Psystar has a point, Apple's policies do reek of monopolization and non-competitiveness. In the current legal environment I'd be surprised if Apple took this to court since they have far more to lose than gain. As mentioned in the article, they'll most likely just put out an OS update that will brick all the Psystar clones.

I agree that Apples policy of Mac OSX on Mac only contravenes all laws of competition. But why can't a company who produces hardware demand a certain exclusivity on what their software is used on?
I just feel that if OSX is suddenly able to be loaded on any hardware then it will go the way of Windows trying to fit all sizes and ultimately failing at it.
Somewhere along the line I believe a company should have control over their intellectual property. Perhaps what should go is this litigant mentality that is ultimately only making legal professionals rich and removing corporate and personal freedom.

What if Apple doesn't sue, but allows its OS to run onjust any PC?

This would be a real threat to Windows on desktops! Not quite sudden death for MS, but hey!

I'd surely like this to happen more than Apple to win a legal fight.

If I was Apple, I'd even support Psystar, for a license fee, to make the OS available on just about anything. In a few years we might see the cash cow of MS falter, and OS X grow into a new, huge and fat cash cow for Apple, additional to the iPod.

Apple will undoubtedly take some legal action, they're absolutely mercenary in this respect.

As for OSX replacing Windows as suggested by a few people, I really don't think so. The price, usability, support, 3rd party offerings and limited use are all major obstacles.

Oh and don't forget OSX is just Linux with a sprinkling of Apple to spruce up the front end, so there is relatively little IP in there for Apple to claim as there own.

I think clone manufacturers should be encouraged, maybe it'll bring Apple down a peg and they'll begin pricing their kit for what it really is and not for the logo on the side. Though I do think Apples hardware is always good quality, its never 33% more expensive worth of extra quality.

(I have a mac and several linux & windows' sytems, so can compare them in an unbiased way).

Simon

Personally, I think this is great news and it's just what Apple needs - and they deserve it too!

Apple's hardware quality has diminished considerably in the past several years and their customer service went from being the best in the 80s, to the absolute worst today.

I have several friends who spent thousands of dollars on Mac hardware that made it just past the 1yr. warranty period and then self-destructed - and Apple just shrugged their shoulders and said buy a new one! When you pay a premium, you expect better quality and better service.

They never show THAT in those cute Mac vs. PC commercials. They should have the PC guy going to the Mac kid's funeral 36 times in a row AND having to pay the bill each time.

Their growing (and yet still tiny) market share has made them arrogant and they need some competition on their own turf to remind them how important their customers are.

Until they figure it out, I'll be sticking with my 7-year-old G4. Or maybe I'll just buy one of these clones...

Maybe what's missing from the argument here is the advantage that the limited hardware environment brings to Apple. OK, so they need to support various USB & Firewire devices, and plug-in cards, but the basic systems that MacOS currently has to support are limited. This helps make a more stable OS. If Apple do open up to other hardware, it certainly makes the support issues for the OS more difficult.

The fact that Apple only allows there OS to run on Apple hardware is not by any stretch of the definition, a monopoly. There product is not the OS (as with Microsoft), but the whole computer, hardware and software. And as long as there is choice, it is not a monopoly.

Is it possible that a contributing factor to Windows' instability is the fact that the OS has to conform to such a wide range of hardware platforms and components? Could restricting Mac OS to Mac hardware have a hand in that system's reliability, which might not be reproduced on clone hardware? I guess I just wonder whether there's a legitimate technical reason for Apple's exclusivity policy, instead of or in addition to the business reasons cited above.

Well for starters a $50 saving isn't that much considering the great service apple provides. And I agree that the software and the hardware should be viewed as a whole package from a proprietary stand point. But there is always going to be a 'kmart' shopper (someone who will shop where they perceive the prices are less, even if they aren't and the overall value is less) and this would actually be a way for mac to capture that market, at least with software. But you can't be all things to all people. That is a recipe for business failure in the long term.

The argument that Apple's Macs are a monopoly makes about as much sense as Mercedes being a monopoly on Mercedes Benz, after all it's the only choice for thier cars. Apple is not the stranglehold position currently enjoyed by Microsoft.

Apple is not Linux "with some odds sprinkled in" it is build on a BSD core, with heavy foundations from NeXTStep and major new APIs such as Cocoa and Quartz. Those who think that OS X is just Linux witha little bit of stuff must run nothing but command line applications. They should be running Darwin which is freely available for PC binaries and source.

Apple is not a software company, it sells hardware with software created specifically for that hardware.

While Psystar may sound like a good deal remember this. You're buying a configuration which Apple has absolutely no obligation to support updatewise. Psytar's ability to provide support for future updates can not be guaranteed to the same level. You may be getting a bargain, but keep in mind the risks.

One other thing.... if you check Psystar's FAQ, they explicitly state that they will not provide instructions on how to install Leopard on thier machines. If you hose your boot drive, you'll have to rely on them to fix it.

My perspective of what the legal and moral precedent should be is this: As a consumer when you buy a product it is really up to you how you choose to use it. If you want to drink your soda out of a bowl instead of a glass it's your choice. You bought the soda, the glass, and the bowl. Consume your soda as you feel is best. However if you drop the bowl on your foot, and break a toe it's not the fault of the soda manufacturer. They never stated their soda was compatible with a bowl, and they don't support using their product in that fashion. If you found my analogy stupid that's because it was meant to be. Drinking soda out of a bowl is stupid, and running OSX on any hardware other than what it's meant to be run on is also stupid.

No, it's not a monopoly at all. Apple makes a complete product. Does it not have competition? It sure does. \

Any cellphone has it's own internal software too, but you can't install Nokia's OS on another product. Apple gives it's OS away compared to Microsoft. Why? Because they make their money on hardware. They have every right to make their OS run on their hardware only. It's what they sell.

Well the big advantage to this particular computer is that if Apple should brick it with an update, you can just dump to linux or (shudders) windows, with it. However, I totally agree that apple's exclusivitiy on its OS is anti-competitive.

A monopoly is a monopoly and apple has a monopoly on Apple products which really are one of a kind and dont fall into competition with windows.

Well the big advantage to this particular computer is that if Apple should brick it with an update, you can just dump to linux or (shudders) windows, with it.

As far as running OSX on "HArdware its designed to run on" That argument went out the window when Apple switched its architecture to Intel Chips. OSX is a proprietary Linux OS with a pretty GUI in the same vein as RedHat. Its hardware now is nothing more than a slightly specialized PC.

However, I totally agree that apple's exclusivitiy on its OS is anti-competitive.

A monopoly is a monopoly and apple has a monopoly on Apple products which really are one of a kind and dont fall into competition with windows.

What I find amusing is that most of these articles comparing the Psystar desktop to the Apple Mac Mini fail to note that the Mini is made from laptop parts. This is done to fit everything into such a small case. Basically the comparison is between a laptop and a desktop computer... Rarely will a laptop beat a desktop of similar configuration no matter what OS they run.

If anything, I hope that Apple will realize that there is a market, and demand, for a computer between the Mac Mini/iMac and the Mac Pro. I have an iMac but I'd really rather have a computer a little more upgradeable. I think many people would like to have more than just one drive bay, but not need 4, 2 bays would be nice. Give the computer 2 slots, one being dedicated to the video card. Let us throw in 8 gig of ram. Those options would appeal to many people buying a new mac but don't want to spend the big bucks on the Mac Pro.

As for everyone thinking Apple computers are so much more costly than similar pc's, you should really compare equally configured computers and you'll see that the difference is minimal to non-existent now. Granted, there are some exceptions especially when you compare the high end items in the product line.... Would someone find a PC with dual quad core 3.2 GHz Xeons, 4 TB of SATA storage, 32 GIG Ram, two dual-link DVI NVIDIA Quadro FX 5600 1.5GB (Stereo 3D) cards, Raid card, and 2 dual layer dvd burners, 802.11n wireless, bluetooth, and two 30" flat panel displays to compare a fully decked out Mac Pro? Just curious, can one be configured in such a manner? For the record, Apple's price for such a computer setup is $22,547. I suppose that falls in the category of if you had to ask, you couldn't afford it....

The monopoly talk is just silly. Does the Wii, PS3, or xBox 360 have a monopoly? No? But how can that be if they don't let you run their OS on the other consoles? The OS in each case is made for the hardware configuration each company sells as a complete package.

I don't think Apple will be able to brick the Pystars with an update. From what I understand any updates would have to come from Pystar, at least according to Pystar. So in theory they would kind of sort of have a proven method to upgrade, should that time arrive.

The "sell the hardware and throw in the OS for free" and "Apple doesn't sell software" arguements are BS. Think back... when OS 9 was current and 10 was released, it was for sale, in a box, on store shelves. Kinda like, um, a whole separate product! A software product... that they sell exclusive of hardware. Yes, there hardware comes with an OS loaded and no choice out of the box, but how many computers are sold my major manufacturers without an OS preloaded? (Not counting special orders for companies with volume licenses.)

I don't give a, er, I'm not bothered that someone is trying to horn in on Apple's hardware sales, I just object to bogus arguments that make the arguee sound like a rabid, unthinking, blind Apple loyalist. Just because you prefer a particular product doesn't mean that you have to drink the Kool-aid.

Psystar is going to get butthurt by Apple VERY VERY FAST.

Hackintosh computers should NOT be mass-produced, let alone put for sale in general (save that guy who sold his MacOSx86 HP on eBay. I think that was pretty kickass, and I don't think Apple got their nuts in a jar).

This could become a huge incident.

-exprice

wow...
Yes Apple has now sued Psystar, we'll see where it goes.

I cant pass up all the comments I saw about OSX being Linux. OSX has nothing to do with Linux period, at all. OSX uses Darwin, which was based off FreeBSD. BSD is a unix-like OS, such as Linux, but BSD and Linux are not the same thing.

As of OSX 10.5, OSX is now a certified UNIX OS... something Linux should try to do some day.

OSX is MUCH different than just some other UNIX or UNIX-like OS. Anyone who thinks it is has not researched very much information about it.