RussianMac Pro, Entertainment Center, Russian MiniMac
RussianMac Standard, RussianMac Book, RussianMac MiniBook
Posted on 05/20/2009 10:33:33 PM PDT by Swordmaker
RussianMac is the latest company to release a Mac clone and test Apple's resolve to stop companies from selling its operating system.
On its Web site, RussianMac says that a full version of Mac OS X Leopard comes pre-installed on its computers. The company also confirms that the operating system is able to receive automatic system updates from Apple once installed.
This is where Apple seems to have the clone-makers over a barrel. Apple's Mac OS X End User License Agreement (EULA) clearly forbids anyone from installing the software on hardware not sold by Apple. This effectively closes the door on companies determined to make a Mac clone.
However, RussianMac maintains that it does not violate the terms of the EULA agreement because the operating system was purchased directly from Apple. That still doesn't get around the condition of installing it on an Apple-branded machine.
Legit or not, it is a popular argument. Germany-based PearC is using that defense to sell Mac clone computers in that country.
Of course, in the U.S., Psystar is the case everyone has heard about. The company first made headlines in April 2008 when it released its first Mac clone with Mac OS X pre-installed.
Apple filed a lawsuit against Psystar in July 2008, claiming the company was violating copyright and software licensing agreements.
The legal battle is ongoing between Psystar and Apple. The two are set to meet in court on November 9. Most legal experts expect Apple to ultimately prevail in the case.
Because the laws in each country are different, it's unclear whether Apple could be successful in Russia or Germany.
'The first part of the phrase is often mistranslated and remembered in the west as "let a thousand flowers bloom" '
- Wikipedia
For some reason I have never heard "thousand".
pin yin does not matter
If you want to know how to to pronounce an unfamiliar Chinese character it is very useful. Even the Chinese use it.
Then you couldn't control how it works. And that it works is what Apple is all about.
They don't sell low end. They have more net profit than Dell on a whole lot less units.
IIRC, in the old days anyway it was the ROM that made it Apple. No longer true?
Apple's business model is not Microsoft's, and Apple is fighting these court battles precisely for the right to maintain their high-end model - they design elegant-appearing and good quality hardware, and they sell that hardware at a premium price. Part of what supports their pricing is the quality of OS X which is bundled with the Mac, and the fact that OS X may not legally be run on anything but a Mac. And, of course, the fact that purchasers of new Macs rely on the example of the owners of older Macs being able to upgrade to ever-improving versions of OS X for a reasonable price, and they assume that they will be able to do the same in a year or two, if they want.These clones actually are an attack on the ability of Apple to maintain that strategy instead of switching over to direct competition with Windows on Microsoft's business model. And I almost wouldn't put it past Microsoft to be behind that effort to commoditize Macs. That certainly is the thrust of Microsoft's price-only comparison ads between Macs and PCs.
You omitted the part that Mr. Gow refused it.
Here is the story how Macintosh got the name, from the Horse's mouth
Jef Raskin said: "“I intentionally changed the spelling,” insists Raskin. “I’m a pretty good speller. Writing is one of the things I do well. The name of the apple is McIntosh. I thought that would lead us to a conflict with McIntosh Laboratory, the hi-fi manufacturer. So I used the spelling Macintosh, figuring that if it conflicted with the overcoat, who cares?”
This "good speller" twisted the fact that overcoat is spelled Mackintosh, not Macintosh. He is no fool, he only tries to hide the fact that Apple DELIBERATELLY used Macintosh name because McIntosh is household name of with the allure of the highest quality, like Rolls Royce, Rolex or Cartier. At that time many affluent people never heard of Apple Computers and thought that McIntosh Laboratory is making one.
And Apple had to pay for this ploy.
According to the article quoted above, "However, in late March 1983, Apple managed to license the rights to the name and in 1986 purchased the trademark outright. Although the terms of these agreements remain confidential to this day, it has been reported that Apple paid $100,000 in cash for the Macintosh name. According to McIntosh’s legal counsel, that’s “substantially off the mark” and the real payoff was “significantly higher.”
Roger Russell, long time McIntosh executive gives more details on his web site:
"McIntosh entered into a license agreement with the Apple Computer Company. The agreement was for 10 years and allowed Apple Computer to use the Macintosh name in connection with computer production. There was a fee paid by Apple to McIntosh at the beginning of the agreement. Although the spelling was not the same, it sounded the same when it was spoken. The following statement appeared on the label on the back of the Macintosh Plus 1Mb computer.
Apple and the Apple logo are registered trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc. Macintosh is a trademark of McIntosh Laboratory, Inc. and is being used with express permission of its owner".
I am an old Freeper hand and never write things I am not positive about.
RussianMac says that a full version of Mac OS X Leopard comes pre-installed on its computers. The company also confirms that the operating system is able to receive automatic system updates from Apple once installed.I'm sure this is harmless, like all the Russian email spam, phishing, hacking, etc.
He is no fool, he only tries to hide the fact that Apple DELIBERATELLY used Macintosh name because McIntosh is household name of with the allure of the highest quality, like Rolls Royce, Rolex or Cartier. At that time many affluent people never heard of Apple Computers and thought that McIntosh Laboratory is making one.So, you're also a psychic?
Hundred is correct but thousand sounds better and was how it used to be. I never heard of hundred until today.
How does someone mistranslate 1000 into 100? Something is fishy
You are right that they did pay some royalties. My bad recollection.
My main disagreement with you is your assertion that Apple deliberately chose the name Macintosh to imply a quality relationship with the audio equipment company. That is simply not true. You are inferring from the name similarities something that is not there.
Apple already had an excellent reputation among the public and did not need to attach its products to any other manufacturer, especially a small niche market one. Quite frankly, not that many people were familiar with the name McIntosh when they bought audio equipment. It was priced out of the reach of most people in Apple's target market. It was the high-end niche seller in the audiophile market. It was certainly not a high awareness brand in the computer community. Most people would not make any connection at all with a company that was then selling CD players for $2000 and speakers for up to $36,000. If anything, Apple would not have wanted to associate its new computer with the most expensive audio equipment on the planet, especially after having experienced a PR nightmare with the Lisa's $9,995 price tag that was perceived by the public as being way too pricey (although way under priced compared to other business workstation grade computers with which it was intended to compete that were in the $15 and up range).
(Contrary to myth, the Mac was more than price competitive in its market. Apple priced the original 16bit 128K Mac at $2495, lower than an IBM PC with 2 8.25" floppies, no HD, 128K RAM, and green screen monitor was around $2999 in early 1984. The IBM AT, IBM's first 16 bit PC, was released 7 months after the Mac at $4000 to $6700, depending on configuration.)
Apple succeeded in gaining permission to use "Macintosh" from McIntosh Laboratories in mid 1983, prior to the 1984 release if the Apple Macintosh computer, so there could have been no penalties attached. Just three years later, in 1986, Apple acquired all rights to the name "Macintosh" as a Trademark in computer related products regardless of how it was pronounced, homophone or not, with ML's acquiescence. Apple was never infringing McIntosh Laboratories Trademarks.
Also from Jef Raskin, your horse's mouth:
"I named it for my favorite kind of eatin' apple, the succulent McIntosh (I changed the spelling of the name to avoid potential conflict with McIntosh, the audio equipment manufacturer)."
According to Raskin, Apple also paid Mackintosh Rainwear a licensing fee... which was probably totally unnecessary as there are many non-competing products in differing industries with identical trademarked names. Certainly no one would mistake a computer for a raincoat unless it is someone with a pathology such as "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat."
"Glen Cole asks if my attempt to avoid trademark conflict wiht McIntosh audio equipment by spelling the computer "Macintosh" were successful. He correctly remembers that it was not. Apple even had to pay the raincoat manufacturer for use of the name, I have no idea why. Glen also asks how I feel about the nickname "Mac" for the product. Fine, we used it from the very beginning."
By the way, you are aware that Jef Raskin left Apple in early 1982, at a time when Apple's products were NOT released with the project code name which is what "Macintosh" was, and way before any marketing decisions for the Macintosh would even start to be considered? It was Steve Jobs who decided to retain the working name as the product name.
Before Apple owned the rights to the name Macintosh completely, the total licensing cost to Apple from the various companies that were using some variation of Macintosh or Mac, was under $2 million. In addition to McIntosh Labs and Mackintosh Rainwear, Apple also had to pay a Philadelphia company, Management and Computer Services, Inc., for the use of the plural name "Macs." In the internal dispute between Jobs and Sculley about using the project code name of Macintosh for the final product, CEO John Sculley says:
. . . “Steve (Jobs) prevailed, but it ultimately cost us nearly $2 million in out-of-court settlements.”The other company appears to be Management and Computer Services Inc., a small Philadelphia software company.
In 1985, Apple settled a trademark infringement suit with MACS Inc. for an undisclosed sum, according to a Jan. 24 report from the Associated Press:
“Apple Computer Inc. will pay an undisclosed sum to Management and Computer Services Inc. to settle a trademark-infringement lawsuit, the companies said today. The software company sued Apple for using ‘Mac’ to describe items associated with its Macintosh personal computer. Management and Computer Services uses ‘Macs’ as a trademark.”
None of these were deliberate. It's just the normal course of events in a world of Trademarks and legal entanglements. It is also why most of the other computer makers and drug producers pay big bucks to come up with weird sounding names that can't be related to any other product.
For some strange reason MAC Cosmetics, MACK Trucks, and BigMac, have not sued or been sued by Apple for trademark infringing name usage.
Now, if you want to talk about Apple's use of the name iPhone infringing CISCO's iPhone, you might have a case.
In the old days it was not only the ROM but also proprietary hardware and cabling that made it Apple. Apple's ADB cable, for example, is identical to a S-Video cable... but then it was hard to find. Apple's serial cable, needed to connect to printers, etc., was certainly proprietary. Apple also used SCSI externals... much harder to find than PC externals. Apple had it's own line of printers, HDs, etc., that worked only with Apples. Internally, the floppy drive was buttonless and had extra circuitry added that PC floppies did not have. HDs were SCSI, and RAM was finicky about make and usually had to have a check sum RAM chip added... requiring nine RAM chips while PCs only needed eight... making it more expensive.
Re the ROM: To get OS 9 and under to work on a non-Apple product, you either had to have a software image of the ROM or the actual ROM itself. I recall trying to find a legal ROM (Apple required repair shops to return ROMS that were replaced) to use in my Amiga Mac emulator. I finally bought a dead Mac from a kid for $20 and pulled the ROM myself.
I think you mean 100 into 1000. My guess is that hardly anyone was actually translating from the Chinese. Most English speakers were just quoting something they had heard previously. Somewhere along the line one or more persons misquoted "hundred" as "thousand" because they forgot and/or because as you say it "sounded better".
Once a misquote gets into general circulation, especially on the internet, it's almost impossible to stamp out. I've seen several cases of this recently.
Thanks for the detailed response. Always eager to learn. I have nothing against Apple technology and design but I am highly skeptical of Apple's questionable business ethics, e.g. entering into music business against the settlement agreement with Apple Corps, Cisco's IPhone infringement you mentioned or the way IMac was advertised ("millions of colors" when it was capable of only 250K) or how owners whose Macbooks had faulty logic boards were treated.
As of McIntosh audio equipment, it was considered "doctors and lawyers stereo" since 1950s a and one of the better known American brands worldwide due to no-nonsense design and good value for money. Their core products were reasonably priced, 1/4 to 1/2 of 1984 Mac sticker price.
Consumer brand perception today is way different from what it was in 1982. Today, Apple brand is #6 on the list and giants from 1982 are nowhere in sight.
The disputed MacBook Pros and later 3nd Generation 20" iMacs involved in the two lawsuits actually could and did produce millions of colors... just not the 16.7 million discrete shades that an 8 bit display can provide that some thought was implied.
Apple used a sub-pixel brightness (Frame Rate Control) dithering technique, rapidly shifting a sub-pixel between two of the 64 possible shades on each of the three sub-pixel color diodes many times per second to simulate the shades that the discrete digital colors could not display constantly. With human persistence of vision, it was possible to display a perceived millions colors. If I recall correctly, the number of dithered shades was somewhere around 16.2 million colors. Of course the 1024 x 768 MacBookPro display that was in dispute at the time was capable of showing only 786,432 pixels at any one time. The 20" iMac display was capable of 2,304,000 pixels.
Apple did not advertise 16.7 million colors, or 24bit "Trucolor" as many of the other LCD companies did when reporting the capabilities of their 6 bit LCD screens, instead opting for the more accurate "millions of colors."
One of the lawsuits was settled out of court, the other was dismissed when Apple provided expert information showing that the 6bit displays could indeed produce millions of colors.
Their core products were reasonably priced, 1/4 to 1/2 of 1984 Mac sticker price.
When I culled out the older models, I don't find your 1/4 to 1/2 Mac pricing for the 1982-1985 production McIntosh products from your own link. Instead I find prices varying on the two pages for those production years from $1199 up for a single component (two channel amplifiers) of a multi-component system. This unit is hardly "reasonably priced" when in 1984 you could buy a top of the line Sony or Pioneer complete system for that same $1200.
By the way, thanks for the McIntosh history link. I got curious and did some more exploring. I did find on the loudspeaker pages some 1982-1985 model speakers that went from $199 (for a single bookshelf sized speaker of a pair) to speakers for $28,450 (with almost $14,000 of that for Rosewood and polyurathane trim... since Oak, Walnut and Ash versions of the same speaker hardware were almost $14K)... those prices are at least for a pair of speakers.
Also, which router besides Airport Express would you use? Thanks for your help... and thanks for all the Apple updates.
That was a pre-internet misquote
Apple will lose against the Russians - just look at how ineffective the RIAA has been against the Russian music pirates who "legally" sell music in .mp3 formats for pennies on the dollar compared to legit channels. Russia, like the Chinese, don't give a rip about US copyright/patent/trademark laws. And what can a company do about it?
Wrong - one has to emulate the open firmware of Apple to get the OS to install. This cannot be done through just simply matching components.
Apple using the "Macintosh" name to play off of McIntosh's reputation? Gee, and all this time, I thought Macintosh was a type of apple... stupid me.
Yet another falsehood - at least with Apple's very profitable business model. Apple tried the licensed "clone" avenue for a time - it just about killed them. To compete with the clone makers, they had to drop hardware quality (though they never stooped to pure commodity parts). It was a nightmare on many sides - from Apple trying to support hardware from many companies that used cheap or marginal parts - then threw it to Apple to support it since it was the OS that choked on the crap. Apple lost sales of hardware, which was their foundation. And consumers got jerked around when clone makers went belly up and the eventual closing of the clone licensing. Apple's OS reputation was damaged by the clones and their affect...
I think Apple's current business model is working well, as they are by far the most profitable computer manufacturer. Now with 10%+ market share (and higher in the notebook category), Apple swept every category in the recent Consumer Reports computer testing.
Wile I am as budget conscious as anyone, I am willing to pay a premium for something better. This isn't only related to the OS, but to Apple's overall better-built hardware.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.