have any demo machines up or something.
I think a big threat to desktop erosion won't be notebooks (they've done their job already: notebooks are cheap enough that the people who want notebooks are getting them) but rather entertainment centers.
After all, what do you do on your PC that you wouldn't want to do in the livingroom?
(... I know what you're thinking)
Music? Movies? Games?
All that works well in a living room. In fact, if it's your own place, it works much better than the same things in some little office or corner or nook where you stick the machine.
So does hammering out e-mails or declining stupid shit on a social networking site. Hell, I even do some work in my living-room now.
Now that HDTVs are getting cheaper and wide-spread, that I think is what will cut into desktop market share: somewhat smaller devices that don't look out of place in an entertainment center or a living-room.
Though in fairness I think they'll be very close to desktops. I figure they'll just be a new form factor standard with smaller PSUs (or PSUs mounted with a 90 degree rotation) and GPUs that insert parallel to the mobo, instead of perpendicular.
But yes, of course desktops will stick around in offices, even home offices, and anywhere a person needs the most computing they can get at the best price/performance ratio. That said I agree with the sentiment that PC demographics are changing .
I disagree. Apple may have used to be an OS company, but they're now an image company. They sell sizzle: sleek looks, slightly higher quality cases and design, and simplistic marketing jingos.
The iPhone and the Macbook are both marketed at hip college kids and early 20somethings. The Macbook Pro and their desktop line are aimed at those same people once they get into their late 20s and early 30s. The iMac is the hip family PC.
I feel that everything that Apple does is in a further effort to cement themselves as the hip and fun electronics line for urbanites. That's where their market strength lies, in their stranglehold on that image. Not on their OS's stability, nor on the hardware quality beyond the case, but the image of cool.
I was going to type out this huge rebuttal to this post, but it's just easier to call you stupid.
I disagree. Apple may have used to be an OS company, but they're now an image company. They sell sizzle: sleek looks, slightly higher quality cases and design, and simplistic marketing jingos.
The iPhone and the Macbook are both marketed at hip college kids and early 20somethings. The Macbook Pro and their desktop line are aimed at those same people once they get into their late 20s and early 30s. The iMac is the hip family PC.
I feel that everything that Apple does is in a further effort to cement themselves as the hip and fun electronics line for urbanites. That's where their market strength lies, in their stranglehold on that image. Not on their OS's stability, nor on the hardware quality beyond the case, but the image of cool.
I was going to type out this huge rebuttal to this post, but it's just easier to call you stupid.
Who is stupid and who is not aside, 'cool' is much more subjective than Apple would care to admit. If it was not, I'm confident that Apple's current share in the OS market would be quite different. Cool is generally considered a positive, but what is 'cool' is a different manner.
Anyway, back on topic...has anyone actually been to a Quo location? I'm curious to see the atmosphere since, as Obs so diligently pointed out in the past, visiting a Mac Store is something of a religious experience compared to your usual small and large electronics retailers 99% of the rest of the world's electronics consumers visit. Same kind of atmosphere, wide spaces, etc.?
hurfa durfa durrr it might be possible that I suggested not that desktops were going to disappear but that they would be relegated to corporate and niche hobbyist roles rather than retaining any significant share of the normal consumer market
oh but hey fuck reading posts before writing condescending replies mirite
That's just what I need, dozens of wires sticking out of my notebook and all my data on hugely overpriced external hard drives running at 480Mbps peak, where do I sign up
I understand what you're saying here, but I really think you're wrong about desktops being "relegated" to a "niche". From a utilitarian standpoint they present the best value, they have the most capability, they hold more data, their design makes them more convenient and comfortable for desks and workspaces. I don't think they're any less attractive to consumers than they were 10 years ago.
It's not even going to be that long until a sizeable chunks of gamers will be passing on desktops. I had the opportunity to replace my deceased gaming desktop last month, but this 800 dollars Inspiron of mine plays everything I want to play reasonably well after a couple hundred dollars of simple upgrades.
The only thing it is missing is a DVI port, and that will be #1 on my want list for the next one I buy.
Why is it so hard to just buy a god damn genuine Mac
if you're looking for a totally customizable machine you shouldn't even be considering OS X or Macs anyway.
Wait...huh?
If I'm looking for a customizable machine I shouldn't want to run OSX? How does this even make sense? I see zero connection between enjoying the OSX environment and having no (or very little) customization possible to the hardware.
Hey, maybe I just want machine that will run OSX with a (halfway) decent GPU and some possibility for upgrade, and with a discrete monitor so I'm not chained to the all-in-one formfactor. And maybe, despite desiring this, I don't really need a fucking Xeon processor, and could do just fine with a C2D or C2Q.
Do you deny that such a person might exist?
EDIT: Oh, shit, I swear that when I hit reply there weren't two more pages of thread after that. *shrug* Still, something worth addressing.
If I'm looking for a customizable machine I shouldn't want to run OSX? How does this even make sense?
OSX has driver support for only a very small amount of (internal) hardware, compared to Windows and Linux. For better or worse, it's part of the "It Just Works" mentality; if you limit the possible hardware configurations to a very small number, driver problems/concerns are practically eliminated.
If I'm looking for a customizable machine I shouldn't want to run OSX? How does this even make sense?
OSX has driver support for only a very small amount of (internal) hardware, compared to Windows and Linux. For better or worse, it's part of the "It Just Works" mentality; if you limit the possible hardware configurations to a very small number, driver problems/concerns are practically eliminated.
Right. I get that.
But as it is, the iMac only supports up to a Radeon 4850. And is built in to the monitor. Whereas the Mac Pro supports up to a 4870, and allows you to choose (and upgrade) your own monitor (and upgrade other components as well).
But if you want the Mac Pro, you're stuck with a Xeon, which is a ridiculously overpowered (and overpriced) processor for the average user. Bumping that down to a C2Q alone would cut...what, like $700 off the price?
See, I realize that there is only driver support for a small amount of internal hardware. But by moving outside Apple's product line, it seems like you'd have the ability to mix and match from among that hardware, as well as more easily upgrade to newer hardware as support is added (which yes, eventually it will be). As well as allowing you to fill the gaping hole in their product line where a discrete desktop that doesn't cost three grand might fit.
I'm okay with the idea that my hardware choices on any Mac clone would still be limited. I get that this is part of what contributes to the stability of OSX. But there's no reason that the combination of supported hardware need be as limited as Apple has them now.
EDIT: Another example...processors. Right now there does not exist a Mac with a C2Q...you jump straight from the C2D to the Xeon. That makes...sense? From what I understand, that's not a driver issue...you can pretty much drop any Intel processor into the slot and it will recognize it. They just don't market anything between the iMac and the Mac Pro, period. The iMac is underpowered (well, somewhat) and all-in-one, and (for the average user) the Mac Pro is overpowered and expensive.
Why is it so hard to just buy a god damn genuine Mac
if you're looking for a totally customizable machine you shouldn't even be considering OS X or Macs anyway.
Wait...huh?
If I'm looking for a customizable machine I shouldn't want to run OSX? How does this even make sense? I see zero connection between enjoying the OSX environment and having no (or very little) customization possible to the hardware.
Hey, maybe I just want machine that will run OSX with a (halfway) decent GPU and some possibility for upgrade, and with a discrete monitor so I'm not chained to the all-in-one formfactor. And maybe, despite desiring this, I don't really need a fucking Xeon processor, and could do just fine with a C2D or C2Q.
Do you deny that such a person might exist?
EDIT: Oh, shit, I swear that when I hit reply there weren't two more pages of thread after that. *shrug* Still, something worth addressing.
Mac Pro.
Why does everyone try to pretend the mac pros don't exist?
I do know within thirty seconds some one will chime up 'oh noes what about the price!"
A mac pro is a serious instrument designed to do serious work AS A TOOL.
I think one of those last mac ads got it exactly perfect (the "I'm a Megan" one)
We're supposed to be using these computers for the powers of good...
If you enjoy tinkering with parts, building it yourself, tweaking drivers, benchmarking day after day go ahead and buy yourself a heath kit for the modern age (no one under 30 gets that reference I bet)
But for the minority who actually use their computer for "work", it's about having a beige box that sits there and doesn't complain and doesn't require constant care. For the line of work I do at home, the Mac Pro is the only solution. Shit I would use one at work if they would let me.
Tying back to the theme. Macs work because you don't have a billion companies trying to make their own better and faster flavor of mac. It's a closed balanced ecosystem. You can't have companies like this trying to take (illegal) shortcuts to offer a cut rate product.
I hope they sell a million of them and apple bricks them remotely the very next day.
Seriously. Apple has the right to protect their interest.
OSX is their interest.
I adore Macs, I don't see myself going back to Windows anytime soon. I adore the form factor of the iMac and OS X has been very good to me (only two KPs in 3.5 years), I think you get what you pay for.
That said there are clear gaps in Apple's product range and if a clone manufacturer can fill that in without being sued then more power to them. If there was a company that sold re-packaged netbooks that I could easily install Leopard on I would probably be interested. A clone is not nearly as ideal as if Apple made an affordable tower or a netbook but until they do these clones are the next best thing. If Apple want to be stubborn and consistently ignore these very popular types of computer then frankly I support clone makers responding to this market need. I don't think they're taking business away from Apple if Apple aren't making that type of computer and if it means more OS X wholesale purchases from these clone makers then that's more money for Apple.
Why is it so hard to just buy a god damn genuine Mac
if you're looking for a totally customizable machine you shouldn't even be considering OS X or Macs anyway.
Wait...huh?
If I'm looking for a customizable machine I shouldn't want to run OSX? How does this even make sense? I see zero connection between enjoying the OSX environment and having no (or very little) customization possible to the hardware.
Hey, maybe I just want machine that will run OSX with a (halfway) decent GPU and some possibility for upgrade, and with a discrete monitor so I'm not chained to the all-in-one formfactor. And maybe, despite desiring this, I don't really need a fucking Xeon processor, and could do just fine with a C2D or C2Q.
Do you deny that such a person might exist?
EDIT: Oh, shit, I swear that when I hit reply there weren't two more pages of thread after that. *shrug* Still, something worth addressing.
Mac Pro.
Why does everyone try to pretend the mac pros don't exist?
I do know within thirty seconds some one will chime up 'oh noes what about the price!"
A mac pro is a serious instrument designed to do serious work AS A TOOL.
I think one of those last mac ads got it exactly perfect (the "I'm a Megan" one)
We're supposed to be using these computers for the powers of good...
If you enjoy tinkering with parts, building it yourself, tweaking drivers, benchmarking day after day go ahead and buy yourself a heath kit for the modern age (no one under 30 gets that reference I bet)
But for the minority who actually use their computer for "work", it's about having a beige box that sits there and doesn't complain and doesn't require constant care. For the line of work I do at home, the Mac Pro is the only solution. Shit I would use one at work if they would let me.
Tying back to the theme. Macs work because you don't have a billion companies trying to make their own better and faster flavor of mac. It's a closed balanced ecosystem. You can't have companies like this trying to take (illegal) shortcuts to offer a cut rate product.
I hope they sell a million of them and apple bricks them remotely the very next day.
Seriously. Apple has the right to protect their interest.
OSX is their interest.
A) Can you give me any logical explanation as to why there does not exist something in a C2D/C2Q flavor of Mac Pro? Back in the day, the jump from iMac to PowerMac was not nearly this large (in price or in power). I postulated a theory in another thread here recently; because you can mark up a Xeon more, and because somebody who can talk themselves into a $2000 desktop can talk themselves into a $2500 or $3000 one nearly as easily. Basically it has everything to do with them printing money and nothing to do with the interests of the customer base.
Is there any particular reason why Apple would be obligated to offer support (even software support) to these systems? I don't see why. Let Quo build retail hackintoshes, let people willing to forego Apple support buy them...if they can turn a profit serving such a niche market, more power to them. I don't see how this in any way degrades the experience of "legit" Apple customers. Apple can maintain their "closed ecosystem" in the mainstream, while allowing hobbyists to go it on their own with these throw-together systems.
EDIT: And nobody "forgets" the Mac Pro. It's just that the Mac Pro does not fill the role of "consumer discrete desktop." You're correct, it is a tool meant to do serious work, not something you buy to do common household/hobby computing. In fact, rather than "forget" the Mac Pro I refer to it specifically, or did you think I was referring to a different model when I mentioned the Xeon processor? I went ahead and bolded it for you, try re-reading it.
I don't see how this in any way degrades the experience of "legit" Apple customers. Apple can maintain their "closed ecosystem" in the mainstream, while allowing hobbyists to go it on their own with these throw-together systems.
You really don't think that Apple have a vested interest in how their OS is perceived, and that any problems arising from running OS X on unsupported systems will damage the reputation of the OS, and Apple as a result?
(Talking about people stupid enough to buy Quo machines here, not Hackintoshers who presumably know what they're getting into.)
I don't see how this in any way degrades the experience of "legit" Apple customers. Apple can maintain their "closed ecosystem" in the mainstream, while allowing hobbyists to go it on their own with these throw-together systems.
You really don't think that Apple have a vested interest in how their OS is perceived, and that any problems arising from running OS X on unsupported systems will damage the reputation of the OS, and Apple as a result?
(Talking about people stupid enough to buy Quo machines here, not Hackintoshers who presumably know what they're getting into.)
I think that as long as long as Quo is forced to make it very clear to customers that A) Apple in no way endorses their product line and Apple will in no way take responsibility for or offer support for software problems it would both keep the average idiot from buying them (because the average idiot gets scared by language by that) and for the most part cover Apple's ass.
And really, as long as Apple doesn't go out of their way to fuck with these computers, there's really no reason they shouldn't run more or less stably. More so than, say, Windows XP. Probably right up there with Vista. Only sexier, because OSX kicks Vista's ass.
As long as Apple doesn't "brick them remotely the very next day" I'd say that the increase in OS marketshare would be enough to outweigh the possible degradation of their image.
Lastly, I don't think it would do nearly enough damage to tank (or even significantly harm) the company as a whole. It would be a super-niche product, that most people would never even hear about. And it would take some pretty severe damage to the company to actually affect the user experience of "legit" Apple customers (which is who I mention). I am not an Apple executive, or an Apple shareholder, I don't care about marginal adjustments to their bottom line. I care about the users, and the users only.
I don't see how this in any way degrades the experience of "legit" Apple customers. Apple can maintain their "closed ecosystem" in the mainstream, while allowing hobbyists to go it on their own with these throw-together systems.
You really don't think that Apple have a vested interest in how their OS is perceived, and that any problems arising from running OS X on unsupported systems will damage the reputation of the OS, and Apple as a result?
(Talking about people stupid enough to buy Quo machines here, not Hackintoshers who presumably know what they're getting into.)
I think that as long as long as Quo is forced to make it very clear to customers that A) Apple in no way endorses their product line and Apple will in no way take responsibility for or offer support for software problems it would both keep the average idiot from buying them (because the average idiot gets scared by language by that) and for the most part cover Apple's ass.
And really, as long as Apple doesn't go out of their way to fuck with these computers, there's really no reason they shouldn't run more or less stably. More so than, say, Windows XP. Probably right up there with Vista. Only sexier, because OSX kicks Vista's ass.
As long as Apple doesn't "brick them remotely the very next day" I'd say that the increase in OS marketshare would be enough to outweigh the possible degradation of their image.
Lastly, I don't think it would do nearly enough damage to tank (or even significantly harm) the company as a whole. It would be a super-niche product, that most people would never even hear about. And it would take some pretty severe damage to the company to actually affect the user experience of "legit" Apple customers (which is who I mention). I am not an Apple executive, or an Apple shareholder, I don't care about marginal adjustments to their bottom line. I care about the users, and the users only.
Apparently, Apple's reputation is much more sensitive than you think it is. Or rather, Apple executives think it is. Enough to stifle consumer choices, anyway.
I adore Macs, I don't see myself going back to Windows anytime soon. I adore the form factor of the iMac and OS X has been very good to me (only two KPs in 3.5 years), I think you get what you pay for.
That said there are clear gaps in Apple's product range and if a clone manufacturer can fill that in without being sued then more power to them. If there was a company that sold re-packaged netbooks that I could easily install Leopard on I would probably be interested. A clone is not nearly as ideal as if Apple made an affordable tower or a netbook but until they do these clones are the next best thing. If Apple want to be stubborn and consistently ignore these very popular types of computer then frankly I support clone makers responding to this market need. I don't think they're taking business away from Apple if Apple aren't making that type of computer and if it means more OS X wholesale purchases from these clone makers then that's more money for Apple.
As always caveat emptor though.
Wasn't the Dell Mini 9 the perfect netbook for OSX? A friend of mine got one just to install OSX on it. Gizmodo
Before Apple got into the music business, they were in trouble. From all reasonable accounts I've ever read, including those from die hard lifelong Apple zealots, Apple serves up its computer hardware offerings only as lip service to the company's history, and to serve as a node in the entertainment sphere they are trying to generate like Apple TV and the iTunes.
I cannot imagine that the hardware/OSX side of the business is meaningfully profitable, if at all. Yes, they do markup their hardware a lot, but that's probably to contend with the cost of meticulously hand crafting every iteration of their lineup from end to end, and less on putting them in the black.
Apple is a media company. The computers are incidental.
I would surmise that the reason they try to keep OSX under wraps is
1) Making it generally available for all hardware makes it less appealing (think Grey Poupon).
2) Making it generally available will force them to contend with all the shit Microsoft has been battling for over a decade with exponentially increasing hardware/driver configurations to support, which would obliterate its performance/stability reputation.
3) Make it a target for hackers, which it really isn't yet.
In short, it's reputation motivated, and the fact that it might sell a few boxes on its own merits is just a side bonus.
They could make way more money if they just sold OSX to anyone and everyone, so the idea that it's profit driven alone simply cannot hold water.
I adore Macs, I don't see myself going back to Windows anytime soon. I adore the form factor of the iMac and OS X has been very good to me (only two KPs in 3.5 years), I think you get what you pay for.
That said there are clear gaps in Apple's product range and if a clone manufacturer can fill that in without being sued then more power to them. If there was a company that sold re-packaged netbooks that I could easily install Leopard on I would probably be interested. A clone is not nearly as ideal as if Apple made an affordable tower or a netbook but until they do these clones are the next best thing. If Apple want to be stubborn and consistently ignore these very popular types of computer then frankly I support clone makers responding to this market need. I don't think they're taking business away from Apple if Apple aren't making that type of computer and if it means more OS X wholesale purchases from these clone makers then that's more money for Apple.
As always caveat emptor though.
Wasn't the Dell Mini 9 the perfect netbook for OSX? A friend of mine got one just to install OSX on it. Gizmodo
Thank you for the link! That's a lot of steps to take but it shouldn't take longer than an evening to sort out.
I still can't get my head round why Apple don't do netbooks. I think they'd sell millions of them.
I adore Macs, I don't see myself going back to Windows anytime soon. I adore the form factor of the iMac and OS X has been very good to me (only two KPs in 3.5 years), I think you get what you pay for.
That said there are clear gaps in Apple's product range and if a clone manufacturer can fill that in without being sued then more power to them. If there was a company that sold re-packaged netbooks that I could easily install Leopard on I would probably be interested. A clone is not nearly as ideal as if Apple made an affordable tower or a netbook but until they do these clones are the next best thing. If Apple want to be stubborn and consistently ignore these very popular types of computer then frankly I support clone makers responding to this market need. I don't think they're taking business away from Apple if Apple aren't making that type of computer and if it means more OS X wholesale purchases from these clone makers then that's more money for Apple.
As always caveat emptor though.
Wasn't the Dell Mini 9 the perfect netbook for OSX? A friend of mine got one just to install OSX on it. Gizmodo
Thank you for the link! That's a lot of steps to take but it shouldn't take longer than an evening to sort out.
I still can't get my head round why Apple don't do netbooks. I think they'd sell millions of them.
I'm highly considering getting a netbook. I wouldn't install OS X on it to use for day-to-day usage as I've already got a Mac notebook and my sexy, sexy iMac, but is the Mini 9 still the best to try this out on or has something else newer and better come out in the meantime?
Why does everyone try to pretend the mac pros don't exist?
I do know within thirty seconds some one will chime up 'oh noes what about the price!"
A mac pro is a serious instrument designed to do serious work AS A TOOL.
I think one of those last mac ads got it exactly perfect (the "I'm a Megan" one)
We're supposed to be using these computers for the powers of good...
If you enjoy tinkering with parts, building it yourself, tweaking drivers, benchmarking day after day go ahead and buy yourself a heath kit for the modern age (no one under 30 gets that reference I bet)
But for the minority who actually use their computer for "work", it's about having a beige box that sits there and doesn't complain and doesn't require constant care. For the line of work I do at home, the Mac Pro is the only solution. Shit I would use one at work if they would let me.
Tying back to the theme. Macs work because you don't have a billion companies trying to make their own better and faster flavor of mac. It's a closed balanced ecosystem. You can't have companies like this trying to take (illegal) shortcuts to offer a cut rate product.
I hope they sell a million of them and apple bricks them remotely the very next day.
Seriously. Apple has the right to protect their interest.
OSX is their interest.
I don't think you're understanding mcdermott's position. He wants a Mac Pro, essentially, only with a CPU that's not ridiculously expensive. It doesn't make any sense when you actually look at the loadout. The 2.6 Nehalem retails for almost $1200. Judging by the cost to upgrade from 640 to 1000GB, Apple's markup must be at least double. You end up with a $3000 computer with a 640GB hard drive and 3 gigs of RAM. Who actually needs that much CPU power, what could they possibly be doing that fits on a 640GB hard drive, and why do they think 3 gigs of RAM is even close to enough? Furthermore, are they fucking nuts?
"But I do super serious work, so I need a super serious computer to do it with." That's bullshit. Whatever it is that you do, I'm not convinced it's any more "serious" than what I do with a dusty, 3-year-old Athlon. The Pro is a niche product, plain and simple. Most people don't need a $1000 server chip to do "serious work". Intel offers consumer-market chips packing incredible amounts of power for a fraction of the cost, but for some reason Apple does not offer an affordable Core 2 Quad or i7 desktop.
Tons of people want to do "serious work" with their computers, and hunger for the ease and simplicity of a Mac. Apple wants them to choose between a laptop on a stand and an overpriced, low-end editing workstation. The market for an economical, well-balanced workhorse desktop, especially one that's as reliable and usable as an Apple, is a lot bigger than you think.
Also I am fucking baffled by that "powers of good" comment, like what
Posts
That's true, however I was simply trying to point out a flaw in how Apple's hardware failure rates are compared to other manufacturers.
That's exactly my point. How is an iPhone or iPod hip or trendy when everybody has one? Maybe they sell good because they are actually... fairly decent :shock:
Then, by that logic... I suppose Apple must make fairly decent products... and maybe that's why people buy them. !! MORE SHOCKING :shock: !!
I believe someone already elaborated on that--the aesthetic image that Apple sells that other companies do not. See earlier posts.
Bourgeois is often trendy because, surprise, not everyone who uses a computer is bourgeois. But that's not really related to Quo unless they can offer a competitive machine comparable to Apple's popular models for less.
Cherry picking fallacy.
It's still hip and trendy to shop at abercrombie and hollister.
They think they are sneaky. I suspect they will ship the PCs with a separate installer to avoid breaking the EULA themselves. They will still be sued. You can sue anybody for anything...
Really, these Quo guys shouldn't bother with OSX anyhow. There is clearly little money to be made in this market and that's why Apple is staying out of it. If a PC manufacturer was smart they could put some development work into Linux. (*cough* Intel *cough*) With a little bit of effort and a little more money desktop Linux could be better than OSX. There are things about desktop Linux that are already better than OSX.
The future of personal computers is going to be diversity. Different platforms on different scales... Your going to have your smart phones, Atom based lightweights (netbook, tablet, or desktop), personal servers, media centers, etc... Interoperability and open standards are a must, and one operating system isn't enough to cover it all.
Honestly, apart from enthusiasts, professionals, and gamers, I believe that the desktop PC as we know it is heading into a decline.
All Quo is trying to do is ride on the coat tails of an Apple resurgence, using technology developed by hobbyists. It wont work.
Still hasn't happened
You can't replace or upgrade most of the internal components.
This is only an issue for one category of home users: gamers. Anyone else buys a laptop that's half decent, and they use it until it breaks. If you buy a GOOD laptop, that can be a very long time. Lots of people are even realizing that they don't even need the horsepower of a normal laptop these days and are switching to netbooks of all things.
And what's the other side of that coin? Oh, it's way cheaper to build your own desktop, and it's not nearly so difficult as it was 10 or 15 years ago. Children are doing it now. Companies making "gaming" desktops are not doing well.
The companies that make hardware are quickly realizing that they aren't making money selling desktops to casual users the way they used to. The profit incentive there is evaporating. Laptops though, no normal user can make one of those, and certainly not for less money, and certainly not at a build quality level comparable to a reasonably mid range pre-built machine.
It's a slow progression, yeah, but the market for the consumer level desktop is disappearing. You'll still see them being made for commercial use, as laptops grow legs too easily and the internals are too difficult to repair. So offices will be full of desktops forever, but pretty soon that's what people are going to think of when they see a pre-built desktop, if they don't already: an office machine.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
hurfa durfa durrr it might be possible that I suggested not that desktops were going to disappear but that they would be relegated to corporate and niche hobbyist roles rather than retaining any significant share of the normal consumer market
oh but hey fuck reading posts before writing condescending replies mirite
ps, dildo:
http://www.amazon.com/LaCie-Extreme-External-Interface-300801U/dp/B000AZFYQ0
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
A lot cheaper.
I mean, laptops have gotten cheap. But desktops are even cheaper (ridiculous cheap, in some cases), and can last much longer. I'm confident we'll continue to see desktops in offices worldwide for years, since you simply don't need to move every computer all the time.
Which is not to say laptops don't have their own roles. But if you need a cheap computer with a large keyboard (an advantage for many older users in an office environment), that isn't going to be moved, you've pretty much eliminated the chief advantage of laptops.
Well, alienware claim one of their laptops can have a storage capacity of up to 1500GB (500GB of this seems to be in a hot swappable drive which, once filled, can be swapped out, or can be swapped out for a dvd drive). It isn't 1750GB, but near enough is good enough (unless it isn't...).
Anyway, does anyone live close enough to the quo store to pop in and have a look, maybe have a chat with the dudes that run it? I'd be interested to see if they have any demo machines up or something.
After all, what do you do on your PC that you wouldn't want to do in the livingroom?
(... I know what you're thinking)
Music? Movies? Games?
All that works well in a living room. In fact, if it's your own place, it works much better than the same things in some little office or corner or nook where you stick the machine.
So does hammering out e-mails or declining stupid shit on a social networking site. Hell, I even do some work in my living-room now.
Now that HDTVs are getting cheaper and wide-spread, that I think is what will cut into desktop market share: somewhat smaller devices that don't look out of place in an entertainment center or a living-room.
Though in fairness I think they'll be very close to desktops. I figure they'll just be a new form factor standard with smaller PSUs (or PSUs mounted with a 90 degree rotation) and GPUs that insert parallel to the mobo, instead of perpendicular.
But yes, of course desktops will stick around in offices, even home offices, and anywhere a person needs the most computing they can get at the best price/performance ratio. That said I agree with the sentiment that PC demographics are changing
I was going to type out this huge rebuttal to this post, but it's just easier to call you stupid.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Who is stupid and who is not aside, 'cool' is much more subjective than Apple would care to admit. If it was not, I'm confident that Apple's current share in the OS market would be quite different. Cool is generally considered a positive, but what is 'cool' is a different manner.
Anyway, back on topic...has anyone actually been to a Quo location? I'm curious to see the atmosphere since, as Obs so diligently pointed out in the past, visiting a Mac Store is something of a religious experience compared to your usual small and large electronics retailers 99% of the rest of the world's electronics consumers visit. Same kind of atmosphere, wide spaces, etc.?
That's just what I need, dozens of wires sticking out of my notebook and all my data on hugely overpriced external hard drives running at 480Mbps peak, where do I sign up
I understand what you're saying here, but I really think you're wrong about desktops being "relegated" to a "niche". From a utilitarian standpoint they present the best value, they have the most capability, they hold more data, their design makes them more convenient and comfortable for desks and workspaces. I don't think they're any less attractive to consumers than they were 10 years ago.
Not only are both the pot and the kettle black but apparently they are also the same vessel in this case.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
For $885. Add leopard and a 20" monitor and you are at about the price of the basic iMac, and compared to that machine you get:
Quad core instead of dual
Bit bigger HDD
Twice as Much Ram
Real graphics card instead of laptop card.
The only thing it is missing is a DVI port, and that will be #1 on my want list for the next one I buy.
Wait...huh?
If I'm looking for a customizable machine I shouldn't want to run OSX? How does this even make sense? I see zero connection between enjoying the OSX environment and having no (or very little) customization possible to the hardware.
Hey, maybe I just want machine that will run OSX with a (halfway) decent GPU and some possibility for upgrade, and with a discrete monitor so I'm not chained to the all-in-one formfactor. And maybe, despite desiring this, I don't really need a fucking Xeon processor, and could do just fine with a C2D or C2Q.
Do you deny that such a person might exist?
EDIT: Oh, shit, I swear that when I hit reply there weren't two more pages of thread after that. *shrug* Still, something worth addressing.
OSX has driver support for only a very small amount of (internal) hardware, compared to Windows and Linux. For better or worse, it's part of the "It Just Works" mentality; if you limit the possible hardware configurations to a very small number, driver problems/concerns are practically eliminated.
Right. I get that.
But as it is, the iMac only supports up to a Radeon 4850. And is built in to the monitor. Whereas the Mac Pro supports up to a 4870, and allows you to choose (and upgrade) your own monitor (and upgrade other components as well).
But if you want the Mac Pro, you're stuck with a Xeon, which is a ridiculously overpowered (and overpriced) processor for the average user. Bumping that down to a C2Q alone would cut...what, like $700 off the price?
See, I realize that there is only driver support for a small amount of internal hardware. But by moving outside Apple's product line, it seems like you'd have the ability to mix and match from among that hardware, as well as more easily upgrade to newer hardware as support is added (which yes, eventually it will be). As well as allowing you to fill the gaping hole in their product line where a discrete desktop that doesn't cost three grand might fit.
I'm okay with the idea that my hardware choices on any Mac clone would still be limited. I get that this is part of what contributes to the stability of OSX. But there's no reason that the combination of supported hardware need be as limited as Apple has them now.
EDIT: Another example...processors. Right now there does not exist a Mac with a C2Q...you jump straight from the C2D to the Xeon. That makes...sense? From what I understand, that's not a driver issue...you can pretty much drop any Intel processor into the slot and it will recognize it. They just don't market anything between the iMac and the Mac Pro, period. The iMac is underpowered (well, somewhat) and all-in-one, and (for the average user) the Mac Pro is overpowered and expensive.
Mac Pro.
Why does everyone try to pretend the mac pros don't exist?
I do know within thirty seconds some one will chime up 'oh noes what about the price!"
A mac pro is a serious instrument designed to do serious work AS A TOOL.
I think one of those last mac ads got it exactly perfect (the "I'm a Megan" one)
We're supposed to be using these computers for the powers of good...
If you enjoy tinkering with parts, building it yourself, tweaking drivers, benchmarking day after day go ahead and buy yourself a heath kit for the modern age (no one under 30 gets that reference I bet)
But for the minority who actually use their computer for "work", it's about having a beige box that sits there and doesn't complain and doesn't require constant care. For the line of work I do at home, the Mac Pro is the only solution. Shit I would use one at work if they would let me.
Tying back to the theme. Macs work because you don't have a billion companies trying to make their own better and faster flavor of mac. It's a closed balanced ecosystem. You can't have companies like this trying to take (illegal) shortcuts to offer a cut rate product.
I hope they sell a million of them and apple bricks them remotely the very next day.
Seriously. Apple has the right to protect their interest.
OSX is their interest.
That said there are clear gaps in Apple's product range and if a clone manufacturer can fill that in without being sued then more power to them. If there was a company that sold re-packaged netbooks that I could easily install Leopard on I would probably be interested. A clone is not nearly as ideal as if Apple made an affordable tower or a netbook but until they do these clones are the next best thing. If Apple want to be stubborn and consistently ignore these very popular types of computer then frankly I support clone makers responding to this market need. I don't think they're taking business away from Apple if Apple aren't making that type of computer and if it means more OS X wholesale purchases from these clone makers then that's more money for Apple.
As always caveat emptor though.
A) Can you give me any logical explanation as to why there does not exist something in a C2D/C2Q flavor of Mac Pro? Back in the day, the jump from iMac to PowerMac was not nearly this large (in price or in power). I postulated a theory in another thread here recently; because you can mark up a Xeon more, and because somebody who can talk themselves into a $2000 desktop can talk themselves into a $2500 or $3000 one nearly as easily. Basically it has everything to do with them printing money and nothing to do with the interests of the customer base.
EDIT: And nobody "forgets" the Mac Pro. It's just that the Mac Pro does not fill the role of "consumer discrete desktop." You're correct, it is a tool meant to do serious work, not something you buy to do common household/hobby computing. In fact, rather than "forget" the Mac Pro I refer to it specifically, or did you think I was referring to a different model when I mentioned the Xeon processor? I went ahead and bolded it for you, try re-reading it.
(Talking about people stupid enough to buy Quo machines here, not Hackintoshers who presumably know what they're getting into.)
I think that as long as long as Quo is forced to make it very clear to customers that A) Apple in no way endorses their product line and
And really, as long as Apple doesn't go out of their way to fuck with these computers, there's really no reason they shouldn't run more or less stably. More so than, say, Windows XP. Probably right up there with Vista. Only sexier, because OSX kicks Vista's ass.
As long as Apple doesn't "brick them remotely the very next day" I'd say that the increase in OS marketshare would be enough to outweigh the possible degradation of their image.
Lastly, I don't think it would do nearly enough damage to tank (or even significantly harm) the company as a whole. It would be a super-niche product, that most people would never even hear about. And it would take some pretty severe damage to the company to actually affect the user experience of "legit" Apple customers (which is who I mention). I am not an Apple executive, or an Apple shareholder, I don't care about marginal adjustments to their bottom line. I care about the users, and the users only.
Apparently, Apple's reputation is much more sensitive than you think it is. Or rather, Apple executives think it is. Enough to stifle consumer choices, anyway.
Wasn't the Dell Mini 9 the perfect netbook for OSX? A friend of mine got one just to install OSX on it. Gizmodo
Not really. iPhones and iTunes is their interest.
Before Apple got into the music business, they were in trouble. From all reasonable accounts I've ever read, including those from die hard lifelong Apple zealots, Apple serves up its computer hardware offerings only as lip service to the company's history, and to serve as a node in the entertainment sphere they are trying to generate like Apple TV and the iTunes.
I cannot imagine that the hardware/OSX side of the business is meaningfully profitable, if at all. Yes, they do markup their hardware a lot, but that's probably to contend with the cost of meticulously hand crafting every iteration of their lineup from end to end, and less on putting them in the black.
Apple is a media company. The computers are incidental.
I would surmise that the reason they try to keep OSX under wraps is
1) Making it generally available for all hardware makes it less appealing (think Grey Poupon).
2) Making it generally available will force them to contend with all the shit Microsoft has been battling for over a decade with exponentially increasing hardware/driver configurations to support, which would obliterate its performance/stability reputation.
3) Make it a target for hackers, which it really isn't yet.
In short, it's reputation motivated, and the fact that it might sell a few boxes on its own merits is just a side bonus.
They could make way more money if they just sold OSX to anyone and everyone, so the idea that it's profit driven alone simply cannot hold water.
Thank you for the link! That's a lot of steps to take but it shouldn't take longer than an evening to sort out.
I still can't get my head round why Apple don't do netbooks. I think they'd sell millions of them.
I'm highly considering getting a netbook. I wouldn't install OS X on it to use for day-to-day usage as I've already got a Mac notebook and my sexy, sexy iMac, but is the Mini 9 still the best to try this out on or has something else newer and better come out in the meantime?
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Looks like the main stumbling block for anything newer is the integrated graphics.
"But I do super serious work, so I need a super serious computer to do it with." That's bullshit. Whatever it is that you do, I'm not convinced it's any more "serious" than what I do with a dusty, 3-year-old Athlon. The Pro is a niche product, plain and simple. Most people don't need a $1000 server chip to do "serious work". Intel offers consumer-market chips packing incredible amounts of power for a fraction of the cost, but for some reason Apple does not offer an affordable Core 2 Quad or i7 desktop.
Tons of people want to do "serious work" with their computers, and hunger for the ease and simplicity of a Mac. Apple wants them to choose between a laptop on a stand and an overpriced, low-end editing workstation. The market for an economical, well-balanced workhorse desktop, especially one that's as reliable and usable as an Apple, is a lot bigger than you think.
Also I am fucking baffled by that "powers of good" comment, like what