General Mac OS X Discussion General Apple and Mac OS X Discussion

Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#41) Old
bmcclure937 bmcclure937 is offline
Super Moderator
bmcclure937's Avatar
Posts: 1,420
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: United States
Send a message via AIM to bmcclure937
Default Re: Question About Mac OSX - 04-26-2009, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by NoahFuLing
Originally Posted by bmcclure937
2. Secondly, some of the viewpoints on cannibalization are unclear. Apple has engineered their product line exactly how they like it. When / if they introduce new products they think about how it will affect the product line and changes that will need to be made to maximize the effectiveness of their pricing strategy. Anyone with business experience would know these basic principles. Honestly, Apple's current product line does not have any product that cannibalizes another. Saying that a MacBook cannibalizes some of the MacBook Pro sales is ludicrous. The products are similar but they offer difference pricing points for different feature sets for a different target group of consumers.
Wroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong. I know many, many, MANY students who have said "I want the features of a MacBook Pro, but the MacBook is cheaper" or even "The white MacBook was cheaper than the aluminum ones, so I got it". Even though they would have used (or would have found their work much easier with) the extra features, they opted for the cheaper Mac because of the lower price and similar feature sets. I have a friend who is a Mac Genius, a developer for Microsoft and for Apple, and he opted for a MacBook simply because he felt that the cheaper price was better than more features. He found that he was wrong, and summarily got a MBP, but the point stands. Apple has done a very good job at differentiating its products, far better than almost every other company, but there's still plenty of overlap, and a MacBook Mini would be an interesting product to place.

Originally Posted by bmcclure937
Obviously, some Dell Mini 9 Macs may be "taking away" Mac sales... but that is how capitalism works. And obviously different people have different interpretations of the EULA and have different moral standards.
Yay capitalism. Yes, people may interpret the EULA differently, but that doesn't change what Apple says in it (and what pending legal cases have the potential to do).
1. I am not saying a Mac netbook would be unpopular, or uninteresting, or unsuccessful. It would be great and I think it would be cool to see a netbook / tablet in the lineup inbetween the iPod pricepoint and the MacBook pricepoint. This makes sense and seems to be the place that a product such as a netbook would logically fit. But, as I have mentioned before in this thread (but it seems to have been ignored), it would be difficult for the Mac netbook to compete with a Dell Mini 9 running OSX and that is where there is a valid argument about Dell Mini 9s "stealing" Mac sales.

If Apple came out with an official MacBook Mini (or whatever they call it)... it would most likely be priced around $500 - $700 (obviously including Mac OSX cost, so you would not need to spend the money for a copy of OSX like you do when Hackintoshing). This pricing point would make it difficult to compete with the Mini 9. I would consider an official Mac netbook because I am an huge Apple fan and supporter. Honestly, Apple always has superior hardware build quality (in my opinion -- it does not feel cheap and like it will break in 1 year) and their products and appealing and extremely functional.

2. Just because different products in the Mac lineup have competitive pricing, it does not mean they cannibalize each other. I guess you could say it that way... because someone buying a MacBook could have potentially bought a MacbookPro, but it is not like the pricing overlaps and completely cannibalizes the other product. If the MacbookPro was $1100 and the MacBook was $999, then the MBP would be obviously cannibalize the MacBook line entirely. But the way Apple has their product line they have the perfect pricing points for their products to reduce cannibalization. Yes, people may buy a product and then regret not getting the "better option"... this kind of thing happens all of the time, but that is not cannibalizing the products. Say I go out to the grocery and pick up a case of Busch Light. I did not cannibalize the sale of Bud Light (both Anheuser Busch products) by buying the cheaper alternative. They have designed their product to be priced at certain points and targeted towards a certain consumer demographic. They do this based on the cost of the product and they analyze these sorts of things

And who does not want the best features for less money. That is how things always work. You bring up the point about "many" students wanting a MBP but only being able to afford a MacBook. Well this applies to anything you purchase :lol: I want all of the features in a Lexus but I drive a Toyota Corolla... why? because it cost less. That is just how things work.

And I understand what you are saying, but my point is still completely valid. Just because someone runs OSX on their Mini 9 / A90 does not mean it is a lost sale for Apple. Even if Apple did have a Mac netbook available to "compete" with other netbooks. It is not fair to say that someone running OSX on a Mini would have gotten a Mac netbooks if they did not have the option to run OSX on cheaper hardware.

 Mini 10v  | 2Gb RAM | 320 Gb HDD | Ubuntu 10.04 | OSX 10.6.3 | NBI .8.4RC1 | Chameleon Bullet Theme | BIOS A05 | USB Wake : OFF | USB Legacy : ON | No BlueTooth
Meklort's Blog | NBI Google Code Page | -- the best OSX installation guides
Reply With Quote
  (#42) Old
EuclidJr EuclidJr is offline
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Join Date: Apr 2009
Default Re: Question About Mac OSX - 04-27-2009, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by NoahFuLing
Originally Posted by EuclidJr
-enormous snip-
The problem lies in your definition of updates vs. new software. First of all, OS X is not mentioned except for the Family Pack. They use the term "Apple Software". Second, 10.5.x is an update, since it can be applied to an earlier version of 10.5 without changing the system. 10.6 would be a whole new piece of software, as it cannot be installed onto 10.5 without reinstalling the OS. Yes, the EULA is suprisingly vague, but I've talked to an Apple employee that is very familiar with the EULA, and that's how it works.
Well, there's not a problem in my definition or my understanding. If you look at a copy of the license (linked in a previous post), you will see that it says, near the top, "Software License Agreement for Max OS X" - it does not say Mac OS X 10.5 or Mac OS X Leopard. Your methodology for discerning whether it is an upgrade or new software is simply not relevant (beyond the fact that I've installed explicitly licensed upgrades that require complete replacement of the current program) - the fact of the matter is that I hold a license that says it is for Mac OS X and the license that one gets for Snow Leopard will likely be the exact same.

As for the Apple employee who is "very familiar with the EULA" - this is a persistent problem in representing companies, and I've run into it many times. It does not matter what Apple, or one of its employees, thinks the EULA means. The only thing that matters is what the judge thinks (in most states, the issue would probably not be triable by a jury)

There is a clause in the EULA - an integration clause (the one that says that this agreement represents the entire agreement, yada yada). This clause will cause the invocation of the parol evidence rule (btw, the wikipedia entry for the rule is really crappy) and will (in most jurisdictions) bar any evidence regarding Apple's interpretation or meaning of the EULA. Client companies always think "well, we wrote it, so we get to say what it means." This turns out to be quite the opposite. Many courts take the position that the company has had its opportunity to make its position clear in the contract (which it drafted) and that any further argument or evidence regarding what the contract "means" is simply an admission by the company that the provision is not properly drafted.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting that anyone should rely on such a reading of the license, but is simply not as clear as your buddy at Apple would have you believe.

As for the cannibalization issues, I think the reality lies somewhere in the middle. There is no tenable argument that -every- Mini running OS X represents a lost hardware sale for Apple. My Mini 9 arrived this week and I may, or may not, put OS X on it. I have several macs already and the Mini was purchased for a very particular purpose (one which Apple does not meet with its current lineup of computers). I would not have bought a Macbook or Mac Mini, I would have just stayed with the Ubuntu. If I put OS X on the Mini, I will purchase a license for it. That purchase will be complete gravy for Apple and will not, in any way, represent a lost hardware sale to Apple; if anything it represents "found money."

Moreover, persons running OS X on a Mini may well find themselves enticed to change over their desktop or laptop to a Mac - generating additional sales for Apple. I am hard pressed, given the form factor and SSD size limitations, to see that very many people (outside of starving students) would substitute a Mini running OS X for a Macbook (and the Mac Mini and the Dell Mini are so far afield, that I don't think you can reasonably compare the two beyond an exceedingly niche usage). I don't deny that some cannibalization will happen, but I hardly think that every Mini running OS X represents a cannibalized sale and the revenue could ultimately be quite the opposite.

Similarly for Macbook vs. Macbook Pro, although some Macbook sales may be persons who would have otherwise bought a MBP, you will have an at least similar number who would not have bought a Mac at all - opting for a non-Mac system. Apple may have market research on this, but I am hard-pressed to imagine that the cannibalization of MBP sales exceeds the profits from sales of Macbooks to those who would have otherwise bought a non-windows machine.
Reply With Quote
  (#43) Old
EricsVostro EricsVostro is offline
Posts: 40
Join Date: May 2009
Default 06-13-2009, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by NoahFuLing View Post
Apple's EULA for single-license OS X states that it should only be used for a single licensed install.
Apple's EULA for five-license OS X states that it should only be used for five licensed installs.
Both of them state that OS X should only be installed on Apple hardware.

All Hackintoshes are obviously in violation of the third rule listed here. However, given current laws, they may or may not be allowed to include that clause (see Psystar and OpenMac), and in the future OS X may no longer include that clause.

HOWEVER, using a retail single-license OS X disk for more than one licensed install is blatantly in violation of the EULA, and Apple is well within their rights to include that in the EULA. We at MyDellMini are big fans of Apple, and most of us would rather pay the extra money for a 5-license copy than rip off Apple, not to mention the 100% illegality.

Sorry, I've had this argument at lot at school, and it bugs me when people don't want to support Apple. I enjoy using their products, both hardware and software, and I'm more than happy to support them.

Returning to original topic: A disk included with any Macintosh is almost always a system-specific disk, and while copy-able, is not usable on any computer other than the model it is intended for. A retail OS X disk has no DRM and no copy-protection, and can be installed on any Mac. Since it is based on licensed installs rather than registered license keys, the number of installs is limited to the number of Leopard licenses you own. If you own a Mac that came with a Leopard license, and then use your retail Leopard disk to reinstall Leopard, then it is not considered a license use, as the install is tied to the machine license rather than the disk license(s). If you install on a Mac (or other computer) that does not have a license of Leopard associated with it (say, an old computer with Tiger) then it is considered a license use.
I just wanted to chime in there and add my support for buying a license for each copy of OS X for each machine you have it running on regardless of the hardware. OS X is fairly priced and it's simply the right thing to do. Pirating the software under any circumstance is stealing no matter how you try to justify it!!!


Dell Vostro a90, 16GB SSD, 32GB SD Card, 2GB RAM running OS X 10.5.7
My first "Mac" after 20 years on Windows and loving it
Reply With Quote
  (#44) Old
blehmann blehmann is offline
Posts: 38
Join Date: May 2009
Default 06-14-2009, 04:29 AM

I was not going to take part on this thread; I think there is little cannibalization potential and the possibility of a distinctive winner in this niche strikes me as obvious but I did not think I had anything useful to add.

Then I had a sheepish thought. I was at the university bookstore prepared to buy a macbook for my daughter when I saw a dell rep with a mini 9 running os x. I had read about hackintoshes and toyed with the thought of doing this for her but had dismissed it given all that could go wrong. But the damned thing was right there in front of me and I bought the last mini 9 in the store, the demo model.

So, sheepishly once again, I must confess that this is one dell mini that cannabilized one mac sale'''
Reply With Quote

« Installing OSX from a desktop to a mini 9 | Howto: OSX and Windows7 on GUID based disk (w/bootloader) »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Copyright © 2008-2016