Psystar Mac clones

Discussion in 'Gear' started by Puck, Nov 10, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Remember, Apple has paid to develop this OS for over a decade (if you include OS9 and earlier, it's over 25 years). Apple charges less for a copy of OS X than Microsoft does for Windows. Apple passes some of that charge along with the hardware, which allows people to upgrade the operating system more cheaply. They aren't looking to make big profits on software sales (as Microsoft does), they want to sell hardware. It also makes piracy less of a concern when they can make the software cheaper by increasing hardware costs.

    When cloners come in and don't have to account for those development costs, the hardware is cheaper. But it isn't fair to Apple in a business sense. Hell, at least when Apple allowed cloners, they had to pay Apple for the rights. Psystar doesn't do that.
  2. SEC 330 BIPOLAR

    SEC 330 BIPOLAR jive turkey

    I feel like the hobbyist should be able to build and run whatever he or she wants. Maybe it's not fair to Apple to let the Sonys and Dells of the manufacturing world create Apple machines. I can see that but someone who wants to bother with building a case and wiring mb jumpers and configuring bios or whatever the apple equivalent is should be allowed to. If I wanted to build a car from junk, parts, and catalog orders who is General Motors to tell me I can't?
    • High Five High Five x 1
  3. A Fightin'Titan

    A Fightin'Titan Starter


    This entire thread has been somewhat over my head but I say great analogy!


    But .........
    ...... if you start building and selling cars to a mass amount of people I am sure GM would have something to say.

    By the way ..... I own a PC ... is that bad? Hahaha
    • High Five High Five x 1
  4. GoT

    GoT Strength and Honor Tip Jar Donor

    GM makes junk cars with factory parts. They would probably contract you out as a cost saving device. Make sure too add something with an electric plug so you can claim it is a hybrid and you are ready too roll
  5. You can build whatever hardware you want, but that doesn't mean you have the right to use any OS you want. When you install the OS (or basically any software) you have to agree to a license agreement. Apple's ties the OS to their hardware.
    • High Five High Five x 1
  6. Puck

    Puck Pro Bowler


    the EULA (end user license agreement) for OSX states that Macintosh software only be installed on Apple hardware
  7. SEC 330 BIPOLAR

    SEC 330 BIPOLAR jive turkey

    I think that's gay. [​IMG]

    Apple isn't going to lose much if anything at all. I doubt the average computer buyer is going to assemble a tower off of zipzoomfly or newegg. If anything apple would steal an OS sale from microsoft. Apple isn't going to lose on sales of machines. Hardly anyone wants to bother with a build. It's a great way to go but the appeal is limited.

    I also question the legality of their EULA. It reminds me of the Microsoft anti-trust case. Bill Gates was not allowed to tie his browser to his OS so why should Apple be allowed to tie their OS to their machines?

    I think a fair and equitable way to dispose of the matter would be for Apple to offer their OS to hobbyists/builders at a price that is high enough to be fair to Apple and in line with what the competition markets. Otherwise Apple looks like the spoiled child that didn't like the game so he takes his ball home with him to prevent the other children from playing.
  8. Slackmaster

    Slackmaster Starter

    The problem is that they would have to support hardware configurations they can't control.

    It is easy to make it work well with known and limited configurations.

    But adding different devices means expanding the driver base. Apple would either have to spend on that, or acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes, and that OS X is quite similar to free Unix based operating systems except for those little hardware and GUI tweaks.

    • High Five High Five x 1
  9. Like I said, Apple pushes some of the extra development costs from the OS to the hardware. They make their money on hardware sales (unlike MS). That's why they don't allow just anyone to run their OS.

    The MS antitrust case was only about their abuse of their monopoly to run competing companies out of business. Apple doesn't have a monopoly (as they have less than 10% of the computer market and no one has to have a Mac) to abuse.

    Apple isn't taking the ball away. They sell computers. People who want to buy one can. And if you want a cheaper computer or want to build one yourself, there's still Windows or Linux.

    The fact that OS X is in such demand just goes to show why Apple can get away with charging a little more. Supply and demand...
  10. Puck

    Puck Pro Bowler

    Psystar had a judge throw out their case against Apple over anti-trust the other day ... kinda there last stand. however, they are still operating and still taking orders
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.