PC World Forums: Psystar Deserves a Chance to Compete - PC World Forums

Post your comments for Psystar Deserves a Chance to Compete here

I have used macs in the past and to tell you the truth I like the feeling of it. Smooth interface, stable system and a really "cool" feeling by just using it. Still I hate apple for their price. Sure you should take pride on what you do and how you do it, but do not steal my money. I would accept a somewhat higher price due to the quality of the products and the level of innovation... but not something that leaves me with the feeling that I've been made a fool.

Competition will make Apple better and in the end it will mean better products, reasonable prices and more loyal constumers

The history of personal computing is littered with hardware makers who created operating systems specifically to run on their respective hardware platforms. Then came IBM and their PC. IBM didn't believe personal computers (that means anything that's not a mainframe or mini computer) would ever be an important enough marketing segment to warrant creating their own OS or BIOS. It was that fatal, flawed logic that allowed the PC to become the defacto standard in personal computers. It was the "outsourcing" of the OS and BIOS that allowed for the "clone" market to become the current crop of x86 compatable computers. Because IBM didn't control the OS or BIOS, they ultimately didn't get to control the terms of their use.
Apple remains the only real survivor of those early days in computing. Their OS was written and designed specifically for the purpose of pushing their hardware platform. There was a brief time, during the early days of the PowerPC processor when Apple licensed other computer makers to make PowerPC compatable hardware. Their OS was also licensed to run on those PowerPC devices. Unfortunately, it proved too little too late to really compete against the already entrenched PC compatables. As a result the experiment was ended and again, Apple was the only hardware platform for which their OS was licensed.
Now because they have adopted an Intel processor platform, with "hacks" their OS will function on pretty much any PC compatable. However, it remains the OS is still only licensed to run on Apple hardware. Until that changes, Psystar has no legal standing for their claims. To be certain, I'd love to be able to run OS X on a less expensive platform. However, I'm realistic enough to acknowledge it's unlikely that will ever become a legal option until such time as Apple decides to license the OS for other hardware.
Oh well... of the six people in our family, three of us (myself included) own Macs. I also own an HP. I have to say, my Mac pushes both its own OS and Windows better than the HP--this in spite of the fact that the HP has more memory, a bigger HDD, and higher-end video card. The Mac hardware simply runs better and the drive work better than their HP counter parts. If I had to guess, I'd say that's reason enough to warrant the higher cost--just to get a better, more sound hardware platform.
I'm sure there are those who will argue my point. Still, I'm very happy with my Apple hardware and since I've owned more than twenty computers in the same number of years, I think I've gained a little experience with them (I've also been building and servicing them for a living in that same time period).

In the days when Apple controlled it's own hardware maybe, but now running on identical processors and boards of a PC, with only a slight difference in BIOS, I think the time has come for Apple clones, and not the frankenclone Psystar is selling, real MAC clones

Slattery does a poor job at representing the free market. Apple's success shouldn't have anything to do with the case. If Psystar is breaking copyright laws than they should pay Apple for it.

Apple can stand some competition and Psystar is the first direct competitor to Apple. The problem with the clone makers in the 1990's was that the clone machines were superior in performance to the actual Macs being made. Now Apple has better hardware, they are having success at the expense of consumers. Artificially inflated costs to a "superior" OS platform. The only problem is that Leopard hasn't been superior to Vista. The constant bugs, flaws, and the over 250 plus patches in 2008 for Leopard indicates a platform with coding and security issues. This was also verified by the National Vulnerability Database run by the U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team. Apple's success is starting to show its hubris with the failed launch of Mobile Me, the disasterous launch of the iPhone 3G with insufficient registration servers, the 10.5.6 update, and lackluster security focus.



Psystar's response is to Apple losing its edge. Its inviting Microsoft back with Windows 7 and by many accounts from testers, Microsoft is succeeding with the Windows 7 beta. The beta enthusiasm from critics, fans, and independents will come back to haunt Apple. Psystar needs a much stronger legal team to challenge Apple. I think they can succeed if they get a stronger legal team, focus on the artifical inflation of prices, the hinderance of people to use OS-X in a virutal or non-Apple environment, and the unfair bundling practices that Microsoft was busted for. As soon as I can, I'll buy me a Psystar machine in support of those guys. Apple can beat the clone market by lowering the cost of their machines, no more Mobile Me style debacles, creating a Security Development LifeCycle similar to what Microsoft is doing, and starting a public beta program.

Competition and free enterprise is what built the world's economy. Anyone intent on stopping that will get crushed by the common good.

~~~~~~~~~
There are more of us, than there are of them.
~ Axiom of democracy