John Biggs has a Psystar. It’s a generic PC that runs OSX Leopard, and runs it well at that. It was roughly $550 shipped, and there’s something that gives one a sneaky feeling when using it, as if you’re getting away with something.
The Psystar, though, may be just the tip of the iceberg. Apple Insider points out that there are now other PC clones running OSX, and you can get them on eBay.
Of course, you can get your own PC and install Leopard on it using the same patches and hacks Psystar does, but where’s the fun in that?
Psystar cannot support Mac software beyond the initial install. They cannot afford to give free updates and customers are not going to pay for these updates beyond X amount. Psystar business model is doomed for failure. Anyone else thinking of making unsupported Mac clones will be in the same boat. Apple has no reason to sue Psystar because Psystar cannot/will not survive anyway. Psystar will soon learn the hard way that you cannot undercut Apples pricing in the long run. What Apple may learn from this is there may be a significant market for a mid-range desktop and make another $1bil off of it to add to the $19bil in cash reserves they already have.
Can some one tell me why Microsoft get fined and apple don’t for being anti-competitive when apple do exactly the same thing. You can not run our OS on any other machine than ours. This to me seems like it is restricting competition as no one else is allowed to compete. Look at the statement Pystar have made, and now apple want to shut down the competition. I know apple are the best PCS in the world but wouldn’t a little competition make them strive to be even better at a price more consumers can afford?
These are two different things. Apple is saying that you can not sell their OS on machines not made by Apple. You can’t do that in any business. I can’t start a restaurant and then resell Big Macs but not be a Mcdonalds. You can’t become a Nike reseller and then take the swish and put it on your own model shoes.
Also you don’t have to buy Macs or the Mac OS. What Microsoft was doing was:
1. Selling Windows at a loss to undercut the compitition. Can’t do that unless it’s a short sale.
2. Telling companies like Dell that if they sell Linux that they would make Dell pay more to license and resell Windows. You can’t change the price you contracted on with a vendor because they are selling a competing product.
3. Paying vendors not to sell competing products.
All the things MS did were illegal under US law. Tieing an OS to hardware is not.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#findings
The key here is if the EULA is valid under law.