Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Mac Clone Maker 'Quo' To Open Retail Store

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the attack-of-the-clones dept.

Desktops (Apple) 296

bughunter writes "Cnet is reporting that Mac clone maker Quo Computer plans to open its first retail location, selling Mac clones, on June 1st. To start, Quo will offer three desktop systems: the Life Q, Pro Q, and Max Q. While details of the components are not yet available, founder Rashantha De Silva said they are looking at Apple's system configurations for guidance. Pricing has also not been finalized on the desktop machines, but the company is looking to start pricing at less than $900. While Quo is starting off with the desktop machines, De Silva said it is looking at offering an Apple TV-like media server and a smaller computer similar to the Mac Mini. He acknowledges that Quo will likely face opposition from Apple, much like Psystar. 'They probably will (sue us),' De Silva said. 'There are others doing this, but we have a different attitude. There are thousands of people in the "Hackintosh" market, but many of them are creating bad products. I don't think anyone wins in that environment.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Maybe Apple will hug you to death (5, Funny)

Scr3wFace (1200541) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149201)

Instead of suing you into oblivion....

This is my Mac book,
there are many like it, but this one is mine!

Re:Maybe Apple will hug you to death (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149413)

This is my Macbook, this is my gun.
This one's for porn, this one's for fun.
Sound off!

Re:Maybe Apple will hug you to death (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28149983)

Sound off!

Nah, just use headphones (not noise canceling though - 'less you wanna get caught with your pants down).

Why? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28149213)

Why would anyone want to run Mac OS on unsupported hardware? It's going to be unstable, missing features, and chances are that getting updates from Apple to install with or without hosing your installation is going to be a bitch.

If you want OS X that bad why not just buy a Mac?

OS X integration on Mac (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28149287)

I agree, the seamless integration of OS X is part of why I love my Mac.

Re:Why? (3, Interesting)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149343)

The same argument applies (arguably doubly so) to people running pirated copies of Windows. Personally, I stick with Linux.

That said, if OS X would work reasonably on my system, I'd (at least) dual-boot it for sure. It runs perfectly well on a relative's store-bought standard PC though, and I can easily see why people would run it rather than Windows.

Apple are really being dumb by sticking with their own hardware, imho. They could probably kill windows overnight if they invested in mainstream hardware drivers, and got quickly to the critical mass where hardware manufacturers have to develop drivers for them. Even Linux has managed that, so Apple definitely could.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

wstrucke (876891) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149371)

The same argument applies (arguably doubly so) to people running pirated copies of Windows.

Not really, no. Windows is designed to run on commodity hardware from any vendor. OS X is designed to run only on Apple hardware. In reality it's not at all the same thing.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149411)

Um, in case Apple has confused you, a Mac is made of commodity hardware. Other then perhaps EFI, nothing about the computer is a Mac, a Mac is simply a configuration of a PC installed with OS X by default.

Sure, OS X was designed with only one or two configurations for a Mac but with third party drivers its possible to extend it to almost any modern configuration in existence. There is nothing special about a Mac.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149579)

Yes, that's true for electronics inside the box. It's all commodity hardware. Apple does not make their own memory or CPU or hard drive.

But they do make their own motherboards, they make their own cooling solutions, they often meticulously design power supplies to be quiet, they will often times design the battery. They design the cases to be sturdy, have excellent heat conduction and they are quiet.

I was amazed when I first opened my Mac Pro how simple and elegant it is inside and how amazingly quiet (for heavy aluminum case that's quite a feat). As you can see I value quiet quite a bit :D.

And things like these are important to a select few users that choose to buy Apple. When it comes to notebook computers, case and tactile feel matters even more.

And in the end it is the integrated package that matters as well. User experience and expectation is well managed from the moment you receive the box, from opening it, to using the computer (hardware part) to using the OS.

Just providing OS X for users to buy and install on whatever hardware would not lead to comparable or even similar user experience. But if you ship your OS on your designed hardware you know that every user has the minimum accepted standard and same experience as others. This is why Apple leads the user satisfaction surveys.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

ya really (1257084) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149621)

But they do make their own motherboards, they make their own cooling solutions, they often meticulously design power supplies to be quiet, they will often times design the battery. They design the cases to be sturdy, have excellent heat conduction and they are quiet.

Actually, Intel builds their motherboards for for Apple http://news.zdnet.co.uk/emergingtech/0,1000000183,39244663,00.htm [zdnet.co.uk]

That article is from 2005... (1)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149669)

and it talks about Power Mac (and it also says that up to that point they were making their own motherboards :D).

The point is that Apple designs most of the computer, including the motherboard. They can (and often do) outsource the actual production of the part to third party.

If you look at most apple hardware you will see something like "Designed by Apple" and not "Made by Apple".

Re:That article is from 2005... (-1, Flamebait)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149739)

Don't forget "Designed by Apple in California" the most pretentious line I've ever seen on a piece of hardware. Honestly who gives a damn that it was made in the state with its head shoved furthest up its ass?

Re:Why? (1, Redundant)

johnny cashed (590023) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149679)

I was amazed when I first opened my Mac Pro how simple and elegant it is inside and how amazingly quiet (for heavy aluminum case that's quite a feat).

No, for a light aluminum case, that would be quite a feat. Apple took care of the noise by using a heavy aluminum case. I know, I have a G5 power mac tower, the thing is heavy, thick aluminum. Built like a tank, and elegant, but the case is heavy and solid. I'm not complaining, but the feat was made much easier by using a thick metal case.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28149605)

Wrong. Current sales offerings only provide a half dozen configurations that OSX supports, but OSX Leopard still supports G4 systems (and will unofficially run on G3 systems), and all the configurations from then until now. While the number of officially supported hardware pieces is smaller than Windows, the range is no less. Multiple CPU architectures, GPUs from 3 major vendors, RAM of all sorts, wireless from Atheros, Broadcom, and probably others, support for most USB devices and anyone else who will write a driver. Add in the knowledge gained from the OSX86 community and it supports damn near everything else outside of weird proprietary 3rd party stuff that Windows or Linux couldn't support without that manufacturer's help either.

That's no less diverse than other OSs, and better than Windows in most cases.

Re:Why? (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149635)

True, but then when they were using PowerPC processors they were still nothing unusual.

Nobody except games console makers have custom chips these days, they cost so much to develop and tend to be poor in comparison to off the shelf. Apple machines are designed better on the whole than generic PC hardware, quieter, better looking and just more pleasing to use.

An XBox was just a PC with unified memory architecture, but that didn't give anyone the right to clone it.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28149657)

Sure, OS X was designed with only one or two configurations for a Mac but with third party drivers its possible to extend it to almost any modern configuration in existence.

Agreed, but Apple chooses to sell only a few well-tested configurations which ensure fewer bugs creeping in than in a PC/MS environment (or even a PC/Linux environment).

They're simply nailing down the variables (such as fewer supports GPUs) to offer their "user experience". I hate that term, but I do like OS X and the fact that I have had almost no trouble with it.

Slap OS X on a Biostar motherboard with a tweaked Rosewill GeForce 9500 GPU and a clusterfuck 9000 err Realtek network chip and see how stable things are. I'm not saying it's going to crash every 30 seconds, but the consumer perception *will* be "wow.. what a piece of shit! I thought OS X was supposed to rock!" It'll start acting more like a Windows machine.

There is nothing special about a Mac.

Except for the OS and the branding. And if Apple wants to keep it on their hardware exclusively, so be it. If they don't offer a consumer grade tower my next machine will be a home-built i7 for Slackware 13.0 or Ubuntu 9.10.

Re:Why? (1)

hydromike2 (1457879) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149959)

couldnt apple argue that this will be defamation, due to bad publicity of their OS not working properly on unsupported hardware, not that average consumer will care who they buy it from, they will buy the 'Quo' and dismiss macs as being as bad as they thought before hand, I am sure that this was on the top of the list of concerns for apple when they went intel,

Um, in case Apple has confused you, a Mac is made of commodity hardware. Other then perhaps EFI, nothing about the computer is a Mac, a Mac is simply a configuration of a PC installed with OS X by default.

Sure, OS X was designed with only one or two configurations for a Mac but with third party drivers its possible to extend it to almost any modern configuration in existence. There is nothing special about a Mac.

So from what your saying it sounds like basically every motherboard with the same chipset works exactly the same

Re:Why? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150061)

couldnt apple argue that this will be defamation

They could argue that whales aren't mammals because the don't look like dogs or cats. Doesn't mean anybody will believe it.

Re:Why? (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150077)

OS X is designed to run only on Apple hardware.

It is not. It is _supported_ only on Apple hardware.

It's amazing the number of Apple zealots who will go on and on about what mad skillz Apple's OS developers have, then turn around and insist they'd be so incompetent as to tie their basic design into particular hardware designs.

In any event, from a component perspective an Apple Mac is a generic PC. Same CPU, same hard disk, same RAM, same chipset, same video card.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149421)

Apple are really being dumb by sticking with their own hardware, imho.

I'm not a huge fan of Apple, but one thing they're not is stupid. I'm sure they've run the numbers and determined they make more money by keeping OS X exclusive to their hardware (ie, not cannibalizing their own hardware sales and the large profit margins they can make on them) than taking the hardware sales loss to greatly inflate their sales of OS X, where margins are probably much thinner--and where, frankly, Microsoft can and does play dirty with their pricing.

Re:Why? (1)

ubernostrum (219442) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149607)

They could probably kill windows overnight if they invested in mainstream hardware drivers, and got quickly to the critical mass where hardware manufacturers have to develop drivers for them.

But is that their business model? Or is it a good business model compared to the one they currently have? Even setting aside the costs of supporting any old piece of hardware someone wants to run on, the difference between the OS business and the premium PC business is pretty significant. The former has a couple orders of magnitude more unit sales, but the latter has a couple orders of magnitude higher profit margins.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149945)

Except Microsoft makes about $0.75 of income on every $1 of OS sales that they do. See the client segment here:

http://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar08/10k_fr_dis.html [microsoft.com]

Apple doesn't break out their revenues and income by product segment, so a direct comparison is difficult; also, they don't publish a fancy Annual report, just a 10-Q for the SEC, which is available here (and probably lots of other places), so no linking to the pertinent section:

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=107357&p=irol-sec [corporate-ir.net]

It is probably reasonably fair to compare Microsoft's above operating income for client sales to Apple's overall operating margin of about 20%:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AAPL [yahoo.com]

The big difference is that Microsoft is selling OEM's licenses to Windows, with essentially no production costs (just development costs) and Apple has to buy all the parts for those computers from somebody, with costs that comprise a substantial portion of the eventual revenue that they bring in.

It's possible that computer hardware sales are more lucrative than other Apple products, but I doubt that it is a factor of 2 or whatever. So Microsoft could halve the revenue they are bringing in for OS sales and still probably be making more income on those revenues than Apple makes.

I think the biggest reason Apple doesn't want to license OS X for sale is that they would lose control over the experience ("It just works" is a big marketing point for them). Next in line is that they have significant hardware operations that would face lower margin competitors, likely eroding their revenues.

Re:Why? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150099)

I doubt that it is a factor of 2 or whatever.

GP said an order of magnitude, which usually means at least a factor of ten. Clearly he's talking bollocks.

Re:Why? (1)

ubernostrum (219442) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150203)

I mistyped -- meant "profit", not "profit margin" (too many arguments too early in the morning).

What I had in mind was a comparison like:

  • Operating system sales: 75 cents on each of a hundred million units
  • Premium hardware sales: 75 dollars on each of a million units

Which is, as far as I can tell, a reasonable pair of numbers to pull out of my ass (though nobody in the general public knows for sure how much Apple makes on hardware). This underscores the fact that you can make some pretty good money on hardware if you manage to market it correctly, and the fact that you don't have to be on everybody's home computer to be raking in the dough.

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28149835)

They could probably kill windows overnight if they invested in mainstream hardware drivers

Let's go over this one more time.

1. Apple makes OS run on any PC.
2. People buy PCs instead of Macs.
3. Apple profit tanks.
4. Apple stock tanks.
5. Apple tanks.

Re:Why? (1)

Bentov (993323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150229)

Yea, I don't understand why people don't get this either... Repeat after me: Apple is a hardware company....Apple is a hardware company....

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28150253)

6. Mac OS X dies.
7. People get stuck with Windows as the only OS choice again (unless Adobe starts making Photoshop for Linux, EA makes games for Linux, and so on).

Re:Why? (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150139)

Apple are really being dumb by sticking with their own hardware, imho.

<irony>Yes, especially after Steve Jobs' attempt to sell NeXTStep as an alternate OS was such a resounding success, not forgettimg how people queued up to buy BeOS and the way 99% of desktop users switched to Linux ages ago. Apple were so successful in the 1990s when they were selling dull beige boxes and licensing MacOS 9 to third parties - but since Jobs came back and got them selling cool hardware again hardly anybody has heard of them.</irony>

Since Apple seem to be doing very nicely, thank you, when Windows has ground every other alternative platform under its wheels, then maybe, just maybe they have their strategy about right?

Even Linux has managed that, so Apple definitely could.

Linux has an army of programmers working free-of-charge, badgering hardware manufacturers for data and writing drivers, and buying a compatible wireless adapter, graphics card or TV tuner is still a lottery - and even if it does work it usually requires techie fiddling to get it working. Windows has a huge advantage in that all component manufacturers are effectively obliged to ensure that their products play nicely with it.

Trouble is, when the typical slashdotter* installs any operating system on generic hardware, they happily deal with all manner of niggling glitches and incompatibilities each of which would be a brick wall to a muggle. Apple's target market includes a huge number of people who sipmply would not have the confidence to use any OS other than the one pre-installed on their computer.

(* This would include the people who every single fracking time tell users to run explorer and click on "setup.exe" because they simply cannot expand their world view to include people who (a) think "Windows Explorer" means "Internet Explorer" and/or (b) haven't turned off extension hiding)

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149377)

If you want OS X that bad why not just buy a Mac?

Because Macs are hideously expensive for the level of hardware you get compared to the level of hardware you can get for a PC for the same price. If you can't see the difference between $899 (tops) and $1149 for an iMac and $2300 for a Mac Pro (minimums)*, well, you either have entirely too much money to throw around or you're just a horrible fanboi.

For that matter, who says it's going to be unsupported hardware? Macs moved to Intel and commodity hardware years ago; there's nothing stopping somebody from buying literally the same components found in a Mac and simply charging less, unless you really believe that Apple isn't making... shall we say, healthy profit margins on their hardware.

There are essentially two reasons to buy a Mac: The first is you like the Mac, by which I mean the actual hardware. Whether it's the design, the clean insides, the sturdy feel or what have you. The other is OS X. If the first doesn't apply to somebody, why shouldn't they want to save several hundred dollars to get #2?

Maybe these clones will suck; we'll see. If that's the case, I'm sure the market will take care of them. If not, well, you have your answer.

* These prices pulled from their website as of the time of this posting.

Re:Why? (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149603)

Why not run FreeBSD with X.org and a fluffy wm like KDE3 or 4? I prefer FreeBSD on my desktop and even my laptop over Slackware, my preferred Linux.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

burris (122191) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149737)

Cuz you can't get a 9" laptop with 2 gigs of ram, an 8 gig ssd, and wifi that runs OSX for $300 from Apple.

You can, however, get one from Dell and a number of other manufacturers. Let's compare the missing features between the $300 Dell Mini9 I gave my GF for her birthday with what Apple is offering:

Dell Mini 9: two finger scrolling (fixed in next DellEFI update)

Apple $300 netbook: has no features because it doesn't exist!

So it turns out that Dell's $300 laptop running Mac OSX offers a lot more functionality than Apple's $300 laptop. It's not even like Apple is offering a $400 or $500 laptop. No the cheapest laptop is $1000.

Unfair comparison? If my choices were limited to Apple laptops then I just couldn't get my GF a mac laptop for her birthday. She is quite grateful that the Dell Mini 9 is available. She said she would feel horrible if I spent over a $1000 on her present, plus it would be larger and heavier. She doesn't want a bigger and heavier laptop with "power" she doesn't need.

Conveniently, the Mac OS retail box comes with Apple stickers to cover up the Dell logo.

*found out they stopped making the mini 9 in the last month or two but my argument still holds

Re:Why? (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149775)

It's the principle of the matter. In this case a Gestapo-like EULA needs to be torn down. It's akin to the RIAA telling you that your new CD can only be run in officially sanctioned players in order to ensure "the highest playback experience". For me this is less about buying a hackintosh than it is about being told what to do with something I've purchased legally.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149789)

Because Apple for years have been ignoring a very BIG market for Macs: Those that want a midrange Apple desktop. There are quite a few out there that would like a Mac tower that has upgrade potential that can't afford to bend over and grab their ankles like you do with the Mac Pro line. Frankly the Mac Pro line is extreme overkill to most folks who just want an Apple tower with some upgrade slots, which they really haven't had an affordable option in that area in many years.

So to answer your question it is the same reason a Grey market pops up in any area. There are those that want a product, the ones in charge of that market refuse to give it to them, someone see a potential for profit, and therefor enters and creates a place for these under served customers to spend their money. It is about pure classical supply and demand, nothing more. Apple refuses to supply what many customers want, so someone else comes in to fill that demand. if Apple really wanted to get rid of this market it couldn't be more simple. Just give the customer what they want. The fact that companies keep entering this market and have no trouble finding customers simply proves the demand is there.

So before the Apple fans start screaming "Apple ripoff" just remember: This market wouldn't exist if Apple would give the customers a midrange line, which they have been asking for over and over again for many many years.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149895)

Because Apple for years have been ignoring a very BIG market for Macs: Those that want a midrange Apple desktop

Asserting it, even in capitals, does not make it true. Desktops, of any kind, now make up around 40% of total computer sales. Laptop sales passed desktops for Macs a few years back, and for the industry as a whole over a year ago. The only people who want a midrange desktop, as opposed to something like a Mac Mini or an iMac, are those that want to be able to upgrade their hardware, but don't want to pay the premium for something like the Mac Pro. Not only is this not a huge market, it is an incredibly unprofitable market to be in, with the lowest margins of any computer market segment.

Re:Why? (1)

kohaku (797652) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150169)

A niche market with low margins? Wow, I bet the guys in charge of the Eee are just /wishing/ they'd consulted you before going to market.

Re:Why? (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149897)

Because a Hackintosh gives you options. You can custom build your own Mac from the ground up, and if you're careful in your hardware selection, everything will work with minimal fuss. You get a tower that costs a fraction of a Mac Pro (assuming you don't need a Xeon-based workstation), you can do it yourself, and you get so many more expansion options not available in Apple's commodity line. I just replaced the wife's aging AMD rig with an Intel-based Hackie. It's working quite well. So well, in fact, that I'm going to sell my iMac to fund a badass i7 Hackie. Oh, I'll agree that building one isn't for noobies. You'd better be willing to deal with some frustration and tweaking, but in the end, it's worth it.

I wouldn't worry about Apple (0, Flamebait)

xDxDxD (1521791) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149227)

I expect crowds of "real mac" fans to stand outside the shop driving away any potential customers.

Re:I wouldn't worry about Apple (1, Interesting)

Rosyna (80334) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149275)

Do you think Mac users are as fanatic as protestors from Westboro Baptist Church?

(Perhaps they are...)

Re:I wouldn't worry about Apple (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149535)

Write a real OS X virus and find out :)

Re:I wouldn't worry about Apple (1, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149615)

In a word? YES!

There are probably more, but there are two lines of products that come to mind when I think of this stupid phenomenon. People think they can buy something that, to them represents a very cool cultural group, and instamatically become a member of a club or group. Those to brands are Apple and Harley Davidson. Harley Davidson, once the nearly exclusive domain of motorcycle gangsters is now the toy of the rich boy who wished he could be a "bad boy" and may even get a tattoo with the Harley Davidson logo at some point. These are people who have their Harleys shipped to Sturgess to attend the rally instead of riding there themselves (which is kind of the point!).

The Apple brand gives people the impression that if they use an Apple, life will be more simple and they will instantly become happier and cooler too. And they tend to forgive the fact that running Apple means there is a very long list of things they can't do either because the app exists only for Windows or because Apple doesn't approve of it which is something of a puzzle to me but I guess buying into an image calls for some sacrifice to maintain that image... rather like all the trouble women go through with their hair and make-up.

Re:I wouldn't worry about Apple (1)

gtall (79522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149787)

Hear hear! Let's construct a new ad campaign for Apple, they'll appreciate this:

"Buy our computers, there's nothing special about them, they won't run your windoze software you like to run, they probably won't run your games. Your life won't be changed, you won't be happier or cooler. In short, there's no reason you should own a Mac. Errr...but buy one anyway."

There's, how's that. I await Apple's remuneration now that I've fixed their ad campaign for you.

Re:I wouldn't worry about Apple (0)

anagama (611277) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149901)

Maybe. But Apple users surely ride BMWs and wear Aerostitch. Harley riders are to a man, Windows users. You can tell this because while Harley riders get the easy skanks, they also get viruses and road rash.

Re:I wouldn't worry about Apple (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149905)

And they tend to forgive the fact that running Apple means there is a very long list of things they can't do either because the app exists only for Windows or because Apple doesn't approve of it which is something of a puzzle to me but I guess buying into an image calls for some sacrifice to maintain that image... rather like all the trouble women go through with their hair and make-up.

You know, the other day I heard that Macs would be using Intel processors, so you could like, you know, run a copy of Windows on it and stuff. Yeah, that day was 2006.

retail store (2, Funny)

hey (83763) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149293)

Something about "retail store" sounds redundant to me.

Re:retail store (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149545)

Something about "retail store" sounds redundant to me.

The opposite would be a store that doesn't have anything in stock to sell you. I guess that's a field entirely occupied by the Gateway stores, huh?

Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (3, Interesting)

TechForensics (944258) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149307)

I know Apple hardware is supposed to be of high quality, and it is often argued that buying a similar-quality PC would cost as much as a Mac. But I still believe there is enough excess profit to Apple for a clone maker to offer the same quality for less money. This is probably the reason Apple will not see Quo just as a manufacturer who will help popularize their OS.

Interesting. Cheap knockoffs sully the brand, but excellent ones cannibalize sales. There may be no hope for a would-be Mac clone maker without enough capital allocated to legal defense.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149381)

The thing is though, OS X already runs on lower hardware. Officially Leopard can be run on a 2001 G4. To put that in perspective thats about an early P4 in terms of age. Assuming that Apple's hardware is of amazing quality thats still way slower then the typical computer. Apple has things that few people really need such as DDR3 RAM. Sure, its faster but its also way more expensive.

If Apple officially supports running Leopard on hardware made in 2001, I would think they couldn't lose any customers by having them unofficially install it on hardware many times more powerful than that.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149721)

I would think hardware horsepower is less of an issue than build quality, aesthetic appeal, flaky drivers and bundled crapware. Product design is a significant part of the overall branding, and it doesn't surprise me that they'd be unhappy to put that in others hands. I guess some kind of franchise-like model where Apple retains some say in what ultimately leaves the production line could work, but then you just get back to the point that they can make more money doing it themselves.

I think the branding really is something to do with it, but as the GP said, clones that don't sully the brand would only serve to take revenue from Apple and they have no intention in letting that happen either.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149859)

The build quality of hardware is improving though. In the past ~2 years the only thing that I can think of thats gone wrong on my EEE, new-ish laptop, 5 year old desktop and 7 year old desktop is that on the 5 year old one because I moved it so much the SATA cable came a bit loose and I needed to reconnect it to the HD before it would boot, but that can happen with even Apple branded hardware. And all these systems are cheap, running various OSes, etc.

Really if Apple had a range of computers that ranged from top of the line, to a cheap desktop (under $350), to cheap laptop (under $500), a cheap netbook (no more than $400) then the market for Mac clones would go away. But I can't go out and buy a really cheap desktop with OS X on it, nor can I buy a netbook with OS X preinstalled.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (5, Insightful)

wstrucke (876891) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149389)

This is probably the reason Apple will not see Quo just as a manufacturer who will help popularize their OS.

That and the fact that Apple is a hardware company, which everyone seems to forget. OS X is built specifically to sell Apple computers. Apple != Microsoft, but since most consumers see the computer for the OS, it becomes OS X versus Windows instead of Apple versus HP or Apple versus Dell, which is the way Apple sees it. Why do you think they are so ready to advertise running Windows on your mac? They don't care if you don't use OS X, they just want you to buy their computers.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149473)

But if Apple dominated the OS market they could control the hardware market too. If Apple got every PC user hooked to OS X as much as every Mac fanboy, Apple could switch architectures and take the hardware market with it....

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (2, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149957)

"But if Apple dominated the OS market they could control the hardware market too. If Apple got every PC user hooked to OS X as much as every Mac fanboy, Apple could switch architectures and take the hardware market with it...."

Did I miss something? Didn't Apple switch over to Intel in 2006?

Every time I read about a CEO being paid millions, I think 'wow, there have to be lots of people out there who could do the job just as well for a lot less'. Then I read Slashdot comments and wonder if I am mistaken. A large percentage of Slashdotters seem to be of the opinion that if they were in charge of Apple, they would gleefully join in that race to the bottom that is PC manufacturing.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150075)

Ok, think of it this way, if in ~1998 when Apple was killing itself and Linux hadn't caught on, if MS decided "Hey, we're moving to the ARM platform" and developed chips for it that worked, etc. We would probably be using ARM right now. Same thing for Apple, if everyone started using exclusively Macs, Windows dwindled to where it was in last place, Linux made no huge leaps forward, then if Apple only developed for the Cell platform and made good Cell chips, I would think we would move to Cell CPUs similarly how we all moved to x86 CPUs because of DOS and Windows.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (2, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149541)

Apple's belief that they should be a hardware company (as they were when they started) is what keeps their share of the market from growing. If they want to grow (maybe they don't really want to, and that's okay too) then they are going to have to change. It seems to ancient idea now when hardware (including their own) has become commodity to such an extent.

I know it's an opinion, but it's a widely held opinion: Apple does better at building an OS that Microsoft. If they had refocused a few years ago and changed the attitude that the OS only sells hardware I think Microsoft would actually have to some real competition.

Every time Apple has shot down clone competitors have had to just shake my head. It seems exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. Didn't they learn by watching the evolution of the PC? If they wanted to they could emulate that success by getting their OS to run better that Windows on all types of hardware. They could sell more copies of the OS and bring down the price, etc.. etc.. etc..

They aren't stupid at Apple... so maybe they know this and are just ignoring it. But jessh, doesn't it seem like they could really, really
have great opportunities with these clone companies? There are millions of people that would choose an Apple OS over a Windows OS if it worked as well (and with Apple's expertise it would probably work a lot better) on reasonably priced, reasonably solid commodity hardware.

Maybe they like their market share the way it is. People yell about Apple's share of the market, but even a 5% share of the size of the multi-billion computer market is still big, and our addition to economic growth is just that... an addiction.

 

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28149593)

The problem is that Apple doesn't trust other computer vendors to do things correctly. They are all about controlling the entire experience, from buying the computer, learning to use it, using it, handling repairs, to upgrading to a new hardware. They are too afraid to deviate from this strategy of having as much control as possible, because other vendors can fuck up the experience.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (1)

gtall (79522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149833)

You are comparing Apple's and Oranges. Apple has a share of the Hardware Market. They compete with HP, Dell, and innumerable others. You wish them to compete in the OS market...against Microsoft...which has the hardware companies by the balls and plays one dirty game of corporate pool. Now why would they win this competition?

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149891)

By working to put out product that is at least a degree of magnitude better that MS! There are a lot of ways you can define "better," but everyone knows that MS has weaknesses in quality on many levels. Apple has them beat on many levels without even trying. If they actually took on MS head to head they would win at least sometimes even with the dirty tactics, and every win makes it harder for MS to get away the the crap they've become known for.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (3, Insightful)

Decameron81 (628548) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149883)

Apple's belief that they should be a hardware company (as they were when they started) is what keeps their share of the market from growing. If they want to grow (maybe they don't really want to, and that's okay too) then they are going to have to change. It seems to ancient idea now when hardware (including their own) has become commodity to such an extent.

Apple's main asset is their image. They would damage it if they didn't control it like they do by carefully selecting all hardware and software.

They are not here to fight Microsoft or Windows... they're here to bring us a new business model based on getting tech gadgets that simply do the job, and do it right. Releasing their OS for all hardware would bring in more gold in the short run, but would probably change their image and turn them into just another software vendor.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (4, Insightful)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149943)

maybe they don't really want to, and that's okay too

Ding ding ding!

Apple wants to make good products that they're excited about, and they want to make money doing it. They do not seek, and never have sought, to supplant Dell or Microsoft.

They like their closed ecosystem. They're fully aware of the limitations it entails in terms of lineup gaps, careful control of user experience and product design, and zealous control of their brand. They're all deliberate choices to fit within a particular philosophy, made in full recognition of the obvious downsides. But every time there's an Apple story, someone has to whine about how it's not China Hardware Emporium running KDE with extra configuration panels. The same people will turn around the next day to defend common user complaints about Linux platforms by saying "you just don't get it".

Well, they just don't get Apple. You don't have to like Apple; you don't have to buy Apple. Running around and thinking that the ultimate goal of any given corporation is a monopoly is the kind of thinking that even a first semester economics student is forced to leave behind. What's optimal in the aggregate is not necessarily maximizing every single variable one at a time.

Why should they cut prices, and the resulting features and standards along with profits, to grow their market share? They have a giant pile of cash, and apart from being sued for unlawful trade practices, they could sell all of their machines at a loss and really blow their competitors away. But why would they? Price consumers aren't loyalty consumers. Why fight a war with 1000 strangers with clamped-shut wallets when you can get 100 people who will likely be repeat customers (while still making money, and more importantly, making the products you want to make)? I'm an investor in a local bakery--I'd rather them keep consistent quality, artisan craftsmanship, and prices relatively high (and catering to a smaller audience) than try to fight Safeway and its industrial-scale suppliers for supplying white bread and hamburger buns to the masses. Safeway has its place, and people who like getting white bread and hamburger buns as cheaply as possible can do that. Not everyone has to. Market share and price aren't the only two metrics for comparison, and yet everyone seems to insist on them to prolong a pointless flamewar, with "if Apple were Microsoft-sized, they wouldn't be able to get away with x". Yes, and if the atmosphere were methane, we'd all suffocate. Neglecting that condition x would have to be resolved in order to grow to Microsoft's size in the first place is usually the first flaw.

They don't compete in certain markets or at the bottom end of the price scale because they neither need to nor want to. That means there is an upper limit to their market share, and their strategy also turns off some people, but so be it. They were never the desirable kind of customer anyway for a company like Apple. They might be the target customer for a different kind of company. It all works out in the end.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150011)

Our 'addiction' to economic growth comes from the fact that there are billions of people who would like to quadruple (for starters) their consumption (because they see it as the path to increasing their standard of living) and because there are millions of new people being born every year.

If you think it is an addiction, I suggest you farm your own food without using petroleum inputs. Good luck finding steel that fits that definition, and don't worry, we won't make fun of you when you give up.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (1, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149567)

Why do their adverts compare macs to windows then?

Apple want to have it both ways, if it wasn't for their pitiful market share the DOJ would be literally ripping them apart
locking high-end MP3 players to their software
locking their software to their operating system
locking their operating system to their hardware
locking their high-end MP3 players to their hardware (firewire only)
locking their phone to their software which is tied to certain operating systems

Fortunately there is no way their EULA will be found legally binding and so while they can make it hard for mac-cloners (no hw support, trademarks, no license to sell os X, etc), they cant stop them.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28149953)

Everything you've mentioned is either wrong or also true of Microsoft (the convicted monopolist) and many other companies. I guess "facts" are simply things you make up.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (1)

Fishchip (1203964) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150003)

Why do their adverts compare macs to windows then?

'I'm Windows.'
'And I'm a Mac.'

I don't remember seeing that commercial.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150009)

Why won't the EULA be found binding? I've used my Leopard Family Pack disc to make a hackintosh out of a Dell Mini9, and I read the EULA to some extent beforehand. I realize that I agreed to certain limitations when I bought the disc, and I know I'm violating my agreement installing Leopard on my Mini9. The part I'm not clear on, is what would be Apple's damages if they decided to sue me? I've bought enough Macs that I hope they'd go easy me on least. Anyway, you say the EULA is not binding -- can you explain why?

As an aside, I think the cheapest way for Apple to kill the clone market would be to release a version of OS X that could legally be installed on commodity hardware, but charge $3-500 for it. Every retail OS X disc is an upgrade after all and PC makers don't sell new Windows computers with Windows Upgrade licenses, so why should clone makers be doing the same thing?

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (2, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150015)

What in the hell are you smoking?

locking high-end MP3 players to their software

For the most part, yes, but there are ways to use iPods with other software or even custom firmware. Apple wont sue you for it. Don't like it? There are plenty of other MP3 players out there.

locking their software to their operating system

This is the stupidest fucking argument I've seen. So Apple should port all of their software to other platforms? On that note, I want Microsoft Movie Maker for Mac, dammit!

locking their operating system to their hardware

Yes, they do. IBM had a lock of Microsoft software until they were reverse-engineered. If Apple gets big enough, this will have to change one way or another.

locking their high-end MP3 players to their hardware (firewire only)

Wow, this just dethroned the above as the stupidest fucking argument I've seen. For one, iPods have been able to sync with USB since the third gen iPods and haven't had Firewire capability at all (except to charge) since the video iPods came out. For two, PCs could use Firewire too, ya know. Apple is restricting iPods to their hardware by making it use an interface that can be found on Macs and PCs? What a crock.

locking their phone to their software which is tied to certain operating systems

Those OSes comprise at least 98% of the overall market. Yep, what a horribly monopolistic practice. Where's the iTunes port for Amiga, dammit?

Fortunately there is no way their EULA will be found legally binding and so while they can make it hard for mac-cloners (no hw support, trademarks, no license to sell os X, etc), they cant stop them.

Maybe, maybe not. As we've seen with Psystar, Apple doesn't have to win the case. They have vats of money to throw at lawyers until the other side folds up. If the EULA is going to be overturned, it's going to need someone with a lot of money that can afford a long, drawn-out court battle.

The call from the cheap seats (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149637)

Why do you think they are so ready to advertise running Windows on your mac? They don't care if you don't use OS X, they just want you to buy their computers.

Please.

There is typically one - and only one - way to get a Mac on your 9 to 5 desktop and that is by running the Windows software that is essential to your business or profession.

The geek off-hours may love the challenge of maintaining three or four operating systems and their associated program libraries as they run on virtual machines.

The IT pro or the kid manning the Help Desk not so much.

You don't do this unless you absolutely have to. You don't sell it as a feature unless it is the only way to get your foot in the door.

That is why your corporate customers get 32 bit XP-Pro free with Win 7.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (0)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149735)

I'm sorry, but I find very stupid this argument that "Apple is a hardware company", I bet there were people who said "Apple is a computer company" when they launched the iPod and then somebody might have said the same think when they launched iTunes store. Hey, the "hardware company" sold more songs online than everybody else.

Apple is a money making company, if they make money selling software (and they do sell software) guess what, they are a software making company too.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28149843)

Yeah, that's why you don't see them developing and selling software.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28149849)

Yeah except for all the smugg ads on TV where they talk smack on Windows.

I mean it is clear by the wording of things like "hey you have viruses" and other little smirk comments.

Unless DELL/HP have some customized version of Windows/Unix; it seems to me Apple is scared to compete on that market without the lockdown. They advertise Windows more to the fact that people are locked on there for certain applications.

Although I would like to see Apple grow some balls and allow Final Cut Pro for Windows.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28149875)

No they aren't. They create specifications and send them to hardware makers to build according to them.

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (2, Interesting)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149447)

The problem I see is that they've made a declaration in trying to mimic Apple's line product for product. To me, a better service to provide is to fill in the niches (gaps) in the Apple product line, a Hackintoshed netbook and a consumer tower are two obvious ones. That's not protection from getting sued though, I don't remember Psystar offering much other than consumer towers and a hokey "server".

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149471)

You're right that the Legal angle is the Elephant in the Room.

1. Psystar makes OSX clones, Psystar gets sued, Psystar croaks.
2. Quo gets a great idea! "Hey, let's make OS X clones!"
3. New Legal Angle = ???
4. Profit!

Re:Why Apple won't tolerate Quo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28149539)

Apple hardware is generally competitively priced for what you get. The biggest problem with their products is the limited offerings. I need a tower style computer (not a Mini, form factor is not a concern on my desktop), that can make use of the existing products I own, and I don't need this revision's Mac Pro. That leaves me with the second-hand market, where Apple computers tend to be priced above their actual value, or Hackintoshes. I bought an iMac for my Dad though, as it fit his needs better.

I own Macbooks, and love them for their design/size, power and price "ratio", but I run a pretty beefy desktop Hackintosh that I built for ~$450 (quad core, 8gb ram, etc). Double that price for someone designing a nicer case, assembling it for me, and profit margins, and Apple still doesn't offer anything approximate to that computer for less than quadruple the component price.

I also have an Atom based Hackintosh server, which is mostly a toy to play with. It runs everything fine for my household. Apple doesn't offer anything that's in the 'toy' category besides the Apple TV, and that's still more expensive than the $79 Atom. It's no great number cruncher, but it hosts network shares and makes a good proxy computer that eats very little power.

Basically, I'm not opposed to buying Apple hardware when it makes sense, but there are several positions a consumer can be in where it doesn't make sense. And while OSX runs fine on non-Apple hardware (probably the easiest to recover system if you break it, vs linux or windows), there is no official support system, prior to Quo and Psystar, you had to buy components based on anecdotal claims, and the learning curve is too steep for the average user. I would liken the experience to getting up and running with Gentoo or LFS. Once you've got it mastered, it's not hard to do.

If someone could make the OSX86 experience easier by cutting out the hard parts while remaining legal, hardware selection and compatibility, system recovery, and an official support system, Apple would have a problem on their hands.

Vaporware? (5, Insightful)

slarrg (931336) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149311)

Basically, they're launching a retail store on Monday and don't know what configurations and prices will be for offer.

Re:Vaporware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28149591)

They're just teasing.

Re:Vaporware? (1)

carlzum (832868) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150095)

Maybe you should actually go to their web site [quocomputer.com] and read about the various configurations and pricing options before calling it "vaporware."

"I don't think anyone wins in that environment" (3, Informative)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149323)

The same is true of the environment on Mars, but you're not going to change it. People complain that the only way to get supported access to an Apple OS is on Apple hardware is to be locked into Apple. The only way to get supported access to an Apple OS on non-Apple hardware will be to be locked into these third-party vendors. The theoretical solution - and best for the consumer - is for Apple to make it easier to install OS X (or whatever) on hardware they don't control. A show of hands for those who expect that to happen anytime soon? Didn't exactly get a breeze going from all of those hands flying up, did we?

Re:"I don't think anyone wins in that environment" (2, Funny)

SchizoStatic (1413201) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149391)

The same is true of the environment on Mars, but you're not going to change it. People complain that the only way to get supported access to an Apple OS is on Apple hardware is to be locked into Apple. The only way to get supported access to an Apple OS on non-Apple hardware will be to be locked into these third-party vendors. The theoretical solution - and best for the consumer - is for Apple to make it easier to install OS X (or whatever) on hardware they don't control. A show of hands for those who expect that to happen anytime soon? Didn't exactly get a breeze going from all of those hands flying up, did we?

Arnold won. He brought air back to Mars!

Conspiracy Theory (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28149365)

You know, given the sheer stupidity of anyone trying to go up against Apple these days in a legal showdown, I'm forced to wonder if Apple isn't paying people "under the table" to create these startups for the sole purpose of then "suing" them into oblivion thus generating publicity for themselves.

Let the flame wars begin......now.

No Latin jokes? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28149431)

What is the top of the line model? The "Quid Pro".

Re:No Latin jokes? (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149483)

For a quid, Quo Pro

Apple will observe the Status Quo... (1)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149469)

and sue them!

What... (2, Interesting)

motang (1266566) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149493)

What exactly Quo think they will be doing different from others? Apple will definitely go after them with all their guns loaded, and how exactly does Quo think they will win? Their thinking doesn't make any sense. Now I am all for using computers with OS X, but they way I see it, I don't want to pay the extra money that Apple charges for their machine but that doesn't mean I am going to break the EULA. Era of me pirating software is over (it was over about 5 to 6 years ago and I have Ubuntu and the Linux community for stepping up the game to thank for that) I am perfectly happy using Ubuntu on all my machines.

Sure-fire way to kill the would be clones. (2, Interesting)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149499)

All Apple has to do is to either stop offering shrink-wrapped copies of OS X, or sell upgrade-only disks that require an existing installation of OS X to work. Then Psystar, Quo and other unauthorized clones will cease to exist.

more like mac mini (2, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149529)

For 1,000 it will be more like a mac mini than an imac. Honestly, Dell has probelms shipping hardware that runs well for less than $800. When you get to a decent 24" IMac, there might only be a 10 or 15% saving on the Dell with Vista installed.

The biggest complaint I hear is not that you can't get a mac for $1000, as most people who will spend a $1000 will spend the $1300 for the imac, but that you can't get a mac for $500. This to me is that market segment that the cloners need to be in, not a 10% reduction from Apples. price. And don't try to say that these machines are going to complete with the high end iMac or low end Mac Pro and offer a 50% reduction in price. I don't see most other people shipping Xeon machines, much less with a terrebyte on board. I know that they can built for almost nothing, but really. Most people who want a $500 computer is not going to build it, they want plug and play.

Re:more like mac mini (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149705)

Most people who want a $500 computer is not going to build it, they want plug and play.

Most people aren't going to build. Period.

The laptop. The mini or ultra-mini case. These are killing the DIY market. Which has always been a niche market.

Re:more like mac mini (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28150055)

The biggest complaint I hear is not that you can't get a mac for $1000, as most people who will spend a $1000 will spend the $1300 for the imac, but that you can't get a mac for $500.

My biggest complaint is that you can't buy a tower or mini-tower Mac of any kind for under $2500. A $1500 mini-tower Mac would be very nice, providing all the CPU power an average person needs with flexible storage and graphics options and a money-saving BYO keyboard/mouse/display philosophy. But Apple will never do this, because they'd have to charge their higher margins for a vanilla design, with OS-X being the only differentiator between their product and a much cheaper clone.

Re:more like mac mini (0, Flamebait)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150125)

Honestly, Dell has probelms shipping hardware that runs well for less than $800.

That's praising with faint damns.

Dell has problems shipping hardware that runs well at any price.

A cloner could sell a computer superior *as a computer* to the Mac mini for $300 or $400, without any difficulty. Apart from the Mac Tax, the Mac mini costs so much because it's basically a stripped down laptop, not because it's hard to meet those specs with a reliable computer that doesn't try to cram everything into so small a case that it compromises cooling and reliability.

Don't can the clones! (1, Redundant)

nausea_malvarma (1544887) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149633)

Apple should embrace mac cloners. Having cheaper clones of mac will only help to popularize macs and the os-x operating system (thanks to this little phenomenon [wikipedia.org] ). Windows is only as popular as it is because it comes preinstalled on nearly every computer you buy. Mac fans should see this as a blessing.

Re:Don't can the clones! (2, Interesting)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149851)

Read a little history. They tried this in the 1990's. It nearly killed Apple. They won't do it again.

I use mac because OSX provided me with a Unix based desktop that worked on a laptop and had commercial application support including MS Office and Adobe products. I used to play with Linux, but never got my sound card, printer, and a host of other hardware to work back in the day. Especially if you wanted to run Linux on a laptop. If the Mac saves me 1 day of hassle of having to reinstall other OS's offered on other laptops, not hunt down and compile drivers, etc. then I've recovered any premium I paid.

Now there are ways of being smart about it. I bought the last generation of 12.1" Powerbook in 2005. I paid about USD 2500 for the machine, but I still have it and it still works and I still use it every day. But it came time where I needed an Intel mac. Bought a second generation white MacBook for $550 a couple weeks ago.

things are not that same now (0, Redundant)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150175)

things are not that same now.
1. there is a big draw for mac osx.

2. apple used to have $1200 - $1500 TOWERS now they have a $2400+ one with hardware that you find in a $1000 system that also has a very weak video card with $100-$200 over priced video card upgrades. $150 for the base GT 120?
only 3gb of ram at that price?

3. the mini is still over priced $600 and only 1GB memory?

4. laptops needs to be better $2000 just to get a 15" screen and still it only has 2gb of ram? $2,799.00 for a 17" screen. You can get pc laptops for over a $1000 less with better video and a 17" screen with the same cpu power.

5. The $1,499.00 and $1,799.00 imacs uses to have real video cards now they have weaker on board video.

apple does not need clones they need better hardware and better prices. Mac os x is too good not to be sold on it's own.

Re:Don't can the clones! (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150005)

Well, it certainly worked for BeOS. And NextStep. And Apple, last time they tried it. And linux. Any day now it should be the year of the penguin.

These clones are quick buck scams! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28149715)

IMO the founders of these companies are just scam artist just trying to make a quick buck before they get sued into bankruptcy.

Apple doesn't care so much about hackers, but someone trying to make a quick buck from an unsupported hack mostly hurts the consumer in the end.

Mac hardware isn't any better or worse than PC hardware, but as others have pointed out: Apples business model is based on selling computers, not an OS.

Nice Names (1)

brechin (309008) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149719)

Top of the line model: Quid Pro
Base model: Status
Windows model: Vadis [wikipedia.org]

A "company"? (4, Informative)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#28149819)

Has anyone even looked at Quo Computer website? Its entire content consists of a "maito" link. They don't even have their own domain in the link, instead mail goes to "rush" at "izdigital.com". A check shows registrant as:

Registrant:
This Domain is expired
Please renew at
www.domaincontender.com
New Orleans, LA 70130
US
(504) 274-4800

Fascinating. Let's go to www.izdigital.com:

Index of /
[ICO] Name Last modified Size Description
[TXT] geforce.html 08-Mar-2009 12:43 462

This is one classy website.

Seriously, folks. This passes for news now on the Internet media? A fly-by-night announces they will dethrone Apple, but so far they haven't yet figured out how to build a website or handle email. Right.

Re:A "company"? (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150161)

If I was trying to take down sue-happy Apple, I'd probably try to stay underground as long as possible. At least until the hardware was ready and nearly in the warehouses.

Re:A "company"? (1)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150243)

If I was trying to take down sue-happy Apple, I'd probably try to stay underground as long as possible.

Do you really believe that would deter the lawyers? A quick check on the web will tell you who the founder of Quo Computer is (Rashantha De Silva(1)), street address, phone number... what else do you need? A working company website? Heh.

(1) I will bet you that's who "rush" is in the email address

But a $900 desktop from Quo (1)

AnAdventurer (1548515) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150085)

I mean if you are in the market new computer that runs OS X, why not spend a $1,199 (apple.com) on a 20" iMac?

A $900 desktop from Quo, a decent 20" monitor, good keyboard and mouse set will run close to that with out the fear that the next update will kill your system.

$1200 imac had on board video and you are locked i (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150197)

$1200 imac had on board video and you are locked in to it's screen.

You can get a corei7 system for that price with a GOOD VIDEO CARD and REUSE YOUR OLD SCREEN AND NOT BE FORCED TO BUY A NEW ONE.

Bring back the Maker's Mark (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 5 years ago | (#28150207)

If Steve Jobs wants to deter people from buying from clonemakers, IMHO he should do a limited production run of machines which have his signature prominently on the case, and accompany it with some form of watermark that prevents forgery, as well.

Note that I'm not advocating anything fascist like Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage here either, in terms of *penalising* anyone whose machine isn't from Apple. I'm talking about complete use of the carrot here, not the stick.

If he made the production run which included his signature, sufficiently limited, then the machines which he signed could potentially gain value as collector's items, which would create demand for his product, as opposed to that of the clonemakers.

In a world where nearly anything can be copied, the only way to beat piracy is to create non-replicable value which comes from a single source. Make it signatures one year, and sets of unique, holographically watermarked images for subsequent years/versions. He should do a personal advertisement campaign promoting it, as well, where he himself talks to the public about it, and where he actively tries to draw an analogy between contemporary CDs, and practices of earlier times, where people bought items from individual craftspeople on a face to face basis. Obviously people can't go into an Apple store and see him face to face, no; but they can in the context of the ad campaign. I can imagine part of the speech that he could use, as well.

"My company and I have been in the computing industry for a long time. Clonemaker companies, on the other hand, are often a flash in the pan; here today, gone tomorrow. I'm not going to use the sorts of measures that other companies have done, to penalise people who engage in piracy, or to try and bully you into buying from me, as opposed to the clonemakers. I've seen enough such attempts fail, in order to be able to know that that isn't going to work. What I am going to do, however, is explain to you what I feel the benefits in buying from me are, as opposed to buying from the clonemakers.

The first two things you receive by buying your hardware and software from Apple, are peace of mind, and vendor accountability. Our machines do not use cheap, no-name hardware, but instead use components from known, branded companies (such as nVidia and others) on a consistent basis. This also means that you are given a warranty on parts that you can trust, and it also means that you are given initial hardware which you can trust as well.

The second thing which you are doing when you buy from Apple, is investing in the long-term future. Our hardware and software requires long man hours to produce, on an ongoing basis, and in a capitalist society, that in turn requires that our staff are paid for their labour, as well as the individual machine components being paid for. Clonemakers merely duplicate the hardware and software which we produce, but they do not engage in actual innovation themselves, and as such, if Apple were to become bankrupt, they would not be able to survive themselves either. Buying from us therefore helps to ensure the continued availability of our hardware and software, so that you will still be able to rely on Apple's computers and operating system for years to come.

The third thing you are receiving for your money when you buy from Apple, is perhaps the least tangible, but also the most important. It is the assurance that when you buy from us, you are acting with complete legal and moral integrity. From our observation of the election of the current American President, we are aware that integrity is something that is important to a high percentage of the population."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?