Psystar counter-sues Apple for anti-competitive business practices

[jasonwoodvine]

Hi all

Has anybody seen these videos by mrbit10 on youtube http://www.youtube.com/user/mrbit10. I think he has some good points. Anyway what do you think the response would be if Microsoft said "you cannot install windows on Apple hardware". Would people think that is unfair?

[Shaithis]

The equivalent would be if Microsoft released their own generic PCs and made all future version of Windows only run on Microsoft badged PCs.

 

There would be hell to play and Microsoft would be in court with a huge anti-competition lawsuit to contend with,

[SpeedfreaK]

Does Microsoft write device drivers for non Microsoft hardware?

They simply give you an API to Windows and you write your driver for the hardware you manufacture so that you can sell it.

You write crappy driver, Apple is happy since they'll tell you "buy a Macintosh and it'll "just work"". Apple can't "lose" this. Whatever happens, Apple is already getting free publicity as it is at the moment. If a judge rules they have to support "other" x86 computers they'll receive 100% free advertisement for Macintoshes PLUS they'll increase the sales of their OS and their software. Don't forget Apple is a very large _software_ player as well: pro apps (Shake, FinalCut), iLife, iWork etc. they would all sell a lot more. People would get used to OSX at home and demand their companies let them work on it and since Apple would only offer support with Macintoshes companies would buy Macs. Win - win

 

ok, you persuaded me on the driver part!

but what is apple right now? a company that sells very, very nice computers with a superb os on it. if you have such a nice computer, you feel some kind of "exclusiveness" (dunno if that is an english word, but i think you can understand it ). If they permit dell or whatever to install os x on their machines, a part of that exclusiveness is gone and that would be stupid. to me, it simply does not fit to see an ugly dell with os x on it . and i will pay some extra for the design of the macs, but they are still overpriced. if they had to compete against other companies who sell os x on their machines, they have to lower their prices but that can harm the quality of their products.

[slacker25]

NO you cannot say that even if M$ closed thier product off to thier product anti competitive if they would not allow other OS to be installed on said product or other softwares to beingstalled in windows then that would be anti competitive

 

anti competitive is where you block anyone else out from your market... apple could be considered that when they had ppc but yet had good excuse why they couldnt M$ did not make winbloze for ppc arch... but when they switch to x86 wow boot camp was one of the first things to happen

they are not making it antoicompetittive in any way

you can install what ever you want on a mac

[ulin]

ok, you persuaded me on the driver part!

but what is apple right now? a company that sells very, very nice computers with a superb os on it. if you have such a nice computer, you feel some kind of "exclusiveness" (dunno if that is an english word, but i think you can understand it ). If they permit dell or whatever to install os x on their machines, a part of that exclusiveness is gone and that would be stupid. to me, it simply does not fit to see an ugly dell with os x on it . and i will pay some extra for the design of the macs, but they are still overpriced. if they had to compete against other companies who sell os x on their machines, they have to lower their prices but that can harm the quality of their products.

 

I don't agree. Macs are in fact _not_ that much more expensive then other OEMs (dell/hp/gateway etc.). Compare some configurations and you'll see this. On the other hand:

 

1. Macs have a dedicated fan customer base which will carry on buying Macs no matter what.

 

2. Anyone who would want support (read any business customers) will buy Macs since Apple would only offer support for Macs. Apple might enter certification agreements and whatnot or even offer support for non-Apple hardware in far away future but thats just that - far away future. You want stability with OSX? Buy a Mac Apple will say.

 

3. People who gain a sense of that "exclusiveness" you mentioned from owning a fancy packaging for their PC will still buy a Mac. Consumer elitism (a very valid market factor) could only be brought to a whole new level because everyone would know that you're that guy with taste, that you made a _choice_ to buy a Mac. It would not cease to be a class symbol either since Macs tend to come with expensive parts thus producing that illusionary "overpriced" claim. So if you bought a Mac, even though you could buy another cheaper OEM that runs OSX, you'll be even more "high class" in the eyes of the target society.

 

I believe this proves Apple would _not_ have to lower their hardware prices 1cent in order to stay competitive. Moreover, in the long run of OSX on generic x86, Apple hardware sales would probably rise, not fall.

 

And now comes the 1 thing that I think gives Steve Jobs wet dreams: imagine how much Apple gadget business would benefit from _existing_ PC users if they were able to install OSX and suddenly gain the interoperability with their gadgets? I think a lot.

[macmaniac]

It seems that some people don't like Apple's "expensive hardware" or its sales strategy. That doesn't mean its illegal. I don't understand how the market or the courts must "force" Apple to make its OS work on all computers. I do understand how the EULA is somewhat overkill, as it apparently doesn't apply in Germany -although it appears that this hasn't been tested in court there.

 

The old car analogy again! You buy a chevy. Your friend has a porsche. You drive his porsche, damn that engine is sweet! I buy a porsche engine, but damn, I can't make it work in my chevy! This is an outrage! Porsche must make their engines available (and work) for other car manufacturers. Crazy? Well, in F1 racing, Ferrari provides a competing team with its engine (Team Scuderia Toro Rosso). Also, Porsche makes (or at least designed) the engine in the Harley-Davidson V-Rod.

 

I highly doubt that the courts will force Apple to make its software work on competing platforms. However, there is a faint hope that the courts will see the EULA as restrictive. Doubtful there too, if you buy the software, you don't like the EULA, return the software to where you bought it. End of story. Weak sauce, like bofors said.

[Konami®]

People don't understand why Apple is more expensive, Let me explain this for people who think that because their are using Intel their are regular PC's. First, Apple have their own engineer team, they use customized high quality Motherboard in which they add advanced technology built in like EFI. They use high quality material in their hardware plus the World's most advanced OS, Mac OS X. You guys got it why they are more expensive? You have a better quality machine in which the Hardware and Software is supported by the same company, so What Psystar is trying to do is really ridiculous, Apple should continue doing what their are doing because that's their business philosophy.

[BigPimpin]

You guys got it why they are more expensive?

Not for any of the reasons you give. By the way, I are a engineer. Can I be on engineer team?

[steadybootleggin]

don't mean to be uninformed but, did pedroza buy a leo dvd for each unit sold?

[dani77zg]

I agree 100% with everything InteliMac Pro wrote, and I think he said everything I wanted to say and more.

"Apple can support only what they want to support, but they can't tell anybody what they can install the software on."

I think this sums it all.

@McManiac, i think your analogy does not stand. Nobody is saying that porsche MUST support fitting their engines in toyotas (or whatever), but i payed for that whole car and it's my business if I want to fit MY Porsche engine in MY Toyota. I don't ask Porsche nor Toyota to support my Frankenstein car. I expect them not to forbid me to try and do so. There is a lot of car tunners doing just that. Novitec will put 200 bhp stronger engine in my Alfa Romeo. Alfa doesn't have nothing aginst it, but I can't go to Alfa Romeo for support, but to Novitec. If I built it on my own I expect no support from nither of them.

[smergb]

The equivalent would be if Microsoft released their own generic PCs and made all future version of Windows only run on Microsoft badged PCs.

 

There would be hell to play and Microsoft would be in court with a huge anti-competition lawsuit to contend with,

 

 

 

Isn't that what the OS for the Xbox 360 is doing?

[jasonwoodvine]

Hi all

People have been running linux on Xbox 360's, I don't think Microsoft has a problem with this but I think it breaks the warranty, but I could be wrong

[macmaniac]

I agree 100% with everything InteliMac Pro wrote, and I think he said everything I wanted to say and more.

"Apple can support only what they want to support, but they can't tell anybody what they can install the software on."

I think this sums it all.

@McManiac, i think your analogy does not stand. Nobody is saying that porsche MUST support fitting their engines in toyotas (or whatever), but i payed for that whole car and it's my business if I want to fit MY Porsche engine in MY Toyota. I don't ask Porsche nor Toyota to support my Frankenstein car. I expect them not to forbid me to try and do so. There is a lot of car tunners doing just that. Novitec will put 200 bhp stronger engine in my Alfa Romeo. Alfa doesn't have nothing aginst it, but I can't go to Alfa Romeo for support, but to Novitec. If I built it on my own I expect no support from nither of them.

 

It seems that some people on this forum EXPECT OSX to fit/work/period on any platform. Other people say its the EULA thats illegal. I tried my best to address these issues. Let me clarify my analogy, and you will see that it does stand up.

 

I don't expect Porsche to restrict what the engine gets installed in, but what if they did? What if they said you can't buy a Porsche engine unless it goes in a Porsche car (EULA argument)? Is that illegal? What if they only sell the engine to an existing Porsche customer (upgrade argument)? Is that illegal? I'm not a lawyer, so I'm waiting to see what the courts say. My crude analogy stands (albeit we're talking hardware vs. software).

[Alessandro17]

I don't agree. Macs are in fact _not_ that much more expensive then other OEMs (dell/hp/gateway etc.). Compare some configurations and you'll see this.

 

I disagree. Maybe the price difference is not so obvious in the US, but it is in Europe.

An example? I bought a 17" laptop, with specs comparable to a 17" MacBook Pro (some specs even better) for € 1049!!!

(The basic 17" MacBook Pro costs in Italy € 2499!)

The only good value for money Mac is the Mac Pro, but that is, provided you buy all the extras and upgrades somewhere else. Besides, it is overkill for most.

For the rest, the Mac Mini is an expensive toy with ludicrously low specs. The iMacs are glorified laptops and also very expensive for what they are.

Apple stubbornly refuses to sell a mid-priced desktop. And for a reason: they couldn't justify high prices and almost nobody would buy the other, expensive computers any longer (imagine a Quad Nehalem mid-desktop. Who needs more power than that?).

[InteliMac Pro]

It seems that some people on this forum EXPECT OSX to fit/work/period on any platform. Other people say its the EULA thats illegal. I tried my best to address these issues. Let me clarify my analogy, and you will see that it does stand up.

 

I don't expect Porsche to restrict what the engine gets installed in, but what if they did? What if they said you can't buy a Porsche engine unless it goes in a Porsche car (EULA argument)? Is that illegal? What if they only sell the engine to an existing Porsche customer (upgrade argument)? Is that illegal? I'm not a lawyer, so I'm waiting to see what the courts say. My crude analogy stands (albeit we're talking hardware vs. software).

 

If Porsche did that you'd have a lot of people not buying Porsche engines because they could get something else. This is not possible with OS X because there isn't enough competition. You're analogy is valid but it's using an example from a much more diverse market. Technically I could install Windows (blah) or Linux (meh), but OS X is the best OS out there. The problem with Apple, as cutting edge as they are, is that they refuse to offer a mid-level tower that is upgradable by the consumer. That's what we in this community want, and it's why we do this. Again, we don't ask that Apple support it, just that they don't forbid it (which they can't enforce anyway) or try and sabotage it. The EULA should simply read, "Apple does not recommend installing OS X on non Apple hardware, but if you do, it will not be supported by Apple," along with all the junk about not making copies and selling them and all that jazz. Also, nobody is asking Apple to make OS X work on all hardware configurations, just that it be allowed to run on comparable hardware. To use your car analogy, a Porsche engine wouldn't fit in a toyota anyway, so it wouldn't happen, just like OS X won't run on all configurations either.

[ulin]

I disagree. Maybe the price difference is not so obvious in the US, but it is in Europe.

 

Yes I was referring to the US prices. I know Apple products outside US have ridiculous prices but I guess this is because of the ridiculously low marketshare outside US?

[Alessandro17]

Yes I was referring to the US prices. I know Apple products outside US have ridiculous prices but I guess this is because of the ridiculously low marketshare outside US?

 

If that is the case, it is your typical catch-22 situation

[GTR-33]

I think there are WAY TOO many people posting with very little understanding of what they are talking about...

 

If, tomorrow, Microsoft decided to make its own PC version, and made a statement, that from now on all future Windows will be installed only on MS PC... Apple is in PC business, for a long time, until intel-macs, how often your options doubled if not quadruppled in a year? Since when Apple started making some good money in its PC-Business, after intel switch? and Generally available hardware... Most of you here probably hate MS, but Thanx to MS that today, there are many hardware manufacturers and variaties of options available... If it was up-to apple from the beginning, you would be seeing updates every 5-10 years... And options? what options? Apple say A/B hardware options that is it... Price?, Apple says $5000, thats it... Apple says so...

Out on a limb aren't we? A broken limb since ever since the conception of the Mac it went under various hardware changes and OS changes over the years... You realize there WERE 9 versions of Mac OS before there was OSX and many different machines it ran on? If MS suddenly said Vista can only run on MS Hardware you would still have other options. A Mac or build your own Linux box thus there would be no legal wrongdoing by MS. People are under the false assumption that just because you can run OSX on some crappy hardware means that Apple should make it for everyone.

 

There are many types of graphics processors with many configurations... How many of them are available to an Apple MAC PC? and which ranges? Mid-to-low? How are they priced? dont even ask...

Who cares? The question of hardware solutions on a Mac in my opinion has the same answer to the question of software solutions for OSX. Why do you need ten options when one does it well enough? What is the real world benefit of having ten different processor options when one is only faster by the smallest of margins and yet has double the cost?

 

Once you sell something to me you have no say over how I use it. If I buy a Ford and decide I want to put a Toyota motor in it, neither Ford nor Toyota has the right to dictate otherwise.

Yes they do. You aren't buying the software, only permission to use it. If you buy a Ford and put a Toyota motor in it, who are you going to see when it breaks? Toyota? Ford? Both will tell you you're on your own. Sure you can buy it and do whatever you want with the OSX disc, but don't cry to Apple when it doesn't work. Lets keep in mind why OSX86 machines are called Hackintoshes. It's not like you can just throw the DVD in any old machine and boot it...

 

The renowned problem that Windows XP had in it's early days was the lack of proper drivers for hardware. Where Microsoft pointed towards hardware manufacturers when customer came asking for support they also expected these manufacturors to pay a hefty price in order to make their hardware function correctly on windows. Microsoft was taken to court and lost this almost famous case, miserably I might add.

The original case is being taken completely out of context here and had much different circumstances. To continue this argument, I suggest you learn the definition of a monopoly.

 

I believe the monopoly Apple is being sued for is very real. Yes, if you choose to sell lemonade for 50 bucks per glass it's your choice. But if you are the only one selling the lemonade by not alowing others to grow a lemon tree, cause hey, your god and you magically made the lemon tree. That's not correct.

Where is Apple barring entry into the computer market, or as it has been suggested, the lemonade market? All Apple is doing is making a different flavor of drink. I'll call it apple juice. You don't have to buy apple juice to quench your thirst, you can even put what ever kind of juice you want in their own glass that their juice came with. They just say you can't put their apple juice in a lemonade box and they aren't responsible for what happens with their juice if you drink it and get sick.

 

This is a very poor example but the point is Apple is part of a larger market called the computer market. They aren't trying to stop other companies from making computers.

"So, AMD should make better processors" I hear you think. Well, even though that might be true, it is and always will be an opinion. So the courts ruled, back in that famous miscrosoft case, that the opinion and the choice should be that of the consumer.

You should really avoid using something as an example if you don't even understand what you are referencing and I'd wager that this infamous case you speak of is well before your time.

 

My hope: Apple loses, OSX is supported on all hardware, HW manufacturers are responsible for creating the kexts.

Do you realize what that would mean for OSX? Do you understand why it works so well in the first place? All that will do is lower OSX to the level of Windows...

 

Current Macs ARE x86 and are essentially PCs. The architecture inside them is the same. New PC motherboards even will have EFi.

 

Sorry, blown your argument apart.

You haven't blown apart anything. Just because you can run it doesn't mean you deserve to or have the right to run it on what whatever hardware you choose or that least of all that Apple should support it.

 

Today Apple is using off-the-shelf OEM parts in their PCs no more closed or unique system which people are failing to see...

Except they aren't... Show me a link to where I can buy an OEM logic board from any Intel Mac...

 

Apple itself gaining from MS's strategy to allow multiple OEMs from the beginning... If it was not MS, no one would be buying a MAC PC or individual components at the most affordable (most affordable does not apply to APPLE Labeled products in my opinion) prices possible... But Apple itself benefiting from the market place MS created! It can easily pick whatever it wants.)

You make so many claims and yet have nothing to back them but some half witted opinion of what you think would be that if this and that... The best part is that none of it goes along with the history of the company except that Apple only sources a small number of component makers for their computers. They do it for several reasons. To keep the OS as small and fast as possible. To keep the OS as reliable and possible and to offer what they believe to be the best hardware possible. What is affordable is relative to the person buying. I had no problem buying my MBP. It's nicer than just about every other notebook I looked at.

 

Also please stop making comments like apple should charge whatever they want... Because they make nice aluminum cases for $1500 extra cost? I doubt even it costs $50 for the case... It is a marketing strategy to brain-wash people! Dont beleive me? Go take some marketing/business class... Corps are spending billions of $$$ for marketing their image... Apple has done well job with its fan base, and its hypes...

You really have no clue. Really... Try to build up a Mac Pro from off the shelf stuff and see if you can build a quad core desktop for under what a real Mac Pro costs... Really... I'll wait... Here's a little food for thought... The 3GHz quad core with a 1600MHz FSB and 12MB of cache are $1100 EACH...

 

Exactly. Its because they chose that kind of computer that they are getting sued. In todays computing its all about binary instruction set compatibility. If a person's computer can run a program its no companies business to tell them they can't. Its the market's responsibility, and if the market is being denied this, then its the legal system responsibility to make sure the company stops breaking the antitrust laws.

Wrong... If you can't run OSX, that doesn't mean you can't run a computer...

 

 

The equivalent would be if Microsoft released their own generic PCs and made all future version of Windows only run on Microsoft badged PCs.

 

There would be hell to play and Microsoft would be in court with a huge anti-competition lawsuit to contend with,

Wrong... There are other options in the market. You can buy a Mac or a Linux box...

 

Not for any of the reasons you give. By the way, I are a engineer. Can I be on engineer team?

Not everyone is from the US and speaks perfect English...

 

I disagree. Maybe the price difference is not so obvious in the US, but it is in Europe.

An example? I bought a 17" laptop, with specs comparable to a 17" MacBook Pro (some specs even better) for € 1049!!!

(The basic 17" MacBook Pro costs in Italy € 2499!)

There is more to the price than the specs alone... I could show you two diamond rings. They both weigh the same, both stones reflect the same light and are beautiful. Now one is a natural diamond and one is a man made... They both have the same specs? Oh the ring on one is solid gold and one is gold plated, but they both spec out to 14K gold bands?

[Alessandro17]

I think there are WAY TOO many people posting with very little understanding of what they are talking about...

 

We all bow to the Great Master

 

 

There is more to the price than the specs alone... I could show you two diamond rings. They both weigh the same, both stones reflect the same light and are beautiful. Now one is a natural diamond and one is a man made... They both have the same specs? Oh the ring on one is solid gold and one is gold plated, but they both spec out to 14K gold bands?

 

This kind of argument/comparison doesn't convince anybody any longer. My laptop is not "fake", as your example would suggest. It is a nice, perfectly working laptop, and not even God Almighty will convince me that a similar laptop called "MacBook Pro" should under any condition cost almost two and a half times as much. The Mac doesn't have any gold or diamonds, it is pretty ordinary, I have seen it, touched, used... And don't forget the breakages and the problems that MacBooks/MacBook Pros had, not so long time ago.

You Apple fanboys could hide behind the "different,better architecture" in the past. Now Macs have the same, identical components as any PC with the same specs.

[GTR-33]

This kind of argument/comparison doesn't convince anybody any longer. My laptop is not "fake", as your example would suggest. It is a nice, perfectly working laptop, and not even God Almighty will convince me that a similar laptop called "MacBook Pro" should under any condition cost almost two and a half times as much. cs.

What kind of laptop would that be? The point was that specs alone don't reflect quality. What of the quality of the drives or ram? The logic board and screen? The case?

[solaar]

Yes I was referring to the US prices. I know Apple products outside US have ridiculous prices but I guess this is because of the ridiculously low marketshare outside US?

I hope I'll get away with it

 

As annoying as it is, there are complex reasons for higher prices in Europe. First off, you'd be hard pushed to find store staff in Europe willing to work for the same conditions as in the US. The same goes for tech, managing and admin staff. We're talking about 50% more salary average in lower and medium positions.

 

Throughout the US, the prices for commercial rental space in malls average around $100-120 per sqft / year. (It probably varies regionally but the average is just there.) Just to give an idea of what we're talking about, I've read that Berlin, Bangkok and Dubai for instance are at around $200 per sqft/year, Moscow is somewhere at $250 per sqft/year and London peaks at a whopping $300.

 

Most goods and services are more expensive over here. Those costs need to be absorbed somehow. I assume that Apple never took the time and effort to do nationally adapted pricing for each country, reason why prices are more or less the same everywhere outside the US. They probably took the UK as template and slapped those prices on all other countries...

 

In Europe you'll rather find a general attitude of - 'it's too expensive for you? Well, if you can't afford it just don't buy it, but if you do be aware of future trouble with banks'. Alternatively, your credit application gets simply rejected.

In the US it's more like the industry suggests 'we make you afford it even if you can't' and basically turn you into a modern 'slave' of credit institutions and consumption.

 

I'm just telling as it is, not making any judgement here. I'm still wondering what option is better. I often wish certain things were cheaper here and banks were less anal but then again, I wonder 'do I really need it'?

 

I sometimes thought how it would be if Apple adapt a Dell kind of model. No or very little physical presence in stores, significantly lower prices and most of their sales are done online.

[Nano2k]

I didn't know this was the insane mac fanboy forum...

 

I found this website/forum because I was looking for info about installing OSX on a PC and play with it, just for the challenge. I've done that for a while and now I am back on Windows because it is better for me. I didn't come here to see posts from people justifying that Apple can overcharge a basic Dell type computer with a nicer case just so that you can run OS X on it.

 

What happened to Microsoft? Microsoft had a bad reputation because they had complete monopoly in the computer industry and aggressive commercial tactics. Software developers complained saying they hurt their business, users complained, governments complained, where they really doing anything unacceptable on a commercial level? I don't think so.

They were just becoming too big and too important and too many aspects of our life were depending on their software, a situation which has probably not changed that much since then. In our societies companies are using the society put in place by the people and the government to make money, so you have to make business in a way that suits people and governments, wether that is the best thing commercially or not.

 

I am sure that if tomorrow Microsoft decided that Windows can only legally be used on Dell computers, they would get their ass sued in no time and it would be funny to see Mac users do everything they need to do without ever using Windows. How many new customers Apple would not have had or loose if a Mac could not run Windows? A lot I am sure.

So in way it's ok that OS X only runs on Mac but if Windows would only run on Dell it would be scandalous.

 

Now Apple is making a lot of $$$ and might have more cash than Microsoft soon. More and more people are falling for the aggressive marketing and the Iphone is a great platform to bring new users to OSX and Apple hardware, even more so than the Ipod was.

 

So what do you think is going to happen in the future? companies and people are going to say "Great Macs are the best most powerful computers in the universe that never crash and we have no choice than bow down to the will of Steve Jobs and get overcharged for hardware for the next 100years?"

 

Or people will start think "Hey why do I have to spend 1500$ for a laptop to run OSX when I can buy a PC laptop with Windows for 500$ that does the same things, I want to have the choice and I also want to pay 500$ for a laptop that runs OSX, this is not right! And I don't want a Mac I want a Dell!", and the professional user "Why does my customer base pay too much for the hardware and is not spending enough on software which hurts my business (R&D, employment, etc...)".

 

Apple computers are not Rolex watches or jewelry, they are normal computers built in the same factories in China, just like every computer.

 

If someone does not want to get overcharged for hardware (because he actually understands what computers are made of), builds a PC, buys a copy of OSX and installs it using a different bootloader and then buys 10k$ of software to work with it, run a business, generate revenue and taxes, does that sound really illegal to you? not to me...

 

Apple are hiding behind aggressive marketing and the "cool" image they have, but in fact they are much worse than Microsoft as ever been in my opinion. Their actual policy was ok when they had almost no market share because no one was interested and anti-Microsoft people were happy to have another alternative than Linux. But now they have to change their policy, because their market share is increasing and competitors will begin having an aggressive stance against Apple, because we are talking big $$$ here and one company canno't have too much of the pie for itself.

 

My 2 cents...

[InteliMac Pro]

I'm not sure i buy this point about quality. "Quality" can be subjective. Sure, there are some bargain brands that are obvious {censored}, but even the so-called quality brands will fail. I had a portable WD drive that took a {censored} on me after a year and a half. That doesn't necessarily mean the brand is {censored}, but I have a lower opinion of them now than I used to. And just because Apple uses "quality" components doesn't mean much when they put them together shoddily, like the excess amounts of thermal paste on the early MBP's that caused them to overheat. Not everybody needs a Macbook Pro, but they want more than the Macbook offers, be it RAM or screen size or whatever. The point is being able to use OS X on a machine that you get to choose (as long as it's up to spec), not just what Apple is offering, because the fact is that Apple has a huge hole in their lineup when it comes to the mid-level (and don't come at me with iMac). They don't even use top of the line video cards in any of their computers, even the Mac Pro, other than a $3000 upgrade to the quadro FX 5600.

[Chris Mills]

Its apples software. Shouldn't it be there choice what kinda of computers to let it run on? Its like arguing that your playing football and you wont let the 4th graders play. boohoo

 

MS tried something similar, and successfully got sued.

[Nano2k]

As annoying as it is, there are complex reasons for higher prices in Europe. First off, you'd be hard pushed to find store staff in Europe willing to work for the same conditions as in the US. The same goes for tech, managing and admin staff. We're talking about 50% more salary average in lower and medium position.

 

You are kidding right? In most european countries a lot of people do not make more than 1500k a month (1000$ for unqualified jobs), I can tell you that USA has a lot more rich and wealthy people. In countries like France and Italy, long term job contracts are things of the past, people are hired for 3 to 6 months at the time and their contract is renewed if needed, if not they are laid off from one day to the other.

 

Europe only has less really poor people because of large social systems (very very very expensive for the taxpayers) that take care of these people. I live in Switzerland and just crossing the border to France which is 500 meters from my flat, you can divide the salary by 3. Even in Geneva, Switzerland, home of almost all the luxury watches brands (Rolex etc...), one third of the inhabitants do not pay taxes because they do not have enough income. In Switzerland there is not even a minimum wage stated by the law and my Big Mac meal costs me 10$. The gallon of fuel costs an average of 7-8$ in Europe too.

 

Apple has this price policy in Europe because it is selling it's products to a niche market of wealthy people. The prices are so ridiculously high it's not even funny. Soon here a Mac will cost 3 times the price of a similar performing PC.