[Macworld]

Post your comments for Attack of the clones here

[Chris Breen]

As someone who was there, I'll take the teeniest bit of issue with this statement:

"Machines that were theoretically just as capable as Macs, but cheaper than what Apple was producing."

In truth, some of these machines were MORE capable than Macs. Power Computing's clones, in particular, offered more oomph than Apple machines for less money. I had a PowerTower 180e and it's among the top 3 Macs I've owned. Reliable, faster than what Apple was making at the time, and highly expandable.

During those years I was tasked with writing a "Which Mac" story for MacUser and we tested every available clone against every available Apple Mac—and yes, that was a LOT of computers—and when we assembled the data we couldn't, in good conscience, recommend any Apple Mac. Too little bang for too many bucks.

That said, I agree that Apple had to kill the clones as they were eating Apple's lunch (possibly even using Apple's toothbrush, but only John Moltz could say for sure).

[tony_d]

This argument keeps coming up from time to time, should Apple license its OS to run on other hardware. And it never happens.
Repeat after me: Apple is a hardware company. They write software to run on their machines. Look at it logically. iTunes is to sell iPods and now iPhones. There is no Windows ( or Linux for that matter) version of iLife, FCP or Aperture. Catching on yet?
Yes their products cost more, but you're paying for the whole package. Its that "it just works" thing. When Jobs came back to Apple the first thing he did was cancel the clones, and the company has been on an upward swing since.
The analogy of the PS3 and the Wii is perfect by the way. Psystar's argument that Apple has a monopoly (on its self?) is ridiculous. If thats the case then the entire gaming industry is guilty of it too.

[KAdamsInCo]

It is a gutsy, but rather stupid move on Psystar's part to offer OS X (any version) on non-Apple hardware. I agree that Apple's legal team will be certain to take care of this "issue" just as fast as possible, and they have every right to.
I have worked some with OSx86 (before I bought a Mac) and considered it nothing more than a testing environment to play with to see what OS X was like. When I was ready to get serious about switching from Windows to Apple, I bought a Mac. I priced out a machine from Dell against the MacBook Pro. By the time I upgraded the Dell to match the specs of the Pro, the Dell was actually $43 MORE for the final purchase price. Apple's hardware isn't outrageously expensive, in my opinion, especially when you take into consideration the bundled software suites such as iLife '08. Add on iWork '08 for a mere $79 more instead of the $400+ for MS Office on Windows and the deal is even better.

Woe to the OSx86 user running on a Psystar Mac clone when they attempt to install an update to Leopard. My experience with OSx86 is that installing any system update from Apple trashes the OS, and then you're left reinstalling from the OSx86 ISO file again..... not worth it at any price.

[KRZ5252]

So far other news organizations investigations of this company point out it has moved in the last day from a residential address to a an address in an industrial site. Further investigations of the new location turn up that the company is not there either and the present occupants of the location have never heard of them. They also cannot process secure online transactions. Lots of talk for a vaporware company.

[TeaEarleGreyHot]

>The truth is that most of us buy Macs not just for their superior software, but for the whole package.
And that package includes really great customer support, fantastic extended warranty options, novel and pleasing hardware design, and the satisfaction of doing business with a truly unique company that actually invents and markets paradigm-shifting products, rather than some fly-by-night, scheming knock-off artist.

[Hurley42]

RE: "for many of us, they’re objects of craftsmanship rather than just tools."
I completely agree with this. I just added a Mac Pro to my lineup and was astounded at the quality and ease of upgrading. Having used, supported, and bad-mouthed PCs for years, I was expecting upgrade nightmares when adding some muscle to my new MP. My Mac Pro took under 10 minutes to add 2 additional 1 TB hard drives (including formatting) and 2 memory modules. I never had that experience with PCs. I kept expecting something to go wrong as it seemed to so often with the many PCs I upgraded over the past 20+ years. Macs appear to be designed from the ground up to be easy for end-users, techs, and anyone in between.
I would not buy a clone unless it was very very very cheap and never as a primary production or main backup computer.

[jeffcarlson]

The legitimacy of Psystar is, to me, summed up by:

The employee, who would only identify himself as Robert, said Apple grossly overcharges for the hardware on which its operating systems, including Leopard, come preinstalled.

He won't give his last name? And he's expecting people to send him money?
Yeah. Right.

[jeffcarlson]

(I forgot to note that the quote in my post above is from the Information Week article.)

[orangesauce]

After some discussion with peers, we came up with a pretty good solution to this dilemma. As tony_d reasonably points out, Apple is a hardware company with machines that can be upgraded. It just so happens that the software they upgrade the machines with happens to work on other commodity hardware. Apple is comfortable with this model because it keeps them in control of the channel and maintains their profitability. It's hard to argue with that, and as the sign at the bodega says, "we reserve the right to refuse business to anybody". That's fair.
So the solution that we came up with is Apple should sell a couple of motherboards that are form-factor compatible with some up-to-date standards such as one of the newer ATX sub-standards and maybe a miniATX/microATX. These are intentionally going to be small sellers, but will satisfy a need for hobbyists to be able to upgrade their existing systems without throwing away still-valuable components such as RAM, disk, case, etc. These motherboards may even be marked up by hundreds of dollars over comparable motherboards, but the reality is the value is there for hobbyists that insist on certain types of components and have no interest in others.
If these motherboards were available, they would self-limit adoption because they are difficult to install and only available from weird corners of the online Apple store.
All in all, 80% of us agreed that it would be worth our time to not have to hassle with the compatibility nightmare every time a minor operating system upgrade is released, and would allow us to contribute to the ecosystem that keeps Apple great. It's a win for everyone.

[Spectre]

> In truth, some of these machines were MORE capable than Macs. Power Computing's clones, in particular, offered more oomph than Apple machines for less money. I had a PowerTower 180e and it's among the top 3 Macs I've owned. Reliable, faster than what Apple was making at the time, and highly expandable.
[/quote]
I have to echo Chris's point--in the case of Power Computing's models--that they were well-built, truly customizable and MUCH cheaper. Also, if I remember correctly, at that time, Apple had a huge backorder issue where wait times were 6-8 weeks...or more. When you consider that you could expect to receive your Power Computing machine in around a week, it was a no brainer.

I guess the decision to kill the clones was the right one for Apple, but in my opinion, the clones saved what little market share Apple had back then.

[KRZ5252]

I had 2 Power Computing Towers, a 150 Power Tower and a 225 Power TowerPro and they were very good machines. Better and cheaper than comparable Apple towers at the time.
But Apple was actually pretty smart, they bought Power Computing out and brought their engineering team on board. Weren't they responsible for the first iMac?

[AntiDjinn]

I also owned a Power Computing machine. There was a time when they were the fasted desktops on the planet. When Apple ate Power Computing they got the chip that eventually became "Arthur" which evolved into the G3 IIRC.
When the clone company was absorbed I received a card from Apple that said something to the effect of: "Welcome back to the Apple family, not that you ever truly left." They also asked what I had liked about Power Computing, and I replied: "The fact that Apple didn't have their fingers in it. That I could use the operating system I loved without being hindered by Apple's short-sighted hardware decisions and higher prices. That Power Computing seemed to be interested in what customers wanted instead of assuming their own vision was superior and infallible and that Mac-users would buy whatever they put out just because." I thought that by buying a Power Computing machine I would not be subject to rapid platform abandonment (anyone out there buy a Centris?). I was wrong, Apple still killed my platform even through I bought from someone else.

[fribhey]

Psystar appears to be a nonexistent company:
http://gizmodo.com/3...oks-like-a-hoax
this entire mac clone deal could be a hoax.