I am curious why no one has mentioned this point yet. So lets assume you buy one of these computers. Assuming that the cost of a license for OSX is factored into your cost. (ie: that Psystar is installing valid purchased copies of the OS.) I can't see why Apple would have an issue with this. They sell their software, and make their money. They don't have to support it because it violates their EULA. (One would assume Psystar will assume support responsibilities.) Heck, they don't even have to worry if they do push a patch out that breaks these machines, because the OS is being ran on unsupported hardware. I can't fathom a single reason why Apple would have an issue with this...oh, wait I know why. It might have something to do with the really pretty and expensive computer they want you to buy. I hope I do not come across as an Apple hater. I think Apples are some of the most beautifully designed pieces of computing hardware out there. Their OS is stable and easy to use. Apple makes good computers. I've long said that if you give me a mac I can play games on I'd think about it. However, let us not be naive. Apple taking an issue here really boils down to them trying to protect their monopoly. Monopoly you say? How could that be? Apple is not a monopoly. In the broad view of the computer industry certainly not. However, in the segment of the population that wants to use the Apple operating system they certainly are. It's their software on their box or nothing. All Apple is doing here is trying to protect their sales margins on their incredibly over priced hardware.
- @ amazo - isn't profiting off of the work that other people have done for free the basic premise of open source? As an example, you can go out and get Linux for free on your own, or you can buy Red Hat and get the same basic Linux except you get some support behind it. One would assume this is how things would work with these computers. Yeah, you can turn any dell into a OSX box, or you can pay a company to do it for you. This is the basis of any successful company as far as I see it. Find something people want to do and do it for them.
I'd love to visit the dreamworld you are are apparently living in...The backlash from Apple allowing OS X to be installed on non-Apple hardware but NOT SUPPORTING it would be insane. Can you imagine what would happen if MS did this with Windows? Personally, and I'm sure others agree with me, I prefer that Apple makes both the OS and hardware I use on my MBP. Why? Because it works together great. We all saw the clusterfuck that can happen when end users don't understand why features of their chosen OS don't work on hardware it's supposed to support (Vista) and that's WITH official support from the OS manufacturer. If you don't like OS X and macs...don't buy them. If you like OS X and want to use it...support the company that builds it and buy a Mac.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Here are a few points:
I am curious why no one has mentioned this point yet. So lets assume you buy one of these computers. Assuming that the cost of a license for OSX is factored into your cost. (ie: that Psystar is installing valid purchased copies of the OS.) I can't see why Apple would have an issue with this. They sell their software, and make their money. They don't have to support it because it violates their EULA. (One would assume Psystar will assume support responsibilities.) Heck, they don't even have to worry if they do push a patch out that breaks these machines, because the OS is being ran on unsupported hardware. I can't fathom a single reason why Apple would have an issue with this...oh, wait I know why. It might have something to do with the really pretty and expensive computer they want you to buy. I hope I do not come across as an Apple hater. I think Apples are some of the most beautifully designed pieces of computing hardware out there. Their OS is stable and easy to use. Apple makes good computers. I've long said that if you give me a mac I can play games on I'd think about it. However, let us not be naive. Apple taking an issue here really boils down to them trying to protect their monopoly. Monopoly you say? How could that be? Apple is not a monopoly. In the broad view of the computer industry certainly not. However, in the segment of the population that wants to use the Apple operating system they certainly are. It's their software on their box or nothing. All Apple is doing here is trying to protect their sales margins on their incredibly over priced hardware.
- @ amazo - isn't profiting off of the work that other people have done for free the basic premise of open source? As an example, you can go out and get Linux for free on your own, or you can buy Red Hat and get the same basic Linux except you get some support behind it. One would assume this is how things would work with these computers. Yeah, you can turn any dell into a OSX box, or you can pay a company to do it for you. This is the basis of any successful company as far as I see it. Find something people want to do and do it for them.
I'd love to visit the dreamworld you are are apparently living in...The backlash from Apple allowing OS X to be installed on non-Apple hardware but NOT SUPPORTING it would be insane. Can you imagine what would happen if MS did this with Windows? Personally, and I'm sure others agree with me, I prefer that Apple makes both the OS and hardware I use on my MBP. Why? Because it works together great. We all saw the clusterfuck that can happen when end users don't understand why features of their chosen OS don't work on hardware it's supposed to support (Vista) and that's WITH official support from the OS manufacturer. If you don't like OS X and macs...don't buy them. If you like OS X and want to use it...support the company that builds it and buy a Mac.