# Apple disables ATOM Processor in 10.6.2



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

*Apple disables ATOM Processor in 10.6.2 EDIT: Maybe not?*

There's been a bunch of Back and forth talk about Hackintoshing and such on this forum, and I'm not here to promote one side or the other, but rather discuss Apple's most recent move - to disable ATOM processors in 10.6.2, seemingly to stop netbook hackintoshers.

Apple Disabling Support for Intel Atom Processor in Latest 10.6.2 Build? - Mac Rumors

I wonder what exactly is the *point* behind this. People buying $250 netbooks aren't in the market for the $1000+ MacBooks. And having played with Snow Leopard on an HP Mini 1000, it runs *really* well. 

Oddly, with the iMacs now sporting i5 processors with (assumingly) the p55 intel chipset - hackintoshers with more $$ to spend, can now build i5 workstations and probably use 10.6.2 natively (needed hacked kernels before).

Thoughts?

UPDATE: This whole 10.6.2 not working on ATOM processors may have just been a bug, and has since been corrected...?

http://www.ehmac.ca/anything-mac/81702-apple-disables-atom-processor-10-6-2-a-5.html#post891589


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

It's just proprietary market engineering.

Apple says that the absolute cheapest you can run OSX is $1000 on a portable computer, then people who want to run a mac will pay $1000. If you have people doing it on $250 computers with ease, then people will not be willing to pay $1000 to run OSX anymore. 

Heck, I'm considering a hacked netbook!


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

Adrian. said:


> Heck, I'm considering a hacked netbook!


Even if it won't support 10.6.2?


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

fyrefly said:


> ...I wonder what exactly is the *point* behind this. People buying $250 netbooks aren't in the market for the $1000+ MacBooks. And having played with Snow Leopard on an HP Mini 1000, it runs *really* well. ... Thoughts?


1. It's still a rumour.

2. Why _should_ Apple be content with HP (and any other hardware makers) profiting from hardware sales based on Apple's IP? (When people buy a NetBook just to run OS X)

3. I think your point that Snow Leopard runs really well on an HP Mini 1000, is a strong argument in _favour_ of Apple protecting their hardware sales from this cannibalisation. 
How would Apple ever make up for lost hardware sales when Jane and Joe Public can run Apple's subsidised software "really well" on competitors' hardware? 
What incentive would there be to ever buy Apple hardware to run Apple software, if the Apple hardware is, or appears at first blush to be, more expensive?

4. If there is a performance loss on sub-Apple hardware, will consumers unfairly and negatively judge Apple's software, including the iLife suite?

That's what I've come up with so far.


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

If they want to do that, they should release something to compete. I have both a MBP and a cheap MSI netbook with 10.5.7. Sometimes I just need the really small form factor.

Luc


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

fyrefly said:


> People buying $250 netbooks aren't in the market for the $1000+ MacBooks.


That isn't the point. The point is that Apple doesn't want people running Mac OS X on non-Apple produced units. Period.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Yep - and it's because it costs a lot of money to develop MacOS X - more than the $129 you pay at retail.


----------



## Hodge (Feb 2, 2007)

Lars said:


> That isn't the point. The point is that Apple doesn't want people running Mac OS X on non-Apple produced units. Period.


I'm honestly surprised they didn't do this sooner. Good for them.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

I'm not surprised - nor bothered by this. Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. They lose when OS X is installed on non-Apple hardware. 

A little more here - not sure where macrumors got their info:

Snow Leopard Update Blocks Intel Atom, Kills Hackintoshes | Gadget Lab | Wired.com

Amazing how badly the Mac-haters at Wired get their knickers in a knot over this in the comment section.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

I'm rooting for Apple on this one. To those who are rooting for the hackers: Do you really want to see Apple's business model attacked? Do you want to see the kind of "phone home" crap in OS X that you see in Windoze? If you're such a do-it-yourself guy, install Linux on your netbook.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Refreshing to see a thread where the number of people supporting Apple's right to support and defend it's OS outnumbers the hackers... early in the thread but +1 for good on Apple.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

I don't mind that people hack it for their personal use, I just don't understand that if they could have removed this, why would it be there in the first place.

It still a rumour, we'll wait and see.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

This just made 10.6 discs worth more!


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Gerbill said:


> I'm rooting for Apple on this one. To those who are rooting for the hackers: Do you really want to see Apple's business model attacked? Do you want to see the kind of "phone home" crap in OS X that you see in Windoze? If you're such a do-it-yourself guy, install Linux on your netbook.


If it means I can run Mac OS X on whatever hardware I want then yes, that's what I want to see.


----------



## Eric0 (Nov 22, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> This just made 10.6 discs worth more!


Sadly I think very few people who spend $250 on a netbook are actually paying for Snow Leopard. Half of those things don't even have drives to accommodate a DVD.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

> If it means I can run Mac OS X on whatever hardware I want then yes, that's what I want to see.


So, in essence, you're willing to see Apple the computer company bite the dust? All so you can run OS X on anything you like? Apple already tried letting other people manufacture clones - is everyone's memory so conveniently short that they don't remember that the company almost DIED? (not just due to the clones, but they certainly didn't help) Apple's market share was 20% at the end of the 80s and fell to less than 3% in the 90s. They're not about to shoot themselves in the foot all over again.


----------



## Eric0 (Nov 22, 2007)

Paddy said:


> So, in essence, you're willing to see Apple the computer company bite the dust? All so you can run OS X on anything you like? Apple already tried letting other people manufacture clones - is everyone's memory so conveniently short that they don't remember that the company almost DIED? (not just due to the clones, but they certainly didn't help) Apple's market share was 20% at the end of the 80s and fell to less than 3% in the 90s. They're not about to shoot themselves in the foot all over again.


Lol. Well Dell and all the others look like they're dying right now too.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## RISCHead (Jul 20, 2004)

Hackers will hack - that is simply the nature of things - its noise in the scheme of things and doesn't really affect Apple's business model.
Having said that, it would be fun to run OS X on a netbook


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

jfpoole said:


> If it means I can run Mac OS X on whatever hardware I want then yes, that's what I want to see.


Eyeglasses in the avatar. Shortsighted??


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Paddy said:


> So, in essence, you're willing to see Apple the computer company bite the dust? All so you can run OS X on anything you like? Apple already tried letting other people manufacture clones - is everyone's memory so conveniently short that they don't remember that the company almost DIED? (not just due to the clones, but they certainly didn't help) Apple's market share was 20% at the end of the 80s and fell to less than 3% in the 90s. They're not about to shoot themselves in the foot all over again.


Yes, I'm sitting here waiting and hoping Apple fails as a company. 

Or maybe I'm sitting here thinking that it'd be nice if I could run Mac OS X on something other than the rather anemic selection of hardware Apple offers.

But, hey, nice strawman you built there.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

If the rumour is true, I can only applaud Apple for doing this.
I think they should go one step further - use the software to drive the unsupported processors into an endless overload until they overheat and destroy themselves.
Wouldn't that be fun


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Was it intentional? Or is it just a side effect of the adjustments they made to the OS?

If apple intentionally disabled the processor i have a bit of a problem with it. I understand they have a right to protect their interests, but as long as they aren't making machines that fit this particular niche they should probably tread lightly.

And I'd like to see Apple be understanding to the hacking community. The iphone and apple TV have GREATLY benefited by the work of hackers. I'm sorry, but a jail-broken iphone is much more functional than a out of box one. The apple Tv without hacks is quite crippled hardware. It'd be nice if they could learn and implement some of the advancements hackers have made to their hardware.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

i-rui said:


> If apple intentionally disabled the processor i have a bit of a problem with it.


WOW !!!!

You seriously think Apple should support a processor that they have no intention of ever using and that is also not used in any of their products.
On Snow Leopard, Apple removed all the code that supported PPC processors to slim down the OS and make it more nimble - it doesn't make any sense for Apple to keep any code in the OS that does not support legitimate Apple hardware, especially since they just cut off their own older PPC Macs.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jfpoole said:


> Or maybe I'm sitting here thinking that it'd be nice if I could run Mac OS X on something other than the rather *anemic selection of hardware Apple offers.*


Now I *know* you're joking. :lmao:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

RISCHead said:


> Hackers will hack - that is simply the nature of things - its noise in the scheme of things and doesn't really affect Apple's business model.
> Having said that, it would be fun to run OS X on a netbook


This is undoubtedly true, except with the likes of Psystar who are commercializing their hacking.

Really in the end what people choose to do in the privacy of their homes... who cares, I don't think Apple really does all that much, the move in doing this if it comes to pass must have something bigger behind it.

All that being said, it confounds me that hackers think they have the *right* to do what they do. Same goes for some pirates. Just because you do it doesn't mean you should go around preaching about the virtues of your questionable behaviour.

But then again there will always be the Larry Flints of the world...


----------



## Carter (Sep 8, 2009)

Whatever Apple chooses to do, we all know that in due time someone will have a hackintosh copy of 10.6.2 out that will support these.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

screature said:


> Now I *know* you're joking. :lmao:


Apple makes a netbook now?

Apple makes a reasonably-priced (and reasonably powerful) headless desktop now?

Next thing you'll tell me is Apple's using current-generation GPUs across their product lineup.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

i-rui said:


> ... but as long as they aren't making machines that fit this particular niche they should probably tread lightly.


Or else what? Nerds will unite and collectively throw their pocket protectors at the gate of the Apple Campus?



i-rui said:


> It'd be nice if they could learn and implement some of the advancements hackers have made to their hardware.


R-i-i-i-ght.  Because Apple's doofus engineers could never design their software to do what the 27 year old cellar dweller at his mom's house has done at 2:00 in the morning. :yawn:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jfpoole said:


> *Apple makes a notebook now?*
> 
> Apple makes a reasonably-priced (and reasonably powerful) headless desktop now?
> 
> Next thing you'll tell me is Apple's using current-generation GPUs across their product lineup.


Last I checked they make a notebook (think you mean netbook - which I think are anaemic by definition  )

You said anaemic, made no mention of cost. Yes their products cost more, so do Audi's, Porsche's, etc. They are far from being the fastest cars in the world but they are some of the best built and you also pay for the bling factor.

They use the GPUs they do and they are far from anaemic.

Nobody forces you to buy their product, if you don't want to pay the cost of admission don't buy it. Simple.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

jfpoole said:


> ...Or maybe I'm sitting here thinking that it'd be nice if I could run Mac OS X on something other than the rather anemic selection of hardware Apple offers.
> 
> But, hey, nice strawman you built there.


The problem is, it's _not_ a strawman argument.
You cannot have one _with_ the other.
If people stop buying the Apple hardware, Apple has very little money to put into developing the software that you claim to like.

Apple software running on any hardware = the demise of Apple.

Don't know why you have such a hate-on for the fruit company.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Thank you, SoyMac. 

Last time I checked, pointing out the consequences of a wish/desire/demand was not irrelevant, and in this case, when it goes to the very heart of Apple's business model, hardly inconsequential.

There does seem to be a strange element of self-loathing among a small subset of the Mac community - those who are never satisfied with anything Apple does, and seem to regard using a Mac as the lesser of two evils. (The other alternative being PC/Windows) Sigh. Some people are just never satisfied.

Netbooks are cute - but they're pretty skimpy on the feature set and way underpowered for anything I do other than read email and web browse, so I couldn't care less if Apple never produces one. As for the mid-range headless Mac - basically what you want is an upgradeable Mac Mini? Or headless iMac? Maybe Apple has done some research around this and has come to the conclusion that it isn't a worthwhile market segment - there has to be some reason why they haven't done it and all we can do is guess. Certainly they have to be aware that there have been requests for such a critter, but it's hard to judge how many people really want something like that over a Mini or an iMac. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of home PC owners who bought name brand mid-range machines have never done anything to them since buying them. A handful may have upgraded RAM or a hard drive, all of which you can do with a Mini or an iMac, but I sincerely doubt most have gone any further than that.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

krs said:


> WOW !!!!
> 
> You seriously think Apple should support a processor that they have no intention of ever using and that is also not used in any of their products.
> On Snow Leopard, Apple removed all the code that supported PPC processors to slim down the OS and make it more nimble - it doesn't make any sense for Apple to keep any code in the OS that does not support legitimate Apple hardware, especially since they just cut off their own older PPC Macs.


No, not at all. IF that's the reason the atom no longer works i don't have a problem with it....BUT if Apple specifically went it with the intention of "breaking" the netbooks that people are hacking...well i'm sorry i see that as a bit of a dick move.

Optically it doesn't reflect well on them since they don't have a product in that niche. Perhaps they did this as a precursor to the upcoming tablet? That would make a bit more sense since they'd be protecting a new piece of hardware created to fit that niche.



Bjornbro said:


> Or else what? Nerds will unite and collectively throw their pocket protectors at the gate of the Apple Campus?
> :


see above....



Bjornbro said:


> R-i-i-i-ght.  Because Apple's doofus engineers could never design their software to do what the 27 year old cellar dweller at his mom's house has done at 2:00 in the morning. :yawn:


Of course they COULD. The point is they AREN'T. If users have to resort to HACKS to enable functions that apple devices are clearly CAPABLE of (i.e video recording on a 2G or 3G iphone) then I think apple SHOULD take a cue from the hacking community and enable instead of cripple.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

i-rui -

Does this help?



> Last year, one high-ranking Intel executive publicly vouched for the Atom processor to be used on Apple's long-rumored tablet device. The 10-inch touchscreen device, expected to arrive in the first quarter of 2010, is believed to originally be intended to run on the Atom processor upon conception. But after the $278 million buyout of fabless chip designer P.A. Semi, it is believed that Apple began to design its own ARM-based processors and abandoned the Atom.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

SoyMac said:


> Don't know why you have such a hate-on for the fruit company.


So saying that I think there are gaps in the Apple's product line, or saying I'd like to be able to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware means I hate Apple? That's quite the leap you've made there.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jfpoole said:


> So saying that I think there are gaps in the Apple's product line, *or saying I'd like to be able to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware means I hate Apple*? That's quite the leap you've made there.


No, but especially for a software developer, it certainly doesn't display a very reasonable appreciation for their business model. Apple enjoys the success they do because of their closed business model. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Opening up their OS to be used *and supported* on any hardware could be the beginning of a very slippery slope both in terms of the bottom line and product development.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

screature said:


> No, but especially for a software developer, it certainly doesn't display a very reasonable appreciation for their business model. Apple enjoys the success they do because of their closed business model. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Opening up their OS to be used *and supported* on any hardware could be the beginning of a very slippery slope both in terms of the bottom line and product development.


I understand that Apple makes most of their money off of hardware sales. Note that I said I'd *like* to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, not that I think Apple *should* enable Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware, nor that I think Apple *should* license Mac OS X to hardware manufacturers.

Again, I'm amazed that saying, "wow, I'm not 100% happy with the product lineup Apple has" means, at least on ehMac, that I know nothing about Apple's business and clearly hate Apple and want them to fail.


----------



## DS (Oct 7, 2004)

Carter said:


> Whatever Apple chooses to do, we all know that in due time someone will have a hackintosh copy of 10.6.2 out that will support these.


The likely worst case scenario is to just continue to use the 10.6.1 kernel with the rest of the 10.6.2 update, which is not really much of a roadblock. I'm sure with time though the actual 10.6.2+ kernels will be hacked to enable the Atom again. My guess is that it would just be a simple cpuid based disable, rather than adding features that the Atom just doesn't support, so it should be rather trivial once again to hack and enable it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jfpoole said:


> I understand that Apple makes most of their money off of hardware sales. Note that I said I'd *like* to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, not that I think Apple *should* enable Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware, nor that I think Apple *should* license Mac OS X to hardware manufacturers.
> 
> Again, I'm amazed that saying, "wow, I'm not 100% happy with the product lineup Apple has" means, at least on ehMac, that I know nothing about Apple's business and clearly hate Apple and want them to fail.


Fair enough.  We all have idle wishes that we know will not come to pass for various reasons. However, most often when one reads others *wishes* they are interpreted as having some level of *expectation* on the part of the wisher.

I think it is only expected that any product manufacture will not meet or fulfill all the desires of a subset of consumers/customers. By way of example, It is hard to meet both value and elite/high end demands at the same time. That being said I think Apple tries the hardest of all manufactures to realize that goal.

Does Apple offer the *perfect* product line-up? No. But then who does? Their primary objective as a publicly traded company is to provide for their investors the highest rate of return on their investment within the parameters of their corporate values/structure. Thus far a "closed" business model has worked well for them both in terms of shareholder value and product development.

Purely from a business perspective, if Apple felt that they could deliver both a superior product and provide optimal shareholder return by allowing their OS to be installed on non-Apple branded hardware they would do so. It would only make good business sense. It appears that, as of yet, they have not figured out a means to do so. 

If you have any constructive advice as to how they may accomplish this I am sure they would be interested. Regrettably wishful thinking doesn't make it so.

It seems that Apple's move to Intel processors has ramped up the desire for OSX to be able to be installed on any hardware regardless of manufacture. When Apple was purely PPC this seemed to be less of an issue as the hardware was more ore less proprietary. You had to be an extreme geek to even attempt it. 

Clearly by moving to Intel processors and allowing for Bootcamp and virtual installations of Windows they have managed to make the idea of "switching" easier for Windows users and have consequently gained market share. Therein lies the rub for their closed system. Now that there is essentially nothing "special" about Apple's hardware (aside from the obvious industrial design) some people *expect* that they should be able to install OSX on whatever hardware they choose, yet they seem to fail to realize that it is still the "closed" system that drives Apples business model. 

Perhaps given time and evolution things will change, but clearly Apple, for the time being, sees no way to balance both quality control (i.e. being able to be in control of the quality of products that are associated with the Apple brand) while at the same time providing consumers with the plethora of hardware choices that are available to Windows users at a price point that does not undermine their margins and standards.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Apple disables Atom support in the latest update because they want to protect their business model and bottom line?

Like a small handful of hackintoshes really has any bearing whatsoever on Apple's marketshare and business model. You guys are really something else. Living in some sort of magical fairy tale.

The average consumer has zero knowledge of hackintoshes, let alone how to make their own. It's only the small geek community that has any idea of this crap, and they're not in the market to spend $1000+ on an Apple computer anyway. Your arguments are very transparent.

It's no different than what they do to disable Palm Pre support in iTunes, and disabling the latest exploits for Jailbreaks and unlocks for the iPhone. Whatever their motivation, it has little to do, if any, with protecting their market share. People are going to buy Apple products, and Apple is going to make money, regardless of what a minority of hobby hackers like to do with their toys.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kloan said:


> Apple disables Atom support in the latest update because they want to protect their business model and bottom line?....


I think krs clarified this point with her/his quote quite clearly.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kloan said:


> Your arguments are very transparent...


Being that they are so transparent please enlighten us Oh illuminated one...


----------



## olias (Sep 11, 2006)

Ha, this is awesome. Apple has every right to support only their hardware base. It is what sets them apart from the rift raft. I know it's only a rumour but I hope they do it.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

Not to throw another log on the fire here... 

But apparently this was a BUG in 10.6.2 developer builds and has since been corrected.

Rumors of Disabled Intel Atom Support in Mac OS X 10.6.2 Unfounded? - Mac Rumors


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

from Mac Rumors


> The original post describing the lack of Atom support was made on October 27th, one day before Apple seeded Build 10C535 to developers, meaning that the poster was experiencing difficulties on his Atom-based netbook with the then-current Build 10C531. It is unclear at this time whether the lack of Atom support in that build was intentional on Apple's part or if it was simply a bug that the company addressed in the next developer version.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

This is ridiculous -

From MacRumours:



> Earlier this week, a report surfaced claiming that Apple had apparently disabled support for Intel's Atom processors in the latest developer build of Mac OS X 10.6.2. The revelation set off a firestorm around the Internet, riling many users who have modified their Atom-based netbook models to run OS X...........


So all of these people who are using OS X illegally were complaining........

Reminds me of a ploy by the cable companies a few years back.
People were buying these illegal digital cable boxes so that they could watch digital cable for free.
The cable company created some piece of software that disabled those and then just sat back and waited for all these illegal "subscribers" to call in that their cable didn't work.
Caught thousands of illegal cable hook ups that way.


----------



## laserbluemini (Oct 6, 2009)

i dun understand why ppl complain when what they are doing isn't right anyway lol...

I would love to buy a netbook and use snow leopard on it tho.  but I hate those netbook screens. way too small for anything.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

krs said:


> i-rui -
> 
> Does this help?


"Last year, one high-ranking Intel executive publicly vouched for the Atom processor to be used on Apple's long-rumored tablet device. The 10-inch touchscreen device, expected to arrive in the first quarter of 2010, is believed to originally be intended to run on the Atom processor upon conception. But after the $278 million buyout of fabless chip designer P.A. Semi, it is believed that Apple began to design its own ARM-based processors and abandoned the Atom."	

I think KRS is the only one that has hit closest to the mark. They have not broken support, but simply moved away from it. Apple is already heavily involved with ARM based chips. So, it seems to fit that, if they come out with a "netbook" type device it could run system more like the iPhone OS. I know it is a striped down version of Os X, but think of the advantages. It would be optimized for the device and be more of a contender of the Chrome OS (IF it as good as the hype!!!).

I must agree that it has nothing to do with the hackers, more that it has to to with a new direction. Why, support something that has no future in it for you vision. Apple is a very clever company and I am sure that they are playing for keeps. As for the small amount hackers, I am sure they will find a work around, you can already use an AMD chip with SL, or so I read.

I myself have 3 Macs in my home. And will upgrade within 2 years to 2 more, my son will get mommy's imac then. . So no complaints here.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Looks like we were wrong. The atom is going to be supported after all. I just read on MDN that the new build corrects the problem with the atom support.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

B-b-b-but.... how are they going to protect their business now??


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

screature said:


> Does Apple offer the *perfect* product line-up? No. But then who does?


Apple's product line up isn't just "not perfect", it's simply awful. They make the OS I want to use, but they do not make a single computer model that I want to buy at any price. The choices are simply far too limited. 

From the late 70's until this year, I bought nothing but Apple computers. Over time, I got more and more annoyed at how much better the choices were for the actual boxes from many of the PC manufacturers, especially HP. 

Eventually I decided that the aluminum iMac I bought last year was my last compromise. From now on, I'm buying the computer that has the best features, and comes in the form-factor that I want regardless of the brand selling it. If that's an Apple machine, great. If it isn't, tough nuts for them, I'm installing OS X on it anyway. 

I started following through with that with my HP netbook, and I could not be happier. In the next year I plan you buy a consumer desktop tower and a full-size notebook. Right now, Apple has no products in their lineup that meet my required list of features. If they do when I'm ready to buy, I'll gladly buy Apple (even willingly pay more to get it). If they don't, I will not compromise, I'll just buy it from someone else and hackintosh it. I don't want a huge server-grade behemoth, I don't want another all-in-one (EVER), and I don't want a notebook of any size with no quick swap battery, no expresscard slot, no flush-inserting SD card slot, no number pad, and no HDMI.

Apple could stop hackintoshing in its tracks easily by just offering the computers that its customers are asking for; netbooks, consumer grade notebooks with large screens, and consumer grade desktop towers.

Those are the three most sought after form factors in all of computing. It's what most people want, and Apple refuses to make them at any price. The loss of hardware sales to hackintoshers is entirely Apple's own doing: people can't buy what you don't make.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bsenka said:


> Apple's product line up isn't just "not perfect", it's *simply awful*. They make the OS I want to use, but they do not make a single computer model that I want to buy at any price. The choices are simply far too limited...
> 
> Apple could stop hackintoshing in its tracks easily by *just offering the computers that its customers are asking for*; netbooks, consumer grade notebooks with large screens, and consumer grade desktop towers...



It would seem that Apples sales (computers) and latest quarterly report prove you wrong... they just don't make a computer you want... or willing to pay for the price of admission.  



> Apple Reports Fourth Quarter Results
> Most Profitable Quarter Ever; *Record Mac* and iPhone Sales
> 
> CUPERTINO, California—October 19, 2009—Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2009 fourth quarter ended September 26, 2009. The Company posted revenue of $9.87 billion and a net quarterly profit of $1.67 billion, or $1.82 per diluted share. These results compare to revenue of $7.9 billion and net quarterly profit of $1.14 billion, or $1.26 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 36.6 percent, up from 34.7 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 46 percent of the quarter’s revenue...
> ...


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

bsenka said:


> Apple could stop hackintoshing in its tracks easily by just offering the computers that its customers are asking for; netbooks, consumer grade notebooks with large screens, and consumer grade desktop towers.


Sorry - but this is absolute BS.
Maybe you are the exception.
But absolutely everyone I know who has OS X runing on something other than a Mac did that because they didn't want to pay the price for a Mac.
Simple as that.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

screature said:


> It would seem that Apples sales (computers) and latest quarterly report prove you wrong... they just don't make a computer you want.


Those record sales still account for less than 10 percent of total computer sales, so a substantial majority wants products other than what Apple is offering.

Besides that, show me where they separated the people who bought the Apple hardware because it was the specific piece of hardware they actually wanted, and the people (like me) who bought the Mac anyway because they like OS X even though they are not happy with what they had to settle for.

I am NOT happy with my iMac, but Apple counts me in those statistics of satisfied consumers because I bought one. It's a false metric. Essentially they are rubbing it in my face "we already got your money, loser" by claiming that people are buying what they are selling. Those record sales still account for less than 10 percent of total computer sales, so a substantial majority wants products other than what Apple is offering.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bsenka said:


> Those record sales still account for less than 10 percent of total computer sales, so a substantial majority wants products other than what Apple is offering.
> 
> Besides that, show me where they separated the people who bought the Apple hardware because it was the specific piece of hardware they actually wanted, and the people (like me) who bought the Mac anyway because they like OS X even though they are not happy with what they had to settle for.
> 
> I am NOT happy with my iMac, but Apple counts me in those statistics of satisfied consumers because I bought one. It's a false metric. Essentially they are rubbing it in my face "we already got your money, loser" by claiming that people are buying what they are selling. Those record sales still account for less than 10 percent of total computer sales, so a substantial majority wants products other than what Apple is offering.


That is pretty convoluted.  The reason why Macs only represent 10% of computer sales is because of the vast numbers of enterprise installations that are stuck with Windows. 

The numbers don't lie, consumers want Macs and have bought them in record numbers. It isn't a false metric, record sales are record sales. That you are dissatisfied could easily indicate that you are nothing more than an anomaly, you have no proof to indicate otherwise, it is just an assumption on your part because of your own personal feelings.



> *
> Macs Defy Windows' Gravity* (from eWeek Apple Watch)
> 
> News Analysis. Consider this: Apple's retail market share is 14 percent, and two-thirds (66%) for PCs costing $1,000 or more.
> ...


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

bsenka said:


> ...Apple's own doing: people can't buy what you don't make.


Entirely true.
And no matter what Apple releases, there will always be people who want a hardware configuration that Apple isn't shipping.

I guess Apple's attitude is something like, "Focus on doing a few things really, really well, instead of spreading our resources thin, and making a _lot_ of stuff, none of which is very good."

Before Switching to Mac, I experienced that world of unlimited hardware choices tied to a crappy OS.

I am very happy to never go back to those Microsoft days.

bsenka, of course you're not _wrong_ to want to tweak your hardware to your specific desires. But I will guess that your level of computer expertise and technical abilities, plus your willingness to spend the time to manifest those desires, are far, far higher than the vast majority of computer users on the rest of the planet.

I think I can safely say that if Apple attempted to please you _and_ me _and_ all of the computer users in between, Apple would be just another computer company, making lots of stuff that is just "good enough".


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

SoyMac said:


> I think I can safely say that if Apple attempted to please you _and_ me _and_ all of the computer users in between, Apple would be just another computer company, making lots of stuff that is just "good enough".


I'm not asking them to cater to every small niche desire, but there are major holes in the hardware lineup. They are missing the basic staples that the most of the average/no-knowledge/non-hacking consumers are looking for. 

Anyone who counts iMac sales as proof that the iMac is what ANYONE actually wants is irretrievably stupid, because its the only consumer choice Apple has. You'd have to have a consumer tower available for people to NOT choose in oder to make that claim.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bsenka said:


> Anyone who counts iMac sales as proof that the iMac is what ANYONE actually wants is irretrievably stupid, because its the only consumer choice Apple has. You'd have to have a consumer tower available for people to NOT choose in oder to make that claim.


Anyone that thinks the majority of people buy products that they *DON'T* actually want is "irretrievably stupid". (They also make make consumer laptops, I think they are computers are they not? And a little computer called the Mini). 

"There are none so blind as those who will not see." 
(Especially when the facts/numbers are starring them straight in the face.)










The $1000+ market is the segment that Apple *chooses* to cater to (only 1 product in their line-up starts under $1000; the Mini), not the bottom dwellers/feeders. It seems in their chosen market segment they are doing very well indeed.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Sorry, benska, I cannot agree with you. Most of the people I know never upgrade their systems to any great degree. The exception would be ram. A lot of people (I know) simply do not want to open their machines and some are just to afraid to. 

As for the hate you have for your iMac, what price would you sell it for? My wife loves her's, but maybe it should be moved to my son.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

screature said:


> Anyone that thinks the majority of people buy products that they *DON'T* actually want is "irretrievably stupid". (They also make make consumer laptops, I think they are computers are they not? And a little computer called the Mini).
> 
> "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
> (Especially when the facts/numbers are starring them straight in the face.)
> ...


All your posts prove is that you're equal parts ignorant and dishonest. 

If I sell 10 widgets and you sell 1 in Q1, and then I sell 8 widgets and you sell 3 in Q2, you did not do better than me in Q2. The article you posts tried to claim the opposite, but it's an outright lie.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

DR Hannon said:


> Sorry, benska, I cannot agree with you. Most of the people I know never upgrade their systems to any great degree. The exception would be ram. A lot of people (I know) simply do not want to open their machines and some are just to afraid to.


And I don't know ANYONE who has a tower that doesn't at least upgrade their video cards and add additional internal hard drives occasionally. They may not do it themselves, small computer hops that do these things fast and cheap are everywhere, but they do it, a lot.



DR Hannon said:


> As for the hate you have for your iMac, what price would you sell it for? My wife loves her's, but maybe it should be moved to my son.


I'll be passing mine off to the kids when I replace it, the value is already so low after a year that it's not worth selling.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bsenka said:


> All your posts prove is that you're equal parts ignorant and dishonest.
> 
> If I sell 10 widgets and you sell 1 in Q1, and then I sell 8 widgets and you sell 3 in Q2, you did not do better than me in Q2. The article you posts tried to claim the opposite, but it's an outright lie.


NO of course not! I increased my sales while you decreased your's that is all. Net profit is king. And this has nothing to do with the information table provided. You really should learn a thing or two about how two read financial statements and interpret data. 

Oh boy, you are a lost cause... Not wasting any more time on you.... XX)

Edit: Oh I forgot to mention you are being extremely rude and I could say back at ya, but I have some civility. You might want to tone it down a notch unless you feel that a debate is worth making enemies over...


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

bsenka said:


> All your posts prove is that you're equal parts ignorant and dishonest.


Wow - things are getting nasty.
Not something I'm used to on ehMac.

Couple of simple facts:

1. Last time I looked, Apple was either number 3 or 4 as far as market share of computers was concerned.
HP, then Dell, then a toss-up between Acer and Apple.
Considering that includes all the computers used in large business whih are still mostly PC, I find that pretty amazing.

2. Take a look what consumers use at a location where you can see a lot of laptops - airports, on a train, coffeeshops, universities, etc.
Invariably I see more Macs than all PC manufacturers combined.

3. In our company we switched from Macs to PCs many years ago. Dell offered a sweetheart deal that Apple couldn't or wouldn't match.
Endresult are a bunch of unhappy, unproductive employees and a computer support team that was increased from one individual to a total of seven now even though the number of computers are less than ever due to staff cuts.
None of those seven is ever going to recommend to go back to a Mac since six of them would lose their jobs.

The argument seems to be: "Since Apple doesn't offer the exact PC hardware configuration I dreamt up, it's OK to use OS X on non-Apple hardware"
People know it's wrong and illegal, some don't care, others try to justify it to themselves which is what's happening here.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

i kind of understand where bsenka is coming from.

I have a mac pro, and i'd never go to an all in one.

but at the same time it's foolish to expect apple to make a model for everyone. they have to concentrate on what they do best.

My only complaint with apple is they need to keep their 'pro' line up 'pro' (i.e put the express card BACK in the mbp, and straighten out the whole video card situation with the mac pro towers)

my advice to bsenka would be to look for a used mac pro. they're fantastic machines (brutal OS X video card support aside)


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

bsenka said:


> All your posts prove is that you're equal *parts ignorant and dishonest. *
> 
> If I sell 10 widgets and you sell 1 in Q1, and then I sell 8 widgets and you sell 3 in Q2, you did not do better than me in Q2. The article you posts tried to claim the opposite, but it's an outright lie.


I actually agree with a lot of your arguments and points, but its a shame you resorted to attacking a member, which will give you a 3 day vacation.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

i-rui said:


> i kind of understand where bsenka is coming from.
> 
> I have a mac pro, and i'd never go to an all in one.
> 
> ...


I've lamented for a long time that Apple does not make a more affordable consumer tower and a consumer portable with larger screen. 

I wish Apple would just try it once. I have a feeling their market share would be even higher than it is now.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> *I actually agree with a lot of your arguments and points*, but its a shame you resorted to attacking a member, which will give you a 3 day vacation.


I don't mean to be provocative here Mr. Mayor, I just want to understand your point of view. Could you elaborate on what arguments and points you agree with as it would be nice to debate them with someone who would not resort to personal attacks.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

ehMax said:


> I've lamented for a long time that Apple does not make a more affordable consumer tower and a consumer portable with larger screen.
> 
> I wish Apple would just try it once. I have a feeling their market share would be even higher than it is now.


The 27" iMac has thankfully somewhat addressed the second issue and it seems the low end iMac finally has a reasonably decent display as well.

For the moment I am on the sidelines hoping they will come up with a mid range pro model. The Mini still does not quite cut it and I would much prefer a 4:3 aspect ratio on a less glossy display so the iMac falls short as well. The full blown MacPro is outside of my price range.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Since nobody has mentioned the topic of the subject line of this thread in at least a week, I thought I'd throw in the fact that the "disabling" of the Atom processor alleged in one of the 10.6.2 betas is now moot. Probably just a QA oversight. Much ado about nothing, in short.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

chas_m said:


> Since nobody has mentioned the topic of the subject line of this thread in at least a week, I thought I'd throw in the fact that the "disabling" of the Atom processor alleged in one of the 10.6.2 betas is now moot. Probably just a QA oversight. Much ado about nothing, in short.


Yes we do sometimes (often) get side tracked...


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

screature said:


> I don't mean to be provocative here Mr. Mayor, I just want to understand your point of view. Could you elaborate on what arguments and points you agree with as it would be nice to debate them with someone who would not resort to personal attacks.


I personally think there is a substantial demand for something like the following. How many Mac users here would like:

Affordable Sexy Mac box (Maybe a little less than half the size of a Mac Pro) that had:
- Easily accessible, upgradable video card (Support for 2 displays). Could upgrade to newer, faster, cheaper video cards as they came out. 
- With above, flexibility for whatever size / type display(s) you like. Could upgrade to bigger, newer, cheaper displays as they came out. 
- Easily accessible, 2 full size 3.5" SATA drive bays. Could pop in more internal storage as needed or put in 1 SSD Boot drive and 1 2TB storage drive etc...
- 4 Ram slots to go up to 16GB of Ram if so desired. 
Sell for around $1299 Cdn.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

chas_m said:


> Since nobody has mentioned the topic of the subject line of this thread in at least a week, I thought I'd throw in the fact that the "disabling" of the Atom processor alleged in one of the 10.6.2 betas is now moot. Probably just a QA oversight. Much ado about nothing, in short.


actually it was already covered a day or two ago :



DR Hannon said:


> Looks like we were wrong. The atom is going to be supported after all. I just read on MDN that the new build corrects the problem with the atom support.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> I personally think there is a substantial demand for something like the following. How many Mac users here would like:
> 
> Affordable Sexy Mac box (Maybe a little less than half the size of a Mac Pro) that had:
> - Easily accessible, upgradable video card (Support for 2 displays). Could upgrade to newer, faster, cheaper video cards as they came out.
> ...


On that we can most definitely agree. This would be a dream machine for many.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

ehMax said:


> I personally think there is a substantial demand for something like the following. How many Mac users here would like:
> 
> Affordable Sexy Mac box (Maybe a little less than half the size of a Mac Pro) that had:
> - Easily accessible, upgradable video card (Support for 2 displays). Could upgrade to newer, faster, cheaper video cards as they came out.
> ...


it sounds great in principle, and i'd be all for it as long as it didn't raise the price on the mac pro line up.

I'd be worried that this machine would cannibalize a lot of the 'top end' sales, and that could mean apple having to raise the price on the mac pro. which would suck since it's already very expensive.

also, i had to giggle at the part about upgrading to "newer, faster, cheaper video cards"....sadly that has just not been the case with apple (and as much as i love apple, that would be my #1 complaint about them)


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

i-rui said:


> it sounds great in principle, and i'd be all for it as long as it didn't raise the price on the mac pro line up.
> 
> I'd be worried that this machine would cannibalize a lot of the 'top end' sales, and that could mean apple having to raise the price on the mac pro. which would suck since it's already very expensive.
> 
> also, i had to giggle at the part about upgrading to "newer, faster, cheaper video cards"....sadly that has just not been the case with apple (and as much as i love apple, that would be my #1 complaint about them)


It'd be Nvida and ATI/AMD making the video cards. Which maybe they'd be interested in making more cost effective video cards for Mac if there was a consumer market for these cards.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> it sounds great in principle, and i'd be all for it as long as it didn't raise the price on the mac pro line up.
> 
> I'd be worried that this machine would cannibalize a lot of the 'top end' sales, and that could mean apple having to raise the price on the mac pro. which would suck since it's already very expensive.
> 
> also, i had to giggle at the part about upgrading to "newer, faster, cheaper video cards"....sadly that has just not been the case with apple (and as much as i love apple, that would be my #1 complaint about them)


There are upgrade paths available, although they are few and far between. I not that long ago upgraded from my ATI 1800XT to the ATI HD 3870 Mac & PC Edition. An upgrade that actually cost less than the original card.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I'd buy that machine for sure. 

Apple is offloading a lot of the processing power with OS X to the GPU. I'd love that machine, say in 2 years time when I get a performance itch, to pop in a much faster video card for about $250-$300. 

Run out of space in 3 years, and pop in an extra 4TB Drive for about $150.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> it sounds great in principle, and i'd be all for it as long as it didn't raise the price on the mac pro line up.
> 
> I'd be worried that this machine would cannibalize a lot of the 'top end' sales, and that could mean apple having to raise the price on the mac pro. which would suck since it's already very expensive.
> 
> also, i had to giggle at the part about upgrading to "newer, faster, cheaper video cards"....sadly that has just not been the case with apple (and as much as i love apple, that would be my #1 complaint about them)


Yes the whole cannibalization issue is a tough one and I think one of the main reasons that Apple does not produce a mid size tower product as it may not only cannibalize sales on the Mac Pro but on the high-end iMacs as well.

They are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one and I am not sure how they would resolve it in a way that didn't affect they bottom line adversely.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> There are upgrade paths available, although they are few and far between. I not that long ago upgraded from my ATI 1800XT to the ATI HD 3870 Mac & PC Edition. An upgrade that actually cost less than the original card.


yes, i also currently have a 3870. great card, but my issue is relative to what's available on the windows side of things apple is 2 years behind on video cards. 

I'm not saying that they have to write drivers for EVERY card out there, but they should pick a few , and keep CURRENT with what's out there.

And they should also NOT charge a 200% mark up on the card relative to the same thing on the PC side.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I can't see how anything could cannibalize Mac Pro sales any more than the iMac already is.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> I can't see how anything could cannibalize Mac Pro sales any more than the iMac already is.


Yes, well certainly the new quad core iMac is blurring the lines more than ever. However, it is still the "expandability"/easy user customization issue of a mini tower that would potentially affect Mac Pro sales more than the processor/memory IMHO.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> yes, i also currently have a 3870. great card, but my issue is relative to what's available on the windows side of things apple is 2 years behind on video cards.
> 
> I'm not saying that they have to write drivers for EVERY card out there, but they should pick a few , and keep CURRENT with what's out there.
> 
> And they should also NOT charge a 200% mark up on the card relative to the same thing on the PC side.


No doubt. The video card aspect is definitely a weak point for Macs, pretty much always has been.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

screature said:


> No doubt. The video card aspect is definitely a week point for Macs, pretty much always has been.


Which my consumer Mini Mac Pro would help fix. 

If you build it, better video cards will come. If the only market for ATI and Nvidia is a small percentage of Mac Pro, the economy of scale takes effect. 

Admit it... you want a Mini Mac Pro.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> Which my consumer Mini Mac Pro would help fix.
> 
> If you build it, better video cards will come. If the only market for ATI and Nvidia is a small percentage of Mac Pro, the economy of scale takes effect.
> 
> Admit it... you want a Mini Mac Pro.


:lmao: :lmao: No, not really. I just want the money to be able to afford:










:lmao: :lmao: :clap:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

ehMax said:


> I personally think there is a substantial demand for something like the following. How many Mac users here would like:
> 
> Affordable Sexy Mac box (Maybe a little less than half the size of a Mac Pro) that had:
> - Easily accessible, upgradable video card (Support for 2 displays). Could upgrade to newer, faster, cheaper video cards as they came out.
> ...


Count me in, especially if it had a tray load optical drive.

FWIW Make airport and bluetooth optional rather than built in. So many of us will never use either.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Never could quite undertstand how someone can refer to a computer as 'sexy'. Unless, of course, you're using it for purposes other than, er……computing. I imagine some people develop a very, er, _close_ relationship with their machine.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

Well, 10.6.2 is out, and all reports indicate that it's Bye Bye ATOM - at least until the hackers get an older kernel or a hacked kernel working...


----------



## 9780 (Sep 14, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Never could quite undertstand how someone can refer to a computer as 'sexy'. Unless, of course, you're using it for purposes other than, er……computing. I imagine some people develop a very, er, _close_ relationship with their machine.


Words can have more than just a literal meaning

Sexy Definition | Definition of Sexy at Dictionary.com

see #3


----------



## vfr (Jul 22, 2009)

fyrefly said:


> Well, 10.6.2 is out, and all reports indicate that it's Bye Bye ATOM - at least until the hackers get an older kernel or a hacked kernel working...


The current 'hack' is to make the 10.6.2 kernel think it is running on a Intel Core CPU. Works real good.

:heybaby:


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

ehMax said:


> I personally think there is a substantial demand for something like the following. How many Mac users here would like:
> 
> Affordable Sexy Mac box (Maybe a little less than half the size of a Mac Pro) that had:
> - Easily accessible, upgradable video card (Support for 2 displays). Could upgrade to newer, faster, cheaper video cards as they came out.
> ...


+10 :clap:

I could move a dozen of these by tomorrow morning, given my client base. :clap:


----------

