Psystar looks to challenge Apple over ‘Mac clone’ claims
by Stevie Smith - Apr 16 2008, 12:45
Talkback
page: 1 2
You guys will never get it. Apple is much more that a software company. It is also a quality hardware platform which stays on the cutting edge of hardware and design. In the end you get what you pay for. My macs work consistently for years without having to wipe my drive or update to a better processor or spent hundreds of dollars above and beyond the price of the machine on software and hardware to get the computer to do what I need it to do. The mac does it all right out of the box. Yes there is cheaper. But you get what you pay for.
The one who sounds rabid is you peabody...
Apple is simply trying to keep with their business model. What is wrong with that? And why should Apple give in to small companies that want to ride its coat tail?
The only people who are really interested in this Mac clone law suite winning are the people who don't even plan to bay a Mac...
Great, that's all we need, a inbreeded version of OS perfection legalized. Apple is a 'hardware' company, as it has remained for years, Microsoft is a 'software' company, big difference. We might as well say that Microsoft or Sony cannot be the only hardware that you can play PS3 or 360 games on. Software licenses is a binding contract of use terms, if you can throw one line away regarding the installation on 3rd party hardware, then it is just as well legal to copy the software and hand it out to your friends or resell the copies.
#1 reason why the MAC rules in computer perfection is that only ONE manufacturer makes the equipment to run the OS, Windows unfortunately will never be 'stable' until these cheap crappy little companies whoring out computer components that don't work with the OS.
Considering I can buy 6 of these for the price of one MAC I would take my chances.
Apple's requirement that anyone purchasing their OS also purchase a distinct Apple-branded item (the hardware to run it on) is a classic tying arrangement. The original Xerox Sherman act case (Xerox copier users were required to purchase all their supplies, including paper, from Xerox) established that such agreements are often unenforceable.
The purpose of the Sherman act was to curb this type of monopolistic behavior because it is anticompetitive and bad for the consumers, the industry, and the economy. And Apple is using their EULA to enforce and retain their monopoly on computers that use their OS.
I suppose that if you consider the total market share of Apple compared to all computers, including PCs, one might conclude that they do not have enough to constitute a monopoly, but it's hard to argue that this isn't monopolistic behavior. And one could easily argue that the Mac/Apple platform is a distinct market from the PC market since they are commonly used by completely different people / firms for different purposes and are not really interchangeable.
Any thoughts?
I would not even think about investing $2k in an Apple computer. There is no way of knowing what I'm getting into except to take the word of Apple marketing and Apple evangelists which are neither informative or objective.
I tried working with Macs back when the OS was version 6, and it was a total disaster. It was more unstable than the version of Windows at that time (which was very unstable), and the interface was so opposite of intuitive that they needed a book several inches thick that you had to study to learn how it worked.
A clone for a few hundred dollars could enable more people to see what the current Mac OS is all about. If it's as good as they claim, it could catch on. Maybe they're afraid of what people will see.
As long as they know that some of you will pay over $2K they will keep charging it. There is no way their hardware should cost that much more than others. If they had competition you would see a huge price reduction.
I don't simply buy the whole 'cheaper' BS line.
Compare a EQUIVALENT model from Dell or sony, no no , not where you shop at the 399 deal of the day. I'm talking about a PC that is loaded with memory, hd space, comes with a FULL high-definition ready video editing system and professional grade color balancing photo archive. Not to mention the latest chipsets in graphics cards.
You company Apples... lol to Apples, and you'll see that Macs are 'perfectly' priced with the competitors on a level playing field. Why else would the Mac Book Pro, be the top dog when running Microsoft's Vista and XP? That wasn't a ha ha funny either. In games, a Mac runs circles around those cheap sub-500 buck PCs.
So, for those who have trouble comparing similar hardware specs, go customize a Dell, or go select one of Sony's high-end laptops, and find a cheaper unit that will out perform a Mac. Nooooooot to mention, my Mac Book Pro will be in service in FULL functionality for the next 5 to ten years running the newest OS, WITHOUT any upgrades necessary. Beat that. I have living proof at my other desk, a G4 Power Mac running Leopard, built in 1998. Added only a video card for 50 bucks. Besides the fact that ten years old it still runs, unlike most grey-boxed PCs.
Try one, and see the light.
Cutting edge hardware? If you could please point out this cutting edge hardware to me I wouls greatly appreciate it. The whole point of this fiasco is that its NOT cutting edge anything. And that it can be reproduced for much cheaper than what you have paid time and time again.
ex. Macbook AIR. They removed functional parts to make it thinner. and then charged you more. Sounds like they are the BEST. You get what you pay for..... a paperweight that fits in an envelope.
This is a start in the right direction. We need more actual competition. We need Apple to actually be a threat to Microsoft. The competition is all that make those Companies improver their product so that they can be better than the other.
page: 1 2
peabody3000Apr 16th, 2008 - 13:43:49
i wonder if apple owners can continue to be so rabid, seeing that the $2,000+ they must hand over to apple is $1,600 too much
i also wonder if they would look forward to seeing the apple platform freed, so that it could square off against windows on an even playing field, where it would be guaranteed to finally take over the world, right? yeah maybe not.............
Report this comment