Comments on: New Mac clone maker to open retail store in Calif.

Quo Computer plans to open a retail store to sell non-Apple computers with Mac OS X installed, in the Los Angeles area next week. Does it face a similar fate to that of Psystar?

[myles taylor]

I think this is appalling. I know that a lot of people disagree with me, but I'm firmly against clones.

[jasonaorr]

I'm with you. This is theft masquerading as competition.

[kcotham]

I totally agree with you. If they want to build clones, then they should approach Apple with a proposition to license the Mac OS. Instead, they're just another company trying to capitalise on Apple's R&D, essentially stealing their intellectual property. With any luck they'll go down in flames like that other one I refuse to mention.

[Vegaman_Dan]

I think the idea of clone makers is fine with me. It's forcing Apple to produce a better product through such competition and that can only be a good thing. It also puts Apple into the position of having to clearly define their policies in a public manner which can both be good and bad for the company depending on how they spin it. This could be a great opportunity for Apple if they embrace clones by producing a better product, or it could backfire horribly by appearing as a tyrannical overlord by squashing any all companies who dare to approach them with such ideas as freedom of choice.

It's up to Apple now.

[b_baggins]

@vegaman

Apple already has competition forcing it to make better products. They're called Dell, HP, Asus, Gateway, Sony, etc, etc, etc, etc.

[Squashman2]

Why are you against clones? I am not a Mac user but I have been following this saga closely.

If Apple was smart they should have seized the day when Vista came out. Sure they got their comical commercials about how bad Vista was, but if they really wanted to seize control of a large market share of the desktop market they could have done one of two things.

1) Made their systems extremely affordable. They just don't have a good price point for a decent system with lots of power.
2) Let others clone their hardware, but create a licensing structure with the other vendors so they still are getting a piece of the pie.

Their commercials certainly don't make me want to go out and buy a Mac. Can't afford one. I have been building all my own computers for the past 10 years. Until I can do that with a Mac, you won't see me using one.

[kcotham]

Apple needs to shift back to a non-standard architecture to make it virtually impossible to install Mac OS X on a generic computer. Proprietary motherboards maybe, maybe shift back to POWER CPUs? IBM chips were technically superior to anything Intel had at the time apple was using them. They could regain that again if they had a big customer like Apple pouring money into them. Apple could probably design a better system than the generic architecture they use now anyway. They did back in the early days when they were using their own designs. They can do it again. But then the same people screaming foul now would be screaming foul then too. You can't win with some people.

If these companies want to build clones, they need to sit down with execs at Apple and present a good case for building clones and obtain the proper licensing from Apple. They aren't going to do that because they don't have a good case. Instead, they try to circumvent legitimate means. It proves they are just out to make as much money as possible without doing any work on their own part.

[terminalblue]

@everybody that disagrees with me...

get off your apple based ivory tower. its just software...there is nothing special anymore about the hardware in apple's computers. I can completely understand their need to lock their software into the hardware option that they know work, but if people want to take a chance and gamble unique hardware then let them.

they will either discover that hardware configurations outside of Apple's are superior or that Apple's OS is inferior.

[kcotham]

terminalblue
You are of the same camp that was complaining when Apple was using non-generic components and motherboards. You can't win with people like yourself. If Apple went back to that design philosophy (designing things to work best for them, not most compatible with everyone else), you'd be first in line to complain.

A little history lesson for you and everyone else. Apple did license clones. When the end of the agreement came up, the clone makers basically wanted Mac OS for free. Apple kept asking them (Steve Jobs made a half dozen calls to them) to pay a fair licensing fee. They told him to pound sand. So, Apple got burned on the deal. They are now in an economic situation in which they don't need clones. So why in the world would they authorise the sale of THEIR product on a competitor's hardware? It makes no sense. If Quo and Psystar, et al wanted to produce clones, they should have contacted Apple directly and worked out a license. They didn't. They're pirates essentially. And should be hanged from the yard arm like pirates.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Why is are these Mac fans so afraid of freedom of choice?

I thought that was a *good* thing?

Let the product stand on its own. If another company can build a better product running OS X than Apple can, then Apple certainly can benefit from that as well by competing themselves.

[zyxxy]

kcotham: Apple switched to Intel because PowerPC was not able to maintain performance and power dissipation issues with Intel once Core2 was released, particularly in the notebook arena. At that time, Apple was such low volume that it was not worth it to IBM to put in the effort to match Intel in that market. IBM was putting more effort into the Cell processor for the PS3, which at that time, had far higher volume potential. It was also a play into their own scientific processing play, so developing the Cell was more important than building laptop chips for Apple.

Now that Apple has a silicon design team in house, and given that they hold an ARM architectural license, I think the next interesting play will be OSX on ARM in some form of small netbook/smartbook/notebook format.

In any case, don't look for Apple to return to PowerPC. They leverage a lot of other people's engineering effort by using standard components on standard architecture. At one time, before PCI and USB2.0, Apple pushed performance boundaries with their proprietary designs, but in an age of standardized PCIe, GbE, SATA, and COTS video ASICs, there is very little value that Apple can add that would not drive their costs through the roof. And that engineering effort that they are leveraging is amortized over the breadth of the generic PC industry. We should all thank the nerd gamers for driving the performance levels that we all get to enjoy today, whether on Windows PC or Apple platforms. Yesterdays PC gaming platform is todays iLife platform.

Also, this is a violation of the EULA, but I dismiss that about as much as I dismiss the RIAA and MPAA. How do you feel about your right to copy your own music and videos, as long as you don't give them away? I mean, you bought them, right? Well, if I buy a copy of OS/X, I figure I have a right to use it just about any way I please. So if I build my own 'hackintosh' at home, and boot OS/X on it, who really cares? Well, Quo is just building a hackintosh for you. You still have to pay for the installed copy of OS/X.

[shellcodes_coder]

Will people buy it? Those who go after Mac are usually fools looking for sleek looking machines but am sure they aren't as sleek as the ones that vendor locker CrApple sell :)

[kcotham]

Unlike the cheapskates looking to get the cheapest piece of **** they can when they either buy a Windows computer or a clone. Stop trolling! BTW, "CrApple" isn't even halfway clever.

[Seaspray0]

@kcotham. Neither is M$, microshaft, windoze, winblows, linsux, or OSuX. If people do not have the ability to call something by it's proper name, they do not deserve any respect. I beleive we can agree on that.

@shellcodes. Respect must be earned. If you don't show any, you don't deserve any. The company name is "Apple".

[monkeyfun14]

@kcotham

Since when does price=quality?

Monster Cable must love you.

[Dalkorian]

My my my, some of us are touchy today, aren't we. Happy Friday!

Will people buy it? Some will, I'm sure, but look how well psystar did. No one will recognize either companies names in 2012.

Is it ironic that I wouldn't have posted a reply (mostly due to the CrApple bit, I admit it) until after I saw all the whining and crying about that particular comment and similar ones (I admit I'm known for - look at my previous post:))?

[kcotham]

@monkeyfun

Do us all a favour and take a flying leap. You always chiming in with irrelevant nonsense, ****.

[therealgeeves]

What if the license agreement said...
"you are only allowed to run OS X on an Apple Marked computer. "

That would mean Boot Camp users are breaking the agreement too, but it was there choice...
I think apple basically give away the OS when you buy the mac, right?

mmm.

[kcotham]

That makes no sense whatsoever, and that is not what the EULA says.

[Seaspray0]

Here's an intersting link... http://www.tomshardware.com/news/PearC-Hypermeganet-Mac-OSX-EULA,6992.html

German Mac Cloner Skirts Around OS X EULA. "...the company?s main argument is that since you can?t read the EULA before purchase, it?s not valid. "

[flickrz]

Seems like a stunt for cheap publicity by the company. Apple Fanboys must be really angry now. Mr. DeSilva, fanboys are coming to take you down. LOL.

[kcotham]

Yup, and the media is helping them with free publicity, just like that company in Florida that shall remain nameless for that very reason. Hopefully, Quo will wind up in bankruptcy just like they did

[Vegaman_Dan]

Open Tech, the company making the Quo, has been doing this for a very long time and not been shut down by Apple yet. Go search online for their company.

[Vegaman_Dan]

I think I need to update my own comment- Open Tech *also* had a Quo computer out- but it's not clear if this is a rebranding of the same company name or a completely different entity altogether.

Until we know for sure, I'll refrain from the Open Tech reference.

[kcotham]

Oh for the love of God! When will someone put a stop to all these get-rich-quick thieves? They're like cockroaches, step on one, another pops up in its place. Apple needs to switch back to the POWER architecture or something to put an end to all this stealing.

[divide_by_zero]

Seriously, 'like cockroaches' !?

That is a despicable statement, considering the guy is just trying to sell computers!

[kcotham]

Then either contact Apple to make a legitimate deal or sell generic PCs. Only those two options would make him a legitimate businessman. Wait there's a third option, design and build his own designs and sell those. He's not doing any of those three things. He's hacking an OS to run on a machine it was not designed to run on or authorised to be run on. That makes him and all like him cockroaches.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Agreed!

Apple should demand that computer users have no freedom of choice! Apple will decide for you what you will use. End users are not allowed to think independantly! Apple knows all and is all powerful! Bow down before the Great Apple! All hail the Apple! Destroy all those who do not believe in Apple Superiority! Burn all the books that do not agree with Apple dogma!

We shall overcome the non believers! We shall force the world to think *only* in Apple's approved ways!

Welcome to 1984, Comrade kcotham!

Or... in other words, don't get so worked up over it. When is cometition a bad thing? This helps Apple too, you know... Anything to get more OS X users will help. Those same new users may then go ahead to buy a real Apple product later. Consider it a stepping stone.

[pithenumber]

Apple isn't switching to POWER b/c they are dropping POWER support with 10.6 I belive

[monkeyfun14]

"Oh for the love of God! When will someone put a stop to all these get-rich-quick thieves? They're like cockroaches, step on one, another pops up in its place. Apple needs to switch back to the POWER architecture or something to put an end to all this stealing."

Switch to PowerPC and you can kiss Windows support goodbye which is one of the primary reasons OSX has any switchers at all.

Get rich quick thieves? You mean its perfectly okay for people to violate MS patents but as soon as someone while paying Apple the licensing fee mind you installs the OS on a computer they want they are thieves.

I love how your mindset changes depending on the company.

[applusr]

@Vegaman_Dan

Are you for real? Freedom of choice? Everyone has a choice..Dell, HP etc for Windows, Your own computer to run Linux. or a Mac for Mac OS X.

Your argument has no stance, Apple gives you choice you can run all three OSes so how is apple forcing you to do there will?

You are a fanboy who wants everything, but want to pay nothing. Troll.

[kcotham]

@Vega,

You just are completely incapable of understanding anyone else's point of view aren't you. And you can't write a sentence with out lacing it with what you call sarcasm. You're an ass, that's the simple fact of the matter.

[pithenumber]

@kcotham
that got past the filter?

oh yeah, and you aren't able to understand other peoples point of view either

[kcotham]

@pi

My capacity for comprehending other points of view is exponentially more developed than yours. I disagree with many other's points of view. You seem to be unable or unwilling to understand them however.

[sharmajunior]

I feel the anger coming from the MacFans. They just can't bear the fact that their lovely and unique PC is being cloned.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Bring in the clones!

Russian Computing is also bringing out Mac clones. Psystar was only a beginning.

Interesting idea by Quo to have customers agree to the EULA before the OS is installed. Then it's not the retail store's issue, but the violation is on the customer's part to defend. Apple would have to start suing each customer of Quo instead of Quo itself. That means in order to maintain their standing that Apple is defending its properties effectively, they would have to sue every single person who ever violates the EULA with an OS install on a non Apple product. That could be very daunting indeed- not only for the legal costs to Apple involved, but the PR nightmare it would result in.

It could go completely differently as well. It should be interesting to see how Apple approaches these new upstarts in the industry. Opening a retail store sure takes guts and salutes Apple with the ol' middle finger of respect.

[kcotham]

Why would you encourage this crap? Are you really that stupid? It would serve all of you morons that think this is a good thing right if Apple does something to make this IMPOSSIBLE to do. And they would have every right to do so. If you want a Macintosh, buy one you bunch of cheapskates!

[catch23]

kcotham
I don't want a Mac (had one, got rid of it a long time ago for the better) but this is funny as all heck.
Seriously, the Apple fan club up in arms, law suits flying, proof positive that Apple charges Porsche prices for Honda parts....
You can't buy entertainment like this!
I hope Apple does do 'something to make this IMPOSSIBLE'. It will only show how locked in, how bereft of choice you are if you choose Apple.

[The_happy_switcher]

I think aiding and abetting is still a crime, Vega. Doesn't sound like a sound business practice to gain trust and loyalty of new customers by telling them "hey, you might be breaking the law but don't worry about it." In general, this hardly qualifies as a threat to Apple.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@kcotham:

"Why would you encourage this crap? Are you really that stupid?"

Yes, I really am that stupid. I believe in freedome of choice, freedom of commerce. I believe that people should be allowed to think their own thoughts, buy what they want to, and not be forced into a rigid and limited structure such as you are proposing. I am an American and freedom is important to me.

I have a Dell hackintosh. Why? Because with OS X it outperforms the Apple products of similar specs. I had to buy OS X to do this. Apple made money off of me as a result. This means Apple benefitted from this. Are you against Apple making money now too?

Why are you so afraid of people having a choice, comrade? Apple makes money from this too, you know.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@AppleRocks1963:

Open Tech sells the computers as a kit with the end user doing the install themselves. The customer is given a sealed OS X retail box.

If you say that is aiding and abetting, then you have to include Apple in the same category for selling the product in a retail environment. If they really want to stop that, they simply have to stop selling the physical product in their stores, and instead make it only availble to download using an Apple computer with a browser built into the firmware.

[El_Segfaulto]

Personally I love this and wish that other companies (auto manufacturers, etc.) would follow suit. I would love to see generic Porches and Ferraris just to get other status symbol owners off of their ivory tower.

[pithenumber]

@kcotham
not everybody in the world is rich
you are coming off very elitist right now

[monkeyfun14]

@kcotham

Why wouldn't we? I mean why in the hell would you agree that there be no competition for these types of computers and be forced to use last gen hardware..

[kcotham]

@pithenumber
I'm not rich either. I've told you a hundred times. Are you really that thick?

If you want a cheap computer, go buy a MSI or something.

[pithenumber]

@kcotham
your comment sounded elitist, whether you intended that or not doesn't really matter

[Understarsidream]

I find it odd that anyone would think is against theft of intellectual property would be labeled an apple fanboy. If any company did this to Microsoft (ie, saying the EULA doesn't apply to them) they would have them in court so fast they couldn't blink.

[b_baggins]

Follow the money. People pushing for this want OS X on cheap hardware. Nothing more.

[kcotham]

Then the manufacturers of this cheap hardware need to make a viable case to Apple to legally license the Mac OS from Apple. It's simple, black and white.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@kcotham:

"Then the manufacturers of this cheap hardware need to make a viable case to Apple to legally license the Mac OS from Apple. It's simple, black and white."

Ah yes, the cheap hardware debate. It's tired and been debunked many times. Here's a good example.

I have a 15" MacBookPro. It had a broken LCD. In my line of business, I have to replace a lot of screens from many OEM's. A similar 15" screen from Toshiba would be $400. Dell $600. HP would be up at $800 typically. Lenovo charges outrageous prices at $1200-2500.... on a $1200 notebook. Yeah, I know the math's funky, but that's Lenovo for you.

So those are all expensive pieces of hardware and explains their prices, right?

Apple 15" replacement screen price: $150.

That's right, the Apple hardware was *cheaper* by a huge margin than the comparable PC products. Please tell me why Apple is using cheaper hardware than these other OEM's yet charging hundreds of dollars more for the same product at time of sale of the actual laptop?

It's simple, black and white, as you say. :)

[ikramerica--2008]

Because you are lying? I see Toshiba screens for the same price or less. And your $150 dollars is likely for the older, CFL screens, not the current LED screens.

And because replacement parts have NO bearing on the cost to produce. See the replacement cost of a netbook's battery for some insight. And by your pricing logic, Lenovo computers are 100% screen costs, and everything else inside is free or subsidized...

Apple's 15" MBP screen is high quality. Is it the best screen in the world? No. It's not a cheap piece of junk. Sorry.

[LuvThatCO2]

Its not 'theft' of intellectual property - one would assume Quo is purchasing every single copy of OSX it's installing on their PCs. At most this is a potential violation of the EULA... and for you fanboys all up in arms over some other company daring to blaspheme against Apple, that is not the same thing as a violation of the LAW. EULA's are NOT the law.

There is clearly no theft here. In fact, assertions that Que is stealing may in fact be libel on your part.

[monkeyfun14]

Cheap hardware I love these misinformed lies as if the OEM's are shipping out machines with buttons falling off on their way out of the factory.

The OEM's are using more advanced then hardware then Apple is using.

PC OEM's offer i7's on mid range desktops.

I can't even get a core 2 quad on a Mac without shoveling out several grand.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@ikramerica--2008 :

Well, until you are actually OEM certified from those suppliers, or are in the industry of working on these systems, you'll have to understand that I don't believe you at all.

And this MBP is my personal machine with the broken screen.

You have demonstrated that you are uninformed. That's not a crime, ignorance is commonplace. Educate yourself and you'll see the light of knowledge.

[kcotham]

@Vega, you are anything but clever. Go back under your rock.

[dk jones]

this is very brave, bold & ballsy!! it's one thing to do online sales & then let Apple spend a few thou just to find you before it sues you, opening a B & M store in their backyard... i doubt Apple will appreciate this guy's offer to boost its market share. i think they'll have the local sheriff @ the door w/ a big chain & padlock before very long, especially since their street address is known.

[b_baggins]

Typical ignorant reply. Hardware is where the money's at. Here's some numbers. Apple has 1/10th the market share of Microsoft, but 1/3 the revenues and profit. So, tell us, business genius, how sacrificing huge revenues and profits in hardware sales in order to grow market share in low revenue software sales is a brilliant business plan.

[b_baggins]

I think this is an attempt by a hidden party or parties with deep pockets to break the Apple hardware-OS link in the courts by deliberately inviting lawsuits.

BTW, Apple doesn't defend on grounds of EULA. They defend on Trademark and Copyright infringement. Theses companies don't have permission to use Apple trademarks or logos in any of their marketing literature, nor do they have permission to modify OS X to get it to load on non-Apple hardware.

[kcotham]

Possibly, but doubtful. It's just a bunch of mid-level investors trying to make a lot of money quick, until the plug is pulled. If you want a Macintosh, buy one. These "clone makers" are thieves, purely and simply.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@kcotham:

"These "clone makers" are thieves, purely and simply."

Interesting thought there. Please elaborate how having a company give consumers a choice is theft. Please tell us how a company that is paying Apple for their software is stealing. Please explain how Apple is losing money off the sales of the software that this company is paying for?

I don't see how offering people a choice AND paying Apple for the software is theft. Are you against Apple making money too?

[El_Segfaulto]

<sarcasm>They're thieves because they're selling a comparable system for substantially less money</sarcasm>, which means Apple becomes less of an elitist status symbol and the people who paid the premium are feeling a bit ripped off, so they have to rationalize those emotions with strong words. If I had just bought a Lamborghini for $250,000 and somebody down the road bought the same thing without the logo for $100,000 I'd be feeling a bit foolish/angry.

[trboyden]

Good, than I hope the BSDs and Linux pull the plug on Apple by no longer allowing them to use their copyrighted software. Mac OS X relies on Open Source code to run, if they don't want to support fair, open choice by licensing OS X on commodity PC hardware, then they shouldn't be allowed to use Open Source code. Then where will Apple be? Apple's EULA is a restriction not allowed by BSD and GPL licenses.

[why do i need a name?]

BTW, most of the Hackintosh installs these days don't modify the software. My Dell Mini installed entirely from the Apple retail DVD.

You boot a Linux kernel that then boots the DVD, fooling the DVD into thinking that it's running on a "real" mac. Quite clever. When you're all done, you boot the linux kernel again, run a couple of scripts that install the right drivers into the system and then boot MacOS.

[monkeyfun14]

@Vegaman

The funny thing with this guys logic is he outright defended TomTom using Microsoft technologies without licensing when MS sued.

If this was the same case but with Microsoft being the victim you can bet that he would be on his usual down with Microsoft ranting isn't that right?

[kcotham]

@Vegaman_Dan

I'm against making money with someone else's hard work behind it, yes. Sketchy companies like Psystar, and these guys are a cancer on our society. And like all cancers, they need to be eradicated.

[fokkwp]

Well, Mac evangelists, you who think the Mac OS should be spread widely to the people of the world, here's your chance to support its spread. Let's see you take to the streets and *demand* that Apple allow Mac OS to be purchased and used by whoever wants it - finally, "the computer for the rest of us."

[b_baggins]

Mac evangelists think Apple COMPUTERS should be spread widely to the people of the world, not just the OS. Sheesh. You should go into the scarecrow business with your skill at building strawmen.

[ewsachse]

And b_baggins should go into the porn business for the zeal you show for satiating your Apple overlords.

[kcotham]

If you want to use Mac OS, buy a Macintosh, not a cheap imitation.

[heavydevelopment]

Actually, I'd prefer not. The more pervasive that OS X becomes the more likely someone will find it worth their while to write viruses for it. One of the reasons virus writers don't write OS X viruses is that there are not enough Macs connected to one another. Viruses will die out before they reach a critical mass. Homogenous networks of Windows computers make it easy for viruses to spread.

[Vegaman_Dan]

The Mac evangelists here have made it clear that only those pure of mind and fingernails are holy enough to purchase a Macintosh.

[monkeyfun14]

@kcotham

Not a cheap imitation so now Apple is the only company who makes solid machines?

What makes their sweatshop labor better then Sony's, HP, or Dells?

[kcotham]

@moronfun14

Cheap imitations of Macintoshes you twit. If you want a Mac, buy one. If you don't want to buy one, don't run Mac OS X .

[bradward747]

Psh. Go ahead and make a store. You will be shot down even faster. Forcing companys to stop on the web takes a lot of time. Opening a store signals your location, and also makes you part of the competetion.

Have fun dealing with the apple lawers.

[Vegaman_Dan]

They've been doing this for a year now and not heard from Apple yet. :)

[Macbrewer]

Quo might have more to worry about from the Mac fans. That would not be a fun store to work in.

[divide_by_zero]

"Apple was not immediately available for comment on Quo's endeavors." lol, because they're busy preparing a lawsuit.

I think Apple should just require companies like Quo to meet certain hardware quality guide lines and charge a premium for Os X to be installed on those systems.

[kcotham]

These pirates would just buy copies from third party retailers and hack it to work on their subpar hardware, just like they are now. These are not legitimate businesses. It needs to stop.

[Vegaman_Dan]

kcotham:

"These are not legitimate businesses"

Let's examine that a bit, shall we?

Who makes keyboards?

Apple, Belkin, Followes, etc.

Are you saying that because Belkin makes a USB keyboard that can work with an Apple computer that they should be forced out of business? Because they are 'thieves' as you stated multiple times?

Think of all those iPod accessories out there. I guess those third party companies are thieves too because they are making products that work on the Apple hardware that Apple itself did not make.

Congratulations- you just called the entire third party industry all criminals. I sure hope you only have Apple-branded hardware and no non-Apple accessories for your iPod. To do so would be... well... criminal on your part. ;)

[kcotham]

@Vegatwit

Okay, let's examine your tripe. Do any of those other companies use Apple designs without a license? No, that's the difference. All the accessory companies like Belkin and Fellowes, etc. gain licenses. And Apple doesn't hold the license for USB in the first place. I thought you would know that. Pull your head out of your ass and check up on your crap before you post it.

[lazycat202]

all MAC fans are jumping up and down by now. Scary!!

[kcotham]

Are there fans of Media Access Control? Wow, I did not know that.

[digiguy23]

Media Access Control address (MAC address). It's Mac, not MAC

[Dalkorian]

No, he's telling us Media Access Controllers now have fans (for cooling, presumably), but those fans are vibrating, jumping up and down.

That *does* sound scary, doesn't it?

[JuggerNaut]

Why are all these PC makers wasting their time with Mac clones? Isn't Windows where it's at in the PC industry??

[Seaspray0]

What I find amusing is now you can really see where some loyalties are. kcotham, myles taylor, ikramerica, applerocks... these guys are the hardcore apple guys. Do their loyalties lie with the hardware? with OSX? Nope. Read their posts. It's pretty clear that their loyalty is with apple inc. and only apple inc. The only time I see loyalty like that is because it's paid.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@Seaspray0:

"The only time I see loyalty like that is because it's paid."

I seriously doubt this is the case- a company that wanted to promote its brand would typically want to hire educated and polite invidivuals who would be able to make a case in a reasonable and professional manner instead of shouting frothing at the mouth that anyone who disagrees with the Word of Apple are heathens and unclean.

Not exactly the sort of representation you'd really want for your product, is it?

[kcotham]

@Seaspray0

Not a "hardcore apple [sic] guy", just an enthusiast that hates to see stupid Microsoft shills spouting crap. And I hate to see these "entrepreneurs" trying to make a quick buck by skating the fine line of legality. They're hustlers, not legitimate businesses.

And I give credit where credit is due to other companies making fine products. Apple is but one. So stop your trolling and keep your asinine comments to yourself.

[kcotham]

@Vegaman_Dan

I'm educated and I'm polite unless I'm provoked. You have no room to talk. You can't make one single comment without some sarcastic comment attached. You are the essence of rudeness. We all know you work for Microsoft (even if indirectly) so I guess that says a lot about your crowd doesn't it?

[marcusmaedl]

I love my Mac and will refrain from buying clones but I must say, at least that keeps some pressure on Apple regarding the hardware markups. Keeps them honest.

Also increases OS X market share and hence the likelihood of developers of hard and software to create OS X versions - still a problem.

Also may open the door for corporate use of Macs - if I can get the hardware for the same as a Dell would cost, why wouldn't I consider outfitting my workforce with OS X running boxes?

Curious how this will work out....

[kcotham]

Pricing is a reflection of what the market is willing to pay. If the number of people buying Macintoshes dropped, they would lower their price. But to try to force this with illegal clones is asinine. Apple charges a fair price for their products. If they wanted to charge an exorbitant amount, they are entitled to do that, as is any manufacturer or retailer.

[marcusmaedl]

kcotham,
of course they have the right to feel out their price point - as they are. But if they go high enough, that will trigger companies to imitate their products.
Just like a Gucci or Armani hand bag that costs $800 can be purchased in Hong Kong as a clone for $35. While the world in my opinion doesn't need more Gucci hand bags, I would certainly support more OS X running computers....

Besides, what is the big deal? Let the consumer decide whether they want a clone or the original....

[Vegaman_Dan]

kcotham:

"But to try to force this with illegal clones is asinine."

You need to brush up on your terms. It's not illegal. It's an allegedly illegal product. Until the court decides, then it isn't defined correctly. Just because you say it's illegal doesn't make it so.

If Apple charged a fair price for their products, then there wouldn't be a market for these clones in the first place, now would there? Thiink about it. No, seriously, stop two seconds and think about it.

[Macbrewer]

Corporations can't afford to buy illegal products such as this.

[monkeyfun14]

@Vegaman

He won't because he honestly it believes it cost Apple more to make their PC's then any other OEM. I bet he buys from Monster Cable to.

[kcotham]

@marcus

And that makes it right? Of course not. Imitate if you like, the whole world imitates someone, but to actually take and try to make money off of someone else's product is thievery.

@Vega
Do you just scroll through these posts looking for my posts? I didn't know you were so fascinated with me. Do I need to notify the police about your stalking? It's unhealthy. If attacks on semantics is the best you can do, keep it to yourself. In fact, even if by some miracle you can do better, keep it to yourself anyway.

[kcotham]

@monkey

****, you have no idea what I think. I could sit you down and explain everything in detail at a kindergarten level and you'd still not understand.

[heavydevelopment]

Why would someone logically invite that sort of pain into their lives? To be sued by a company with a legal team backed by a many billion dollars slush fund isn't what I call fun. Isn't there something else that consumers need that their entrepreneurial spirit could be providing? It seems like an incredible waste of time, effort and money on their part. My $.02.

[Macbrewer]

Maybe they are bankrolled by MSFT--they are famous for doing anything at all to protect their illegal monopoly, and yet they have never been prosecuted.

[monkeyfun14]

@Macbrewer

Same old argument isn't it.


Apple sues a company who gives someone options other then iTunes if anyone has been trying hand and foot to protect there monopoly its Apple.

[Dalkorian]

I seriously doubt that this time Macbrewer. M$ doesn't want legal challenges against the EULA any more than Apple does.

No, my money is on another hardware company, like Dell or Lenovo or Acer. Otherwise it doesn't make sense, why would a software company that ties it's customers up in complicated EULA's want the validity of EULA's challenged in court?

[Vegaman_Dan]

@Macbrewer:

"Maybe they are bankrolled by MSFT--"

Highly unlikely- Microsoft wouldn't profit from this at all. They stand to lose from it in fact. Any software company with a EULA could have it struck down if this goes to court and the EULA is actually read by the court.

This is one of those rare cases where Microsoft and Apple are in the same boat of EULA defense.

[Alex Alexzander]

If this goes to court, a judge might decide that if you buy an operating system, you can install it on whatever you like. I personally think that an EULA, if challenged, would not be upheld with hardware restrictions. And if that happens, anyone can clone the mac even with specialty hardware so long as they have the cloned chip technology from a non-reverse engineered source.

Look into your computer history and understand exactly how Compaq made clones against IBM's wishes by reverse engineering the IBM BIOS, and then creating a specification that a 3rd part then used to create a BIOS. That 3rd party didn't reverse engineer, and thus the BIOS was allowed to go forward. It was that event that changed IBM's ownership of the PC market from owner to competitor.

It is often said that IBM's mistake was using off-the-shelf computer hardware. This is exactly what Apple is now doing. They are using commonly available computer technology. The only reason you need to hack it to get it to work is because the general PC industry is still using standard 25 year old BIOS technology, where as Apple is using a new off-the-shelf technology. It's not their own technology. It's just not widely adopted.

I'd love this to go to court. And I'd love to see a judge rule against Apple's EULA, which is ridiculous in my opinion. You buy a use license to an operating system you don't own it. I agree. But you can't be so restricted as to be told what you can and cannot run it on. That would be the same as Microsoft telling you that you can only run Windows with nVidia graphics and not intel because they said so. It's just silly, and it won't hold up in court. Companies like Apple need to be slapped across the mouth for ridiculous EULAs. You can't just create any ol rule you want.

Alex Alexzander

[kcotham]

Why is it "ridiculous" to protect your own intellectual property. Apple's EULA is gravy compared to some pieces of software's. What you and others here don't get is that the Macintosh is the operating system AND the hardware. You can't separate the two.

BTW, why hasn't BIOS died yet? It's outdated technology.

[kcotham]

Oh, and I'd love to see Apple move away from "off the shelf" designs. They were making much better computers when compared to the competition when they were using their own designs. They undoubtedly could repeat that now.

[ikramerica--2008]

Alex-
You are NOT buying and operating system when you buy a retail box Mac OS X. You are buying an UPGRADE to a computer. This is the part so many people don't get. It's why the EULA is valid. The cost of OSX is amortized into computer sales. UPGRADE OS X sales help recoup SOME, not all of the costs of the OS, but by allowing current customers to upgrade at a reduced rate, it gives the computers more value. In essence, it's the difference between the upgrade and full prices of Windows OS (not to mention the OEM package, which offers NO technical support and is not intended for upgrade use, though people do it anyway). The difference is, Apple has never asked for a serial number in order to qualify for the OS upgrade, because they don't assume their customers to be thieves.

What you are supporting is basically akin to forcing Apple to either double or triple the price of the OS X retail box, or start the "serial number verification" that MS does with Windows. Both of those would suck for the consumer, just as they suck on the Windows side. But ultimately, if a court decides in your way, that is what is going to happen. Not clones, but software registration (like final cut studio currently has due to all the thieves who work alongside me in film and television.)

kc-
Apple has never made a better, more powerful (comparable to the times) all in one than the current iMac. They have never made a better professional tower than the current Mac Pro. Macs were not better before.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@kcotham wrote:

"What you and others here don't get is that the Macintosh is the operating system AND the hardware."

Then why is the software sold separately in their stores? Gotcha.

If Apple wanted to tie it into the hardware more completely, they simply have to stop selling it in the stores entirely and force people to download it using only Apple-authorized software. It could be done as a simple OS update. You would never have to have the installation media ever. Just include a base line browser or download client in the firmware- other companies have been doing this for years for embedded systems. It's not hard.

What's 'ridiculous' is your vehemence at the thought that someone might want to use OS X but not on an Apple computer.

[zyxxy]

You are wrong, and you are wrong again. Their designs were only better back when ISA bus dominated in PC land, and CGA graphics. In the present day and age, Apple would be hard pressed to build a better graphics adapter than nVidia or ATI, a better bus than PCIe, a better disk interface than SATA, and a better networking interface than GbE. All pretty much standard PC parts. Even their later PowerPC based platforms were using standard PC buses and components.

And other than boot up, BIOS is not used anymore. Windows has not used the PC BIOS for quite some time.

Back when Apple made their oh so special custom hardware, everything went through the Apple BIOS. That is why you couldn't clone them. So by your argument, they should retreat to the day of being dependent on the BIOS. That oh so outdated technology.

[trboyden]

@ikramerica

Only an upgrade, really!? Let's see what MacMall says:

http://www.macmall.com/ttsvr/p/Software/dpno~7742179~pdp.fcjdbdf?ciid=31209#tabs_pages.productDetailPage@138_0

Nope, nothing that indicates it's an upgrade only. It's pretty specific - RETAIL version, not upgrade. If it was an upgrade it would have to specifically note that it was an upgrade on the packaging just like Windows does. Apple would also make it so it couldn't be installed on a computer that didn't already have Mac OS X installed, just like Windows does.

The upgrade argument is just something Mac fanboys made up to justify OS X's low cost. Fact is, if it cost the same as Windows, normal consumers wouldn't buy it, that's why it's cheaper. From a finance perspective, Apple can't tie the development costs of OS X to their hardware, the two have to stand on their own. That's why Apple now has to charge for software changes that add functionality that didn't exist when the product was originally sold - i.e. the whole Wi-Fi N support debacle last year.

[DrtyDogg]

@kcotham: "BTW, why hasn't BIOS died yet? It's outdated technology." It hasn't died yet because there is no yet a better replacement.

[monkeyfun14]

@kcotham

Why was it ridiculous for MS to protect their software?

I mean why is it so ridiculous for Microsoft to ask for a serial to activate there OS? You sure make alot of noise about that though don't you.

[Dalkorian]

by Alex Alexzander May 29, 2009 9:03 AM PDT
If this goes to court, a judge might decide that if you buy an operating system, you can install it on whatever you like. I personally think that an EULA, if challenged, would not be upheld with hardware restrictions. And if that happens, anyone can clone the mac even with specialty hardware so long as they have the cloned chip technology from a non-reverse engineered source.

Look into your computer history ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Historically, if I built my own machine to take to market I didn't have a choice. I had to write an OS for that hardware because it didn't exist, possibly a handful of applications as well. So you think I should have been forced to write that OS for everyone else's hardware as well because you want me to?

Today with standard hardware that requirement isn't there anymore, but does that necessarily make the practice wrong? Help me here, I'm trying to understand how you could make the stand you're making and tell people to look into their computer history and still have a straight face on. Or were you laughing, we wouldn't know that on a board like this?

[ikramerica--2008]

@trb-

Is MacMall owned by Apple? No, didn't think so. Go to Apple's own store, and they say you "add a new Mac TO YOUR MAC" not "to whatever computer you want." It says it works with the hardware and software you already have (not a new clone, let alone a new clone that requires third party hacking to make it work).

But that's just retail, let's look at the product itself.

You see, I have a retail OS X Leopard kit right here. I bought it to UPGRADE my computers, a family pack because I have 4 computers. On page 1 of the instructions, first instruction, it says:
"To upgrade to Mac OS X Leoaprd..." and then explains that you boot your machine that already has OSX on it, insert the disk, then as the disk mounts, choose to install Leopard and the machine will RESTART. Can't restart a machine that doesn't already have OSX on it.

After restart, the instructions tell you to select the disk that has the version of OSX you want to UPGRADE.

Couldn't be more freaking clear than that!

Does the disk provide for the ability to format and do a clean install? Yes, because it is also a rescue disk. But if you use a rescue disk of any kind to install software on a NEW computer, you are violating your license.

It's also in the EULA that this is an upgrade to be installed on Mac hardware already running OSX. Now, in Germany, because it doesn't say it on the OUTSIDE of the box, the EULA may not be valid in this regard. One would assume Apple will print it on the outside of the box for Snow Leopard, even if it's in tiny print. But this isn't freaking Germany.

Apple made this change in wording during the Intel switch specifically because:
A. they wanted to make sure the license and marketing made it clear that it was for Mac Hardware only and
B. because previous versions of OSX and OS 8/9 that ran on PPC could be installed on previous clones that had authorized Apple BIOS, and Apple could not legally cripple those computers.

Any "clone" maker right now is in one form or another violating the contract and installing an UPGRADE package without paying for the original product. It really doesn't matter if a consumer tells them to do it or if they do it on their own and sell it, they are still MAKING MONEY via circumvention of a contract and paying less than market value for the full power of the OS.

People can argue this all they want, but they will be wrong the whole time they do.

If you don't want to pay Apple for their hardware in order to use their software, then don't buy an Apple. That's your choice, it's a free world, and most of the free world uses Windows anyway.

But there is no right in this world to get something you want "by other means" or "from some guy I know" simply because you can't afford it otherwise (or simply don't want to pay).

General rule in life: when a product is cheaper than anywhere else, and you don't know why, the source of the product is probably breaking the law or not selling you what they claim.

Counterfeit, gray market, B-stock sold as A-stock, stolen goods... they all fall into this category.

[man_w_balls]

Quite a ballsy move by Quo.
Apple really can't stop the clones without leaving the Intel architecture. They should have known better.
Think about all the foreign jurisdictions that clone makers could operate from, outside of Apple's legal department's reach... like the Russian company etc.
In some countries, Apple would have a very hard time proving the validity of their EULA to keep their OS off of non-Apple hardware. As long as the customer legally purchases the OS, then many countries would uphold their right to do with it as they wish.
The way I see it, only an architecture change can stop this growing movement.

But in the long run, serious professionals will still choose Apple. They will still sell Macs, no matter who else is in competition with them. Film, music, and art industry pros already know how good Apple can make their workflow, and they will gladly pay extra for the Apple standard of quality.

[kcotham]

It's a stupid move is what it is. Quo, Psystar, and that Russian company are going down. If you want to make clones, obtain a license to do so. It's not rocket science.

[Vegaman_Dan]

They haven't gone down yet.

If you want a license and the company refuses to do so, then you do what you can- you legally buy the software and then offer it to the consumers.

Freedom of choice in operation. It's America.

[El_Segfaulto]

Not all serious professionals are under the Mac delusion. I use Windows and Linux for 100% of my CG and video editing. Maya, Studio Max, and the Adobe suites (64 bit version which doesn't exist for Macs yet). Anybody worth their salt can keep a Windows system functional, stability issues are usually a cause of 3rd party hardware problems which can be avoided by choosing the right components at build time. So why would I spend thousands more which could go towards a down payment on a new camera or licensing the Adobe suite?

[Macbrewer]

Anybody with better things to do than hack their 80's era REGISTRY or diddle with Virus scanners all day is going to opt for the Mac at this point.

Windows zealots are totally freaking out. This is happening because they see Apple doubling their marketshare every 18 months or so, and they are afraid their 'team' is losing the monopoly they never deserved to begin with.

[Sausagebiscuit]

I quite wonder how they plan to shut down a company operating in Russia. It is amazing how many people assume American law is the World's law.

[pithenumber]

@kcotham
1. How is Apple going to shut down a Russian company? US law applies in the US
2. you forgot some weird German company that makes Mac clones
3. if you shut down one Mac cloner, 3 more appear. People obviously want cheap Macs.
4. Apple should try to compete in the slightly more lower end market. $750 mid tower is a key thing that they are missing from their product line, a $400 Mini nettop would also be good for them. And who doesn't want an Apple netbook or maybe a net tablet.

[monkeyfun14]

@pithenumber

But how would Apple be able to get there %40 premium</sarcasm>

[kcotham]

@Vega
Skirting the edge of legality, America.
You have a choice, if you want to use Mac OS X, buy a Macintosh. If you don't want a Macintosh, use one of the dozens of other operating systems out there. Oh, just wait, they won't last.

@monkey
It's not 40%, ignoramus.

[SlimGem]

"... Quo also wants to be involved in the local community and schools. He hopes to work with school boards to get computers in the hands of children and teachers."

As incompetent as many school boards are, I find it hard to believe that they would spend taxpayer money on clone computers. This guy is an *******.

[zyxxy]

They won't waste money on clones, don't worry. They'll keep buying Windows PCs just like they do today. You might find the occasional Mac used in an Arts related program, but the bulk of the machines are running Windows. I have kids in school, and for the schools around here, PCs dominate by a huge margin, least ten to one.

[ikramerica--2008]

Creating good will to mitigate/insulate your illegal activities is a long standing tradition among thieves. Organized crime takes this approach all the time. Most people with morals refuse this kind of "help" though it can be difficult.

[DrtyDogg]

@irkamerica--2008: So you are for making backup copies of DVDs but against installing an OS. The arguments against the MPAA is the same argument against Apple in this case, you cannot tell me how to use my purchase.

[ikramerica--2008]

I am not selling any product or service, nor offering to provide copied DVDs to schools or the community or anyone else. I am not using the original and the copy at the same time.

The Federal law is quite clear that an individual does, in fact, have the right to make back up copies of their content.

The cases being brought up by the MPAA involve:
Creating and selling products that allow for copying (I don't do that)
Trading (sharing) copyrighted content with people who did not pay for that content (I don't do that)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you are going to try to besmirch someone's reputation, you should know your facts.

[ikramerica--2008]

And BTW - Apple certainly CAN tell us how we can use the product, just as the MPAA can. We can not resell the product while still using it ourselves, nor charge people to install our product on someone else's machine. We can't duplicate the product for resale, etc.

The MPAA can also prohibit acts such as: charging admission for screening a movie. Selling a copy of the movie while keeping the original.

No license agreement can circumvent federal law. But even if part of a license agreement tries to make that claim (like the MPAA saying there is no right to any duplication), it doesn't mean the rest of the agreement is invalid. You don't throw the whole thing out, only the clause that isn't correct. One bad line in a contract does not invalidate the entire contract. If only contract law were that simple...

My argument about the MPAA in the specific case regarding the Real case was that their arguments in an attempt to thwart federal law were inconsistent, for a few reasons. First you can't claim all backups are illegal and then claim it's okay to backup, but what REAL was doing was creating a primary use medium. Second, in the world of computers, the medium you receive your product on is not exclusively the medium you use that product from. In most cases, part or ALL of the content of that medium is transfered to the computer for use, and the original medium is in essence, the BACKUP of the product.

In Real's case, they also have a problem because their software does not prevent someone from then using the DVD in it's physical form again, or selling that disk. Now, Real may be able to add a clause to the agreement you must accept that says: by INSTALLING your DVD content into the Real software, you agree to no longer use the physical DVD medium for playback of this content unless you first remove the Installation from the Real software. In this way, you are legally transferring the content to a new primary delivery medium and using the DVD as a backup.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@ikamerica--2008:

"We can not resell the product while still using it ourselves, nor charge people to install our product on someone else's machine. We can't duplicate the product for resale, etc."

Quo isn't running afoul of any of those restrictions- they are selling the software to the end user. The end user is the one that agrees to the EULA, not the store.

Your argment has a rather huge hole there.

[SlimGem]

Oops, sorry about that. I gotta watch my potty mouth.