It's been interesting to see the vehemence of some of the anti-Psystar posts here. I cannot fathom why anyone would care that another company - big, small or whatever - is producing or selling equipment capable of running a particular OS. It's fine if your preference is for the Apple computer and for the company's supposedly fantastic support. You love them, so feel free to buy Apple. But why would you care that someone ELSE buys a PC from a different company to run the Mac OS?
My take on it as an owner of a couple of old Mac models and purchaser of several Mac OS's dating back to System 7 is that I owe the company nothing and the company owes me nothing. I don't care if they condone what I do or how I use their OS. I last bought a Mac around 8 years ago, and it is probably the last Mac I ever will buy. I don't think they're particularly bad computers (except for games, obviously), but I've put together PCs of my own. There's no support, but I've never needed it. The next computer I build, still a year or two away, is going to run Mac OS as well as Windows, regardless of whether Apple is happy with this arrangement. I don't need them to be.
As far as Apple hardware goes, I'm really not bothered either way about it. Some of it looks nice, I suppose. Not nice enough to justify the higher price tag, though, and I'm more interested in seeing that cost and performance bear some relation to each other. Not always easy with a Mac. I dislike being overcharged for completely ordinary hardware that I know is a mishmash of components manufactured by other companies - the CPU, motherboards, drives etc. Just like any Wintel PC. I've got no interest at all in minis or in all-in-one PCs, any more than I like boomboxes, VCR TVs, midi hi-fi systems, or B&O gear. They all share the same essential weaknesses: form over function and a lack of flexibility - which you're especially going to notice when the monitor blows on your iMac and you have to send the whole thing in for repair or get a new computer.
What I do like from Apple is the Mac OS. I know it can run on non-Apple hardware, and so my next PC is going to run OSX. Meanwhile, concerning Psystar's foray into the market, the questions that come to mind are these (I think they'll be important if another company comes along to do this, and does it better):
Some claim it's illegal. In that case, what law is being broken? I don't see any piracy issues, copyright issues, or breach of contract issues. Does anyone see otherwise, and if so, how?
What legal standing does the OSX EULA actually have? (For an answer, you might need to take it country by country).
When you buy a Mac computer or a Mac OS, at which point did the EULA (removing your right to run the OS on a non-Apple PC) come into effect? At the point of purchase? When you opened the box at home? When someone - possibly you, then again, possibly not - clicked an "I Agree" button on the screen?
I admit I haven't paid close attention, but so far, I've seen nothing in the way of an official comment from Apple concerning Psystar. It's been nearly a month. Have they really said nothing in public about this? Is that responsible?
And what must be the most important question: Apple previously allowed clones to be sold. They set a precedent for the Mac OS to run on non-Apple machines. And they now sell Apple computers that can run both OSX and Windows, and have made this a selling point. So how are they going to persuade a moderately intelligent judge that their OS is so special that it may only be allowed to run on their hardware, AND that their computers are so special that no other computer should be permitted to run OSX? They've had it both ways in the marketplace already.
