[edmorris]

The hardware will still run Windows or Linux on the Gigabyte motherboard. So no brick like the iPhone, just a trip to Hell.

[Pureleaf]

Thanks for the review. I found it both interesting and enlightening.

Say what you will, but these tests provide considerable ammunition to those who claim Mac prices are seriously inflated in relation to their actual worth. It also points to the fact that other manufacturers, with significantly larger scale than upstart Psystar, could build Mac clones at a far greater discount.

It's true that Apple's customer service, hardware design, and value added software give Apple a comparative advantage in those unique areas. But in other areas, such as reliability, Apple has both strengths and weaknesses compared to the competition. For example, in the current issue of Consumer Reports, Apple's laptops scored the highest number of repairs among the eight computer brands surveyed (data was based on over 75,000 reader responses covering laptop computer purchases between 2003 and 2007). Conversely, the same survey found Apple's desktops to be significantly more reliable than the other brands surveyed.

That highlights, at least in regard to the laptop market, the potential for other manufacturers to build Mac clones that are less expensive, more powerful, and more reliable.

[HalanR]

"Sounds like if they were allowed to continue and grow they could turn out a really nice product."

Yes, by turning a profit on pirating the hard work of Apple regarding OS X. What kind of work do you do? Would you feel so charitable if someone were to steal your property, make money from it, and take away potential business?

[Grapho]

Your argument is sound, from the consumers perspective. But not from Apple's, so what do you think is going to happen?

[HalanR]

"You seem to think that Apple should emulate Microsoft's business, I simply don't agree."
Grapho, I completely agree with your comment on the earlier discussion about this. I had eluded to this very same idea in earlier posts on that topic.
Some people fail to realize the concept of marketing, economics and product branding. Apple knows they have a superb product with OS X, so why should they cheapen it by offering it to other computer makers? For the small amount of licensing monies they stand to make, they risk a support and public relations nightmare when they downgrade their product to the lowest common denominator.
Somehow the PC community (not just PC owners, but many computer users), feel they should have the right to run or modify any product they see fit to do so with. Apple, from the start, has never been like that. When you purchase an Apple, you should know what you're getting into. If a buyer doesn't like it, then buy another computer, that is their right.
It's like me getting upset because I want the styling of a Mercedes, but maybe the powertrain of a Tesla Roadstar. Not a great analogy, but the fact is, both of them offer a unique product... a "branding". The consumer hears their name, and instantly thinks of what that brand is known for. These days, companies don't have much else to go on.
It's nothing new... for years Microsoft has developed technologies to only work on the Windows platform. Why? They want you to buy Windows!
OS X needs to stay with Apple, and Apple only...

[HalanR]

"...so what do you think is going to happen?"

If you're asking me... I don't understand their business model.

They're offering, basically, a cheap PC. Then, it's hacked enough to run OS X. So, if a layperson purchases this, they are going to need their support to keep it running (updates, adding additional hardware, etc.). Psystar cannot offer but so much support given the price that they are selling these boxes for. At what point do they start charging?

Secondly, the other potential customer may be a hobbyist that is comfortable with this type of setup, but then most people like this will choose to build and maintain their own computer and choose the parts that best suits their needs. Why would a DIY'er choose to pay someone else to DIY?

Perhaps another type of customer wants this because they can't afford a Mac... I can understand this, and I can sympathize with those that want a mid-priced Mac that can be user-customized, so I'm not the total fanboy. But, until (or if ever) Apple develops one of these, I think this is a false argument because once all the aspects are taken into account, this is not going to be a complete, nor cheap solution to owning a Mac.

[MacGeek1955]

Obviously Apple knows about this venture. Apple could make an update to its OS that would render this machine useless if they chose to. I guess the owners could run Windows. If Apple were to suddenly put in something like "Apple Genuine Advantage" and offer it's OS legally as a new high end professional operating system and charge, let's say $400 instead of the $129 upgrade cost it charges for everyone else and $129 for further upgrades and you could see how Apple might let a bunch of these things get out there, because illegally using one of these things is at least as illegal as pirating software and much more illegal than burning MP3s into compilation CDs for personal use. The RIAA has really been pushing legislation to stop people from listening to music and are putting 11 year olds in jail and such. I think Apple is a whole lot smarter than the RIAA. I think OSX is popular enough that Apple could get at least $200 a copy for each machine that runs the OS and could very well license OSX and get a good cut on every non-Apple machine sold without putting forth much effort. Apple could shut these people down in a heartbeat. I think it's an experiment. I also think that MacWorld would be implicated for putting OSX on non-Apple machines and telling the world about it if that's what Apple chose to do. The problem with non-Apple hardware is that it threatens the great user experience one gets from using a Mac. Unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn't have decades of experience making it's OS run on boatloads of different computers. Of course Apple can sell licenses and offer little or no support for non-Apple machines. Many of the original Mac clones worked great, but a few had problems. My UMAX S-900 worked well for years. But some other models shipped with problems that weren't easy to fix. The problems tended to be with the lower end products. I suspect we'll soon see more Mac Clones and a price higher than the $129 upgrade license. Of course Apple may be happy with the upgrade price for these new machines. Since Apple is growing at 3 times the PC rate, can you imagine a Dell Mac?

[MacGeek1955]

I don't think anyone wants to compete with Mac Pros directly. Mac Pros may not blow away every machine made, but the number of workstation computers as powerful as a Mac Pro is a very short list. They've priced themselves out of a lot graphics people's budget. Because of the horrible economy, people are steering away from great design and going for cheap design. In the early 90s designers and graphics pros kicked out $10,000 because the money was there to be made. Now it's often a struggle to make a living. The people who are buying Mac Pros are not looking for a $999 machine. High end iMacs are pretty sweet and they are hard to beat when you try to find a comparable display, but if you are buying a Mac Pro, entry level cost is not your driving reason to buy such a machine. Mac Pro buyers want a machine that they can abuse for years and they know Apple and are willing to pay to be able to swap out a hard drive in 3 minutes instead of pulling out 20 sheet metal screws. Professional Macs can be used for jack stands when they finally become obsolete and probably still run Photoshop while holding up your car. Most other computers don't even make good door stops. Those G4 iMacs would make good lamps and my old Tektronics color laser printer would make a good anchor or an even better body weight if you were one of the Sopranos. Over 150 lbs!!!!

[mdawson]

Say what you will, but these tests provide considerable ammunition to those who claim Mac prices are seriously inflated in relation to their actual worth. It also points to the fact that other manufacturers, with significantly larger scale than upstart Psystar, could build Mac clones at a far greater discount.

No, what it does is demonstrate that people that continue to make these ridiculous claims either failed to learn or retain anything from high school economics. Psystar has done nothing that any Wintel PC OEM does not do in terms of assembling hardware and that production model is not how Apple goes about making Macs.

Like every other (Wintel) PC OEM, Psystar purchased pre-fabricated ATX/BTX motherboards and cases from other manufacturers then assembled a system under their corporate logo. Every Mac ever sold has been a market-specific custom system designed from the ground up by Apple. The only pre-fabricated parts used by Apple are the periphery hardware components (e.g., drives, memory modules, etc.,). Thus, Apple’s production model, which includes system R&D, results in higher production costs. Also, the motherboards and cases in any given Mac product line are produced in considerably lower numbers than the pre-fabricated parts used in Wintel PCs, so any single Apple motherboard or chassis costs significantly more than any single comparable part purchased by the Wintel PC OEMs. Add to that the fact that most Macs now have aluminum chassis and that price increases further.

Secondly, every single PC OEM except for Apple licenses the OS pre-installed on their system. Apple does and always has developed their own operating system for the Mac and the development of that OS is subsidized through hardware sales. It costs far more to develop an operating system than to participate in an OEM licensing program. Where Microsoft is concerned, they are a software and not a hardware company, therefore Microsoft has no other market that can subsidize the development of Windows; Microsoft does not receive direct earnings from PC sales. Thus, the Mac OS is and has always been significantly less expensive than even the most stripped down versions of Windows and, to maintain that low price, Macs have historically cost more than comparable Wintel PCs.

It has been shown for years now that Macs are very competitively priced and that any Wintel PC that is truly comparable to any given Mac costs about the same or more. The Psystar systems are at best unsupported kludge systems that are best left to tinkerers.

[Heart_Man_2000]

A machine whose OS cannot be reloaded or upgraded (if ever) without returning the entire machine to factory? A machine that has fixed video resolution? A machine in this day and age without digital video output (if you don't buy and additional video card)? Thanks, but no thanks, I'll stick with the real deal.

[CheeseHead]

{quote}The Psystar systems are at best unsupported kludge systems that are best left to tinkerers.{quote}
I just feel that this company is going to do more harm than good for the mac community. People are going to go to the Psystar site and be blown away by the price and purchase one. Most of the switchers have no idea what Psystar is doing violates Apple's EULA. Psystar is extremely deceptive about it and doesn't even mention it in their FAQ or product pages. People buying these machines are going to be getting about the worse mac experience imaginable. At least Psystar could be more upfront with its customers and let people know that the user experience will be far below that of an actual Apple product.
I understand hobbyists and tinkerers want some hardware to play with, but that is not the way Psystar is marketing the open computer. Google search - leopard compatible computer... They are trying to woo Apple customers with a super low price tag and not preparing them for what they are actually receiving.
People are going to have problems with their machines and won't even be able to restore their machines. Not even be able to apply critical security patches! They will immediately blame the OS and the Apple brand will take the brunt of the criticism.

[davekriss93]

Psystar=FAIL.

[mdawson]

Quote

CheeseHead wrote:

I just feel that this company is going to do more harm than good for the mac community. People are going to go to the Psystar site and be blown away by the price and purchase one. Most of the switchers have no idea what Psystar is doing violates Apple's EULA. Psystar is extremely deceptive about it and doesn't even mention it in their FAQ or product pages. People buying these machines are going to be getting about the worse mac experience imaginable. At least Psystar could be more upfront with its customers and let people know that the user experience will be far below that of an actual Apple product.

Of course Psystar is not being upfront; they know what they are doing is illegal. There are some that argue that EULAs have never been tested in court, but that is beside the point. A EULA is a contract and using the software constitutes an agreement to that contract. As Apple does not offer OEM licensing, Psystar is bound by the EULA—Dell, HP, Gateway, et al., are bound by an OEMLA with Microsoft and exempt from liability from any illegal activity committed by a Wintel PC end user—when they choose to not only illicitly install OS X on non-Apple hardware, but then to sell those systems to the general public as Mac-compatible PCs.

Quote

CheeseHead wrote:

People are going to have problems with their machines and won't even be able to restore their machines. Not even be able to apply critical security patches! They will immediately blame the OS and the Apple brand will take the brunt of the criticism.

Given the general ignorance of the buying public such a scenario should very much be a concern for Apple and Psystar. Psystar is selling unsanctioned clones to the general public at the expense of Apple’s brand identity and reputation.

[Bryan]

The Psystar looks like a much better deal, all things considered, than any available Mac. If they can install the OS now (albeit with some workarounds), they'll be able to install it later too. People will just wait for the latest "crack" as opposed to updating as soon as Apple releases it.
The real upside compared to a Mini or an iMac is the ability to upgrade the components. This alone would make it a better value for me, even at twice the price.