Neowin.net

They'll find a way, I'm sure.

Probably, given Apple is much more anal about infringement of any sort than Microsoft is.

It's interesting, but they went about it completely the wrong way.

Why emulate EFI when you could just use a normal EFI board, that way you'd support the enhanced functionality across the board, just not to bootstrap OS X.

wow $200 per dongle? That's a little expensive.. You can get a good OS X solution from the community for nothing.. not that I condone it..-wink wink-

You can condone it , it is legal

Its not legal its just not illegal.

there's only 2 terms in that sense which means if it's not illegal it's legal unless otherwise in the future.

Ah ok, one of those grey area things.

I think it's a great idea. Competition is good for the consumer, and having a standard PC that allows multiple OS's outside of Unix/BSD based platforms and Windows is currently restricted to using Apple's hardware and dual boot / Virtualisation.

It put's increased pressure on Apple to do better with their hardware and from Apple's point of view it's more money from software sales as well as more expose to their OS.

Technically speaking, the EFi-X is simply selling a normal PC (albeit with a limited spec) and also selling an additional bit of hardware you can buy too. As a consumer you can also purchase Mac OS X, which EFi-X is saying will install and run on the hardware if you wish.

Seems like a good deal all round.

Not good for OS X. At all. Clone makers would turn OS X into nothing more than a Windows clone with a nicer GUI. No thanks.

And if by the most remote, unheard of chance these companies will succeed and destroy the very reasons for OS X's enviable position in the industry, then I'll probably call it game over and head for Linux land.

Last edited by LTD on 14 Dec 2008 - 18:36

Exactly. The reason OS X is so slick and tidy is Apple test it on all their hardware, as soon as other people start building systems that control is lost and many of the "problems" XP and Vista face because of hardware start to appear. Was working on the new version of Sketchup on an iMac all day today and it was better than my Vista system, but not enough better to warrant nearly triple the price.

If you could get windows system price and the Apple experience, many more people would switch, just thats not how the computer world works.

I'm pretty militant when it comes to OS X and the hardware it runs on. Nothing personal, but just because there is a demand for something doesn't mean Apple is required to meet it.

You want a cheaper hardware solution? Go buy a PC and run Windows or Linux on it. The only business Apple needs is the premium end of the market. If someone's not part of that demographic, then that's too bad.

Much of the $400-Dell segment of the market would love to run OS X. That doesn't mean Apple has to make them happy. Standards are standards. Apple wants to make a net profit, maintain their reputation, and make money. Dealing at the low end of the market will not only dilute the Apple brand, it will also result in lower margins.

And the way to deal with these clone makers and copycats is to just keep litigating, and they can fight this war on several fronts at the same time. They're very good at that. And more power to them.

If Apple does decide to offer a netbook or midrange tower solution, be prepared to pay on the same scale as you would pay for any other Apple product. Twice the price for twice the computing experience. As it should be, IMHO.

Entering into the lower end of the market brings with it plenty of problems. But we'll see what this recession does to Apple and how they respond. They have to tread very carefully, though.

Much of this may have sounded condescending, and that wasn't my intention, but I'm echoing Apple's stated and implied position on the matter. Of course, it's their prerogative to pull away from that if they wish.

Last edited by LTD on 15 Dec 2008 - 01:12

Why are you against it? Only one getting hurt here is Apple. And the only reason they're getting hurt is due to their (over)pricing. If it wasn't so high, offers such as this wouldn't exist. They wouldn't need to exist for that matter.

Instead, prices never really drop. They stay the same, and when Apple tries their best to offer something reasonably priced (Mac-mini), it simply flops. Are they incapable of getting decent hardware for a small sum working with OS X? I mean, these people seem to be pretty dead-set on doing it. Why not Apple?

Until then, I really push for this movement. Let this grab Apple's attention that OS X is very capable of running on decent hardware, that it shouldn't cost a fortune, and that it would simply open the doors to more money, a better image, and so forth. This is what the people want! We're not asking for them to support every last piece of hardware out there (far from it). We just simply want a reasonable price for the decent hardware already available.

Or maybe I should just say I. I want that. I don't want to speak for anyone who doesn't agree with me. But if you do agree, speak up.



Again, why? (or why not)

I don't believe the majority of corporations would ever switch to Apple. It has actually little to do with the quality of their product and more to do with existing legacy commitments. Don't look for cloud computing to be the loophole that allows either Apple or Linux into the mainstream either.

See my reply above.

Sorry man, but that just sounds absolutely stuck up. :

+1, LTD might as well be a apple shareholder/employee for all his mac bias. Does lord jobs ever do anything wrong LTD? He wants to keep that warm elitist feeling of owning his mac (any paying twice the price) and he doesn't want "pc" users tarnishing it.
One thing LTD paying twice the price does not mean you get twice the experience, how would you even ever measure that metric. The experience of apps I cant run and the experience of paying twice the bill on the credit card. God I hate mac elitists.

Put your feelings aside for a moment and consider the following from my previous post:

Apple wants to make a net profit, maintain their reputation, and make money. Dealing at the low end of the market will not only dilute the Apple brand, it will also result in lower margins.

Lower margin products will require the same integrated design, manufacturing and distribution services as the high margin units. The increase in volume (which would have to occur in Dell and HP land) would have to be very, very large to justify the expense. Apple would have to alter much of their business model to serve the low end of the market.

Of course, in most cases the low end exists only on paper: to make the machines that headline at $399 truly useful they require add-ons that quickly escalate the price close to or into Mac territory.

Perhaps what is important though is that Macs are not as expensive within the categories where they choose to compete. Apple's strategy appears to be to maintain high margin business within certain segments and to ignore or barely serve segments that do not meet their criteria.

So in the end it is true Apple is missing lots of sales - but they are sales that may not match the company's strategy. They clearly do not want that business. And don't forget, Apple has built a machine around its software . . . seamless integration.

As soon as Apple, or any other systems manufacturer starts competing primarily on price, most of their 'value added' features become irrelevant. Gateway went that route, and Dell ate them alive. Apple produces complete systems, with the best (proven) hardware and software available. The have a modest array of mid to high-end systems, and they provide the best customer support in the industry. All these other budget/low-end players like HP, Dell, etc. are struggling in the market. Apple is really the only one that is showing significant growth in the industry.

If you want cheap, buy the components to build your own system and put Linux or Windows on it. I value my time and computing experience, so I choose Apple, and I'm willing to pay more, because I don't get just the hardware, but I also get the software designed to run on it and the kind of computing experience I get as a result.

This isn't being "stuck up." It's business. And as a former Windows user who chose to dump Windows in favour of what has proven to me to be a far better experience is based on my own good reasons, and especially what I no longer choose to put up with. In general I feel Apple's products are far from over priced. They have a well marketed brand and for me they mostly deliver on the brand promise. I have never been able to find a product that works the way my Macs do, especially for my businesses.

Look, I could write and talk for hours on things that frustrate me a bit here and there, or things I wish Apple would or would not do. But I have to recognize that the company's strategy is working, and anyway, my family and I, and many of my friends are happy customers. I don't mind paying more for an experience that I feel is far better. And there are millions upon millions who agree with me.

I'll speak out against Apple when its policies and practices until they affect me negatively. Hasn't happened yet.

Last edited by LTD on 15 Dec 2008 - 17:20

Where did you get that from? This is completely untrue.

Take the iPod for example, when it came out, it was one of the most expensive MP3 player, and yet it sold really well, dominating the high end MP3 market. Then Apple decided to attack the lower end MP3 segment and released the nano and the shuffle. They do it because they figured out a way to make a low end product but still a quality product.

As for the lower end computers, the reason you don't see a $400 mac yet is because they haven't figure out a way to do it. As Steve Jobs said, they don't know how to make a $400 mac that isn't a piece of crap. It is not because they don't want to "dilute the Apple brand". They will make a $400 mac when the technology allows them to make it cheaper.

They need to do it soon as sales are down year on year unlike PC sales which continue to grow:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/0...onomic-downturn

Stopped what?

"Just hours after announcing plans to sell a high-end Mac clone, niche electronics reseller EFIX USA changed course in order to avoid a nasty legal confrontation with Apple."

Yeah, I noticed it below. Thanks for the response, though.

If you want OS X, just go out an buy a Mac. Boom, you're one of "the few."

Like I said, the fear is that once OS X is unharnessed from Apple-approved hardware, it'll face the compatibility and stability issues that Windows faces. I won't comment on malware because there isn't much history in the way of widespread Unix viruses that have specific effects on the Mach/FreeBSD architecture of OS X.

It probably would, but it would not hurt for Apple to take the training wheels off from their product and let the free market decide what it thinks of OSX.

It 's in the free market. You're free to buy it or not. There are no training wheels. It's a complete solution. Keeping it away from the endless mass of hardware out there preserves the integrity of the product.

Right... keeping it away from the masses of hardware lets Apple continue to pretend they have a solid product with quality developers behind it. What they have is really a cripped mix of Openstep and A/UX with a shiny UI and an updated userland (newer BSD, updated Cocoa). It is still a hybrid microkernel... like NT. The applications API(s) are not bad. This would be the one major advantage over Windows. The presentation, however, is a toy. It is closed turnkey solution, the users are immature and while it does have all core solutions, it does not go to the depths that are available on Windows.

Without competing in the free market directly, by instead redirecting their product to fill a niche role and, or "elite" consumers they are providing a training wheel experience. It is isolated and reduced in complexity. It is essentially a Mach kernel with a BSD userland subsystem that simulates a Unix experience with "training wheels." It is Unix, but it is not Unix. I wonder if Microsoft could get Unix certification for the subystem that can be installed under Windows. All it really needs is a portage tree and a good version of X... running nativly as part of the install. True, it doesn't have a Mach kernel... but would that even matter to get certification?

Sorry for the rambling. Summary: turnkey solution out of box, closed, locked down... limited hardware and software support... niche market... lack of true free market enterprise... hence, training wheels and, or toy.

What do you mean by "reduced in complexity"?

I think you know what I mean. The entire process is designed to be simplistic. The trouble is that when you reduce complexity... you take features away from the end-user. Apple markets this as a good thing. I am not so sure. The system can not be fine tuned like Linux (or Windows for that matter). Drag and drop software installs are an example. Seriously? On a PC not designed for grade school children? Wow. Next, look at the Unix subsystem that is provided with their list of ports and third party repositories. Most of the applications are there, but they are horribly broken or limited in feature. Their X session is not much better.

These are just your misconceptions. The Unix Terminal on OS X works like any other.

The applications we have for every task are full featured. Simplicity is it's strength. Most of the fine-tuning you do with Windows involves fixing it, or fine-tuning things that should have been "tuned" properly in the first place.

You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions. Most of them arise from never having any OS X experience in the first place.

The trouble is I have been using OS X since the public beta. I began to fall out of favor with it between 10.3 and 10.4. The application range is not full featured. The Unix system is limited, until recently it was not even case sensitive (this should have been done with the first release). The port tree is pathetic for Unix applications.

I was talking about Windows with fine tuning, but the same basic fine tuning is available in GNU/Linux or a "proper" BSD.

Seems they've backed down after all . . . i think.

------------------------ From the above Engadget link:

"Just so we are clear on exactly what transpired yesterday.

EFIX is manufactured by Arts Studio Entertainment Media of Taiwan.
EFIX USA is the USA distributor of the EFIX device and is based in Los Angeles, CA.

We at EFIX USA have had numerous inquiries over the past 4 months about whether or not we would be willing to pre assemble a functioning PC using parts from the official EFIX Hardware Compatibility List. We are still willing to do that on a one off basis, but the parent company of EFIX has reversed course on us doing that as a commercial product so we pulled it from our website.

Any inquiries should be directed to sales2@efixusa.com

Thank you and sorry for the confusion."

Last edited by LTD on 14 Dec 2008 - 21:23

Microsoft could restructure their EULA so that Windows could only be run on a purchased box that was supported by a vendor pre-approved by Microsoft. They could use DRM to lock-down the experience to select motherboards and hardware using existing Intel technology today. They, however, unlike Apple just want to make a profit. They don't really care who they sell Windows to. Further, given that they own the market they have little worry about hardware cannibalization because almost all hardware is written to support Windows.