Open Tech Enters the Legally Perilous Mac-Clone Market

More like this
7

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

jpenguin

July 27, 2008 at 7:27pm

Apples hardware in not overpriced; think about it-- you may pay over $1800 USD for a really good iMac, but just look what you get-  a good procesor, a high resulutionn monitoor, a computer that looks a lot better than any generic x86 box out there.  In a way, the limited selectioon of Apple hardware does make it expensive though; th mac mini does not have a monityor, so you can keep using the same one; but since the mac mini is limited in power, most consumers need to get an iMac, and since it comes with a high resoolution internal monitor, it cost a lot more; the MacPro is very expensive and beyond the reach of many peoples budgets. 

So, if you look at the price of an iMac, then look at the price of a comprable display; the subtract the price of the display from the iMac, you will find that it is priced competetively.  So, Apple dosen't really need to lower it's prices; it just needs to make the component of an iMac minus the screen, and assemble it as an expandable MacMiniTower. Apple should also make all of there hardware more customizably.

 

Also, you need to keep in mind the fact that because apple doesn't license their OS to other computer manufacturers applle is able to keep the price of OS X at $129 USD.   If apple did license theirOS to 3rd parties, it would cost as much as a new copy of XP or Vista

avatar

jwalch.hawk

July 28, 2008 at 12:10pm

Well, I can't say you don't have a point with your first two paragraphs (you do), but I'm a bit curious about their significance...  I realize that horzo remarked that it was "overpriced" but the bigger issue in the eyes of most PC users is the propreitary part.  Just sayin'.

Your last paragraph is a little bewildering to me.  How are you going from restrictive licensing to driving down the cost of the OS?  There are some missing steps in your logic there; not picking so much as I'm curious how exactly you arrived at that conclusion - there has to be some stuff that you just didn't specify because you thought it was self-evident.  However, it would seem to me that by charging different OEM's a licensing fee for your product, you generate revenue.  Maybe you were referring to the increased overhead, man-hours, etc. to maintain an OS that can run on a wide variety of hardware?  I'm just a little unclear there.

I'm also not sure I understand your argument that OS X is cheaper than Vista or XP.  On the secondary market (Newegg, to be more specific), I am seeing Vista Home Premium clocking in at exactly 4 cents more than OS X, with XP Home Edition at $19.96 below that.  So I'd say the pricing of the OS's themselves is a pretty well at an even race right now, although it can be a little more challenging to figure that out with all of Microsoft's different versions, upgrade versions, and basic licensing nightmare associated with their OS.

avatar

jpenguin

July 30, 2008 at 3:52pm

My point with the last paragraph is that because M$ does not make it's hardware, it does not make it's money that way; so they need to charge a lot for their OS.  Apple does make it's own harware, so they make their money that way and as a result can charge less for their OS/  If Appke were to license OS X to other companies, they would not sell as many computers; and as a result- charge more for OS X.  Yes they could charge OEMs a fee, but MacOS X would be more commen on BitToren; that;s why M$ has you enter 20 codes jst to install windoze and another 20 on first boot :-) but with all this protection, hackers still find ways aound all this...

avatar

jwalch.hawk

July 25, 2008 at 9:58pm

So they're not installing OS X for you, they're just teaching you EXACTLY how to do it...  Naturally, that means they shouldn't be legally liable for anyone actually does it, right? ;)

Short of overextending some analogy to teaching how to kill not being encouragement to kill, I really don't see what kind of legal ground Open Tech thinks they are going to stand on...  Then again, it's not as though our court system has a history of making logical decisions when it comes to these sorts of things.

I agree with the other guy, though...  If I'm going to play around and experiment with OS X, Apple's going to have to play on my field.  If it were readily available on ANY x86 platform I wanted to install it on...  Maybe I'd consider it, especially with competitive pricing.  I'm not going to run a wonky hack just to run OS X for the sake of running OS X.

 

EDIT:  "other guy" = horzo

avatar

horzo

July 25, 2008 at 2:47pm

So, I can either buy Apple's overpriced proprietary hardware to run OS X or I can buy Open Tech's crap hardware and go through some kind of cheesy installation hack in order to run OS X?

No thanks. I won't touch an Apple OS until I can install it on any x86-based hardware of my choosing.

 

 

avatar

sdcat

July 25, 2008 at 12:40pm

wow expensive and we still need to buy the OSX on top of that?

avatar

yodasoda

June 01, 2009 at 8:58am

Who ever is writting that apple is not overpricing its hardware is a big fat liar working for apple.  They have always overpriced their computers and now suddenly if you follow his crooked math its a deal?  If Mac was the only player in the game we would still be running powerpc's and computers would cost like 10000$.  Mac needs to learn to soe not just to reap. And their OS is based originally on an idea they themselves took from Xerox.  They profited off an open source idea but are totally closed source. This is unfair to poorer ppl who cant afford 2 computers. Face it apple, you make nice displays and keyboards and thats it HW wise.

  It is not fair that all windows stuff can run on a mac but not the other way around.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.
Don't have an account? Join Now.