[Martian]

In the short run, “clones” are good…very good to round out choice. So many have been waiting for a mid-price tower and a 3 pound laptop with full connectivity.
But a serious concern is could Apple continue quality R&D and support for Mac OS, with serious attacks on its hardware revenue stream? If Apple raised the selling price on Mac OS to replace hardware revenue, bootlegging would increase and drive down OS unit sales.

[rickcarl]

On the one hand Psystar seems like a Mac. You order and it takes a week to be shipped. On the other hand Psystar doesn't seem like a Mac at all. There are no claims to be 4.5 times faster or millions of colors.



I tried to order the basic model online but the e-commerce site kept adding all the options automatically up to $2000 so I cancelled. I want to be an owner so when Apple stomps on Psystar I can be part of the class action suit against Apple's billions of dollars. ;-)

[clonedone]

Have you heard that competition is good for the consumer? I also had a Power Computing G3 thinge' way back in the 90's and it was a good machine. I regret that His Hinus decided to forgo any further external licensees, but perhaps it is time for another vendor, to give it a try.
Let's face it - Apple Computers are not unique anymore. With the switch to Intel processors, Apple is now a PC with a better outside logo. (Thank goodness there never was an Intel Inside logo on it)
Apples parts are much more expensive than the PC counterpart - BECAUSE - of one vendor support. If a standard PC motherboard and commodity disk drives will run Leopard - then why not?
Microsoft seems to have made out alright by not selling a Microsoft PC. Perhaps, Apple would sell more copies of Leopard than at any time ever before because almost EVERYONE hates Vista.
What has done it for me is that I have paid about $3299.00 for every computer I purchased since 1994. Jumping the top up above $4K is not necessary for everyone. If the iMac is for everyman, then another supplier needs to be involved.

[net99]

I will be no worry ... worry at all ! Why? Because Mac is Mac! Period. The core of this concept is under ONE ROOF! This is a reason, why Mac is a reliable machine day and night. NO need to say more. Those which like to waste $$$ they will by a clone.

[neutrino]

hi,

the analogy of the wii and the playstation isn't logical in my perspective.

it seems more of a debate over whether or not we should be able to play official playstation 3 games on a ps3 console clone.

for me free market is exactly the possibility to go into a market with equal chances, depending only on our worth. if psystar isn't a good choice, it won't survive... if it is, it should be allowed to survive no matter what - our economy depends on this. if apples tries to crush psystar it would only be doing what microsoft tried to do to our beloved company... if microsoft had succeeded, we wouldn't have macs today. i don't think psystar is a serious contender to apple... but what if it is? what if, like apple with microsoft, psystar offers a better alternative? or even just an alternative. consumers must be able to decide what they want, for this to be a true free world of opportunities according to our current economic principles. apple can only come out winning if it deserves to win: by offering a better solution for the consumer. our global economy depends on this principle.

the big issue for me here was stated on another comment here: apple sells computers. but apple also sells software, it's not free anymore. it does sell very good software, but to limit the systems where this good software works is, for me, a way of maintaining a monopoly. apple is able to charge much more than the price of its software for consumers to use it, because they can only use it in a limited number systems whose price is fixed by apple too. if apple wants to sell software, it has to work on whichever system it can work on... otherwise the software has to come free with the hardware we buy.

if x is the average market price of a certain system configuration
and this same configuration costs x@apple sold as a mac
than in the end we're really talking about the @apple factor...

we can say @apple is design. we can say @apple is a lot of things.

but if when we buy the great apple software solutions at a certain price y, we can only use them in them paying x@apple, then the price of the software isn't y, but rather y + the @apple factor.

this is totally ok with me, but if this is allowed, than in the name of logic, the antitrust laws have to be revised. because with a hidden @apple factor cost in the y price of software, there is, by definition, a monopoly. a software company and a hardware company have made a non-competitive restriction to free markets, setting prices and blocking the natural price-setting essential to our economic system. the software company is apple, and the hardware company is apple, but anti-trust laws are upheld exactly to prevent price setting.

to me it seems like the laws have to be revised. because apple has worked hard to survive being different, and to me they already won. but if they try to crush clones, than for me they will be clearly defending their ability to set prices... better let clones have their chance, and concentrate on making people interested in paying the @apple factor, rather than forcing this through artificial barriers... and ultimately denying the for-me-so-much-easier-and-pleasurable mac experience to people who don't need the @apple factor, and still want to use apple's brilliant software.

apple has grown too big.

the @apple factor must be something that people choose to pay because they think it's worth it.

people who buy apple software solutions must have the right to decide whether or not they want to pay for the @apple factor.

it's like a mother telling a child that she or he can only play inside the house... what is really the problem here? the mother would loose control... War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Ignorance Is Strength... only another big brother can fight big brother. i for one feel exactly like winston in the end of 1984, every time a new keynote comes up... this last time i actually was sad, because i misunderstood the apple website, and would have to wait eagerly for the end of the keynote to be able to watch my company's results on the webcast. expecting news of our victory... what is in the air? i still can't stop watching appleinsider. who am i?

[ariongon]

Hardly agree on the concept of monopoly..... Apple is not a monopoly. It is a brand with it own characteristics.
Similarly, we cannot accused Rolex, Farrari as monopoly and command for a luxury price, can we?
Computer maker Apple more or less like Car maker, BMW, Farrari, they put "things" - which may be ordinary or cheap in the market, together. But customer determine whether it worth or not. When selling counterfeit Rolex and BMW is illegal, why not also apply to Clone Apple?
Think about when you have start a well respected business and some day someone create things that make use of "YOURS" and accused that your are monopoly as you have earn respect from customers?
Monopoly to computer industry? Of course Apple is never can quoted to be....what is Apple market share at the moment? Who is the monopoly? Computer industry now customer can choose Dell, HP, Lenovo.....
Software industry? People also can choose Windows, Linux, Solaris, BSD, Mac OS...
Hardly can see any monopoly in this case. So as to watch business as Rolex, Car business as BMW..

[neutrino]

hi,

i agree with your arguments... about rolex and ferrari... but somehow, something doesn't feel right. i don't think they apply to apple.

a rolex is a rolex because of the quality of it's construction and solid design.

if there were computer makers shipping the beautiful apple designs with lower quality components, then i would see them, like you wrote, like fake apples of lower quality.

these are the exact same components of a rolex, but with a different casing; they run the same "telling time" software.

should i have to forcibly pay for the rolex design factor to be able to run the "time tell" software? if apple gets money for their "telling time" software, then i payed their share, and should be allowed to get a swatch to tell the time.

for me, only i apple starts bundling their software free like in the beginning would they be allowed to call foul on clones...

the problem for me is that apple has grown to big, and is not just a hardware company anymore... it is also a great software company. maybe monopoly isn't quite the term... i remember there was a more accurate term for this price setting scheme i perceive... but the idea is the same. please let me know if you agree, appreciated your response.

[ariongon]

let's see the current market share in computer industry.

images.macrumors.com/article/2008/04/16/184551-gartner[u1Q08[/u]us.png]

my idea is simple as people is not making rolex but doing the same thing that tells time, but they cannot advertise themselves as rolex compatible or open rolex to get attention from consumer? Do they?

similar logic apply to ferrari, every car on the road do the same function, but they never claim to be an open ferrari. Not to say the minor difference between rolex and other watches or ferrari and other sport cars, the heart of each product is unique. Mac is the made up of hardwares (designed) and software (OSX). Pulling out anyone is not something can called Mac.

When I sell you the engine of ferrari with a Toyota outfit and say it is open Ferrari. what you think about it? Yes, it will cost much cheaper. Does this action should be allowed?

Anyway, some may argues that Apple / Mac is not something MUST exist together, however, What is the value of an Open ferrari ? Else may argues that Apple is just a PC, why other PC/Windows can allow to install in different machines but Apple not? it is monopoly indeed.

Sure it will be the freedom of the buyer who get the machine and the software, who may do it in their garage. People wants to challenge every status quo. You can see every windows version have its place in BT. However, we also need to see the mutual agreement on buying the Mac OS.

But for a company that make use this kind of freedom will hurt not only another company-Apple but also bring a lot of problem to the industry as a whole is not that respectable. by accusing Apple infringing their freedom, does they respect what Apple bring to their users?

Finally, whatever the US court will do or not do. It shows the mentality of US. Individualism, Freedom without respect, democracy without dignity.

Forgive me if I am too furious.

[kd6rxl]

As an AAPL stockholder I'd like to see Jobs, just for once, go for market share by cutting prices on the entry level MacBooks and iMacs to just under $1K instead of just over. That's basic pricing psychology, and the combination of Vista disgruntlement and iPhone/iPod buzz have created an opportunity that Apple has so far passed on wrt its own hardware.

As for clones, for me it's a matter of configuration choice (or lack thereof) for ultraportable niches. I prefer a screen smaller than 13' simple because of the hassle of a large screen size when flying coach, especially when the clown in front reclines his seat. I'll bet Jobs hasn't flown commercial coach in quite a while. How about an Apple OS X equivalent to the Asus Eee PC? Physical security-wise those seem much easier to fit in a hotel room safe, or keep with your person outside the room even when you don't anticipate use. Or a a really cool Milspec ruggedized portable for those living the National Geographic Channel lifestyle (or the military)? Apple doesn't have the engineering resources to develop all those hardware variations on its own.

[Simon42]

Clones or at least OSx86 will always be very attractive as long as the Mac range lacks a real desktop computer positioned between the iMac and the MacPro.
I was new to the Mac world last summer when I bought my used 12" Powerbook. This is what I could afford at the time. I loved it and stopped using my Windows box. Its logicboard unfortunatly failed this winter and I had to buy a discontinued MacBook fast. I like its relative power although integrated graphics suck, and I have ugraded it to Leopard, but I miss the size of my Powerbook.
I've been planning on upgrading to a desktop Mac this summer for a while. The MacPro is too costly, the iMac is cool, but looking its the specs (laptop parts) versus the Quad Cores available, it has become clear that performance for the bucks would be much better this way, even though messing with OSx86 will complicate things up a bit. I'll be building my own case and using internals that are gonna be up to the first Intel MacPro's performance, for about a grand.

[lastcookie]

The operative word is experience. Apple is not selling hardware or software, they are selling a unique experience between man and machine.
All the other comparisons submitted here are ultimately about this, too, but most fall short because they focus on the hardware or the software or the price and down the road the experience ends up, well, different. Apple knows it is the certain combination of them all that creates an experience and that is what drives their decisions strategically.
How do you feel after eating that #1 Big Mac meal? If McD's was selling an experience you would feel much better.

[hagen]

What exact apple parts cost more? Quotes please. If you are referring to the ram used, that is because they chose to use Intel's memory system. get another PC with the same and you need the same ram.

I've bought PC parts for my Mac and they all work: RAM, drives, video cards (Apple is selling the 8800 GT for the EXACT SAME PRICE as discount parts stores and it's a kit with drivers and guaranteed to work).

So stop chucking fud.

[MorrisTheCat]

The 2nd Mac I ever bought was a PowerTower 250. Great workhorse of a machine. At the time it was also a nice looking setup compared to the drab beige systems Apple was selling at the time. I eventually replaced it with a G4 tower, but I held onto that PowerTower for a while, until I had no choice but to get rid of it.
PowerComputing was by far the best of the clone crowd. And what I liked about them was that they were genuine Mac lovers, not just in it for the money, but in it also to help keep the Mac alive during some very dim times for Apple in the 90's.
And I agree Apple was smart to buy them up. In fact, many may not remember, but the BTO options in the online Apple Store that we all take for granted were started at PowerComputing. Apple saw how good that was and implemented it into their own store, and the rest is history.

In the end, though I was upset at the demise of the clones, it's very hard to argue that it wasn't the absolute right decision for Steve to make. Apple needed to tighten up it's brand image, and clones had no place in that new image.

[Simon42]

What I meant is that a iMac is costlier than an equivalent or far superior desktop PC. It is made from laptop parts, which limits overall performance makes costs higher and also makes the great look they have possible. This is the same problem with a Mini and that's why Psystar could come up with a way cheaper computer. I have chosen my parts and for around 1000$, I have a Quad Core beast with a GeForce 8800 (probably cheaper than what Apple offers because it's not directly from NVidia). That leaves many hundred dollars to buy a fully ajustable monitor (that can even be rotated) and to customize the case tastefully up to Mac standards.