Robomac Infidel's Profile

Oh, and as for the "second cheapest bottle" can I bum a glass from you? After $$$ spent on those sweet minis and iPods the ol' gully can forfeit a bottle of Merlot lest it is bummed free or feels like free if bought by the wife. ;)

Instead they rated the wine based on the fanciness of the bottle...CS Indeed. Perhaps those upward pointing nostrils of our Mac snub comrades are what you are insinuating in your hyper-extended article. But I don't buy it even when it's for the taking, CS. Your readers here at AM are more intellectual than that. These Mac guys/gals know what they want from a Mac. Yes, sir! Your very readers happen to love the Mac for it is the very BEST damn computers out there. Of course, those high-end XPS, Alienware, Falcon Northwest gaming rigs will protest that their systems can beat the s#1t out of a Mac Pro any day but that is another discussion for another day. CS, your article's premise is interesting but hovers above hypothetical, meaning it can never be proven and that means it will never become a factual information. Your fine taste in Macs is based on its tangible properties and will never equate to your exquisite taste in red wines - neither here in Cali or France. I can see why Zato is very inflamed by this article. Hey Zato, can you please illuminate your anger at CS with an intellectual input? Creative inputs? Thanks! -Robo.

I can do everything Apple TV can and much more. -magicg Exactly. I have been in this position since TV T1 came out. Why not merge the low-end mini with the TV and have the best of both worlds. Is that logic really that deep? I know someone said that this concept is "genius". Gosh... So why would I buy another computer (Apple TV) that doesn’t have the web? The TV is caught in a bind - a rock and a hard place - that potential customers at the Apple Store's display are stupified when it comes to accepting the device. Is it a computer or a set-top box? Both. "Does it do the web or not?" Yes and no. "Does it play my DVD's and internet downloads?" Yes and no. No, it doesn't play your DVDs but a properly encoded version of that DVD is syncable via iTunes. See what I mean. It is really confusing even for many techies. Yes, it does the web - in a limited way. YouTube, Flickr, iTunes are there. It can navigate some web sites why not the rest? "What about movies I already have torrented?" TV supports iTunes M4V and Quicktime MP4 (both are H264 based) but not MKV, DiVX or XViD, or AVIs. "What gives?" C'mon guys, all it takes is a little Handbrake cocktail or VLC and, of course, lots of time waiting for the transcoding process takes a long time. But, magicg, here is the $64 million question: "If the Web is that critical for a TV set-top box, why did the WebTV players failed miserably?" I don't think MS had anything to do with this failure. The TV audience (by a good chunk of the pie) do not do the "Web" on their TVs. I agree you can do this with your Mac mini for I have a similar setup with newer Core and Core 2 minis. I agree they are great. The thing is the typical TV viewer must first be conditioned to doing the "Web" on his TV. Not an easy thing to do, mind you. Just go ask MS WebTV division - if they still exists. Apple is solely to blame for this missing piece on their marketing. Apple has to convince people to accept the notion of having a "computer" attached to a TV is AWESOME for watching great movies from the Internet. Unfortunately, they haven't done much here as they have with convincing people to accept the iPhone/Touch Multitouch keyboard. Apple should be doing similar advertisements the rewards of having an AppleTV in your living room.

Even if this Psystar pseudo-company makes good on its promises to deliver a Mac clone for $399, I do believe Apple (courtesy of SJ) will not try to interfere for two good reasons: 1. They are not catering to this market with even the cheapest Mac mini at $599. So, letting someone with entrepreneurial spirit like Psystar to test this market for them. Apple has been slow to serve those bottom-feeders, and mind you, there are millions of them. Look no further than the success of those cheap Dell Inspiron boxes at $349-499 without displays. They are everywhere. What if these countless clones were OSX preinstalled? We may be talking at a duopoly of Apple and MS dead even. Do we really like that outcome? 2. Apple really want to have OSX on generic PCs but they are too scared of cannibalizing their own profit machines - pro desktops and notebooks. Psystar gives Apple a guinea pig for this experiment. If OSX on generic PCs flop (and we know how distant this is) then Psystar is the only casualty. Apple would just coast along like nothing ever happened. If OSX on generic PCs do take off (as we expect mightily) Apple will then have a choice of making Psystar a subsidiary for the low-end or license OSX out right but in a very controlled way. All hardware reference designs and specifications must be approved by Apple's Mac hardware division. Psystar will pay Apple for OSX royalties plus the rights for those "Made for Mac" or "Designed for Mac" stickers. I still think it wouldn't be a bad deal for Apple nor Psystar. In the end, if this little experiment works, as it should, it will make the Mac installed base a bit larger than now compared to the sea of Windows PCs year in, year out.

So no, I disagree. Building, maintaining, and running a hackintosh is easier than you are insinuating. -turandota Good for you. Your friends and relatives have a free Genius Bar for only $199 copy of Leopard family pack. You can't say the same thing for the other 90% of Windows users out there who may need constant support from...you guessed it, Apple. Apple has been mum on the Hackintosh front. They know it is happening. Apple wants you to try OSX on standard Intel PC guts but Apple will never offer support, technical or otherwise, for your custom Hackintoshes. If when Apple chooses to license OSX to non-Apple hardware it will be on Apple's terms. Cloners will need to abide by Apple's reference designs and MSRP price tiers. This would be like Sony or Nintendo allowing clones of PS3's or Wii's that adheres to the strict hardware specifications and pricing at retail. The main reasons for this is to limit the number of hardware variations that can result in driver support nightmares. Knowing what's out there streamlines this driver support conundrum. OSX licensing will be a controlled model not unlike what it is now. You will just have more options of where you get your Mac hardware. Prices will be about the same so they won't eat Apple's tasty pies for zero gain. Apple will still make $$ from the OS priced exactly the same as retail. The OEM vendor will just make money somewhere else by not undercutting Apple. With all that requirements, do you still think Dell, HP, or whoever have the necessary guts to support the Mac as Apple would tell them to? I doubt it. So much for OSX licensing.

Apple's US market momentum is growing by up to 32% (as predicted for the 2nd FQ) and about 6% increase globally. That is in stark comparisons to the overall PC growth of ~2% worldwide. US domestic momentum will keep the incentives off the table, for now, to license OSX to potential Mac hw makers. There is just not enough justification at the moment to risk derailing this speeding Mac train. What about globally? Well, Apple likes to control its own destiny and will unlikely authorize any regional player - say, Legend in China - to sell Mac clones only for that market. Until Apple's boneheadedness in this regard is softened a bit, this jack won't happen. As for Hadley's 4 points: 1. The corporate market: True and convincing points. But Fortune 1000 companies run Windows to run Windows applications and as departmental servers. Replacing them with Macs will be like pulling teeth - excruciatingly painful. And where is this incentive come from? To run servers for iPhone/iTouch mail, calendar, contacts? Maybe so. Still, Macs in the corporate offices will be an uphill struggle for Apple. 2. Scale: refer to my argument above. I do agree to some degree Apple may be able to pull of some limited licensing say Embedded OSX. Embedded OSX would go to devices such as GPS, set-top boxes for multimedia home viewing, or test instrumentation that processes or renders high-quality graphics and videos. Take the iTouch as a reference kit for Embedded OSX. 3. Adoption: Apple will never let any US domestic competitors access to OSX...ever. Take that Michael. ;) 4. Money: False (thanks, Aayush). Allowing Dell or HP to make Mac hardware will eat into Apple's high-margin pro machines and eat into its burgeoning U.S. market share. When, perhaps, this current momentum suddenly derails itself, then and only then, Apple will consider sending the Clones once again. Disclaimer: I do favor Apple license its OSX to select partners both here in the US and abroad to dramatically increase adoption - especially in developing countries like Asia, Australasia, and Latin America. Like you mentioned Hadley, if Apple is not interested in that market why not let a local player market the Mac and split the revenue?

I think what we’re looking at here folks is mostly just a product life cycle kind of thing-Zarmanto. You may be onto something there, Z. All good points and thanks for the creative inputs. What’s needed here is a PROSUMER Macleesmith Lee, please read all the comments since we have been discussing this very thing. Thks! Kudos to both! -Robo