Mac clone maker vows to test Apple on OS X licensing terms

[AppleInsider]

Psystar Corporation, which this week began selling a series of Mac clone systems without Apple's blessing, is determined to challenge the Mac maker in court over the licensing terms for its Mac OS X operating system.

Speaking to InformationWeek, a Psystar employee identified only as Robert said his company sees Apple's end-user license agreement, which prohibits third-party installations of Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, as a violation of antitrust laws.

"What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?," he said. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"

As such, the Psystar representative implied that the company is eager to bring the matter before a court, where it believes Apple will have a tough time defending its stringent licensing terms.

As part of its defense, the Miami-based reseller also appears to be accusing Apple of price gouging its customers with each Mac OS X-based computer it sells.

"They're charging an 80 percent markup on hardware," Robert told InformationWeek.

He said Psystar plans to continue selling its $400 OpenMac clone and insisted that the company isn't "breaking any laws."

Ironically, Psystar on Monday evening changed the name of its offering from "OpenMac" to "Open Computer," presumably to avoid charges that it was indeed violating trademark law.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[macinthe408]

Hmmm, can someone buy one of these computers and put it through some stringent reliability tests?

That would be worth its weight in gold if we can glean some significant reliability data on these clones to see if they walk the walk.

I mean, the ultimate test is whether Apple's approach creates a better computer, and whether its significant markup is worth paying for.

Ironically, as "Robert" points out, the reason Windows sucks is that you can put the OS on a billion computer systems. I don't know if I want some fly-by-night shop--in Miami, no less!--putting together a Mac made with hardware they deem worthy--I doubt the company is run by anything more than a few good salesman and one guy who was a engineer (sanitation) at one point in his life.

[EagerDragon]

Hope they have a large piggy bank for all the lawyer expenses. They want to test the value / legality of the EULA, that is going to cost some money to bring to a court room.

[initiator]

Psystar will lose. Plain and simple.

[frugality]

Originally Posted by macinthe408

Hmmm, can someone buy one of these computers and put it through some stringent reliability tests?

That would be worth its weight in gold if we can glean some significant reliability data on these clones to see if they walk the walk.

I mean, the ultimate test is whether Apple's approach creates a better computer, and whether its significant markup is worth paying for.

Ironically, as "Robert" points out, the reason Windows sucks is that you can put the OS on a billion computer systems. I don't know if I want some fly-by-night shop--in Miami, no less!--putting together a Mac made with hardware they deem worthy--I doubt the company is run by anything more than a few good salesman and one guy who was a engineer (sanitation) at one point in his life.

If these computers aren't reliable, they won't sell. This is a perfect test of, as you say, "whether Apple's approach creates a better computer, and whether its significant markup is worth paying for." Right now, Apple has a monopoly on OS-X-running computers. Apple's hardware doesn't have the same competition that Dell's hardware has. Dell has to make a reliable product at a competitive price to whatever HP, Sony, etc., are putting out. That's one of the main reasons PC's are cheaper than Macs. Economics has drive the price down.

The problem is that Dell, HP, etc. have to work with Microsoft to resolve technical issues. If it works, this Psystar Corp. will have a tough go with no technical support from Apple if there are compatibility issues with their hardware.

p.s. Slamming people by location is not a sign of maturity. There are lots of intelligent people in Miami.

[Buck]

They're charging an 80 percent markup on hardware

Well of course they do! Would you rather they charged $600 for a copy of Leopard?

[kenaustus]

Psystar had better talk to a really good lawyer before making too many public statements. Right now they are walking on some rather thin ice and may well find themselves over their head.

Since OS X is the property of Apple Pststar has no right to interfere with Apple's right to establish the terms of use - specifically the rights to invest heavily in OS X in order to make the Mac a desirable hardware product for customers. I can see a lot of court action on this one if they continue - it's cheaper to simply close the business down and stat flipping burgers.

[EagerDragon]

Originally Posted by initiator

Psystar will lose. Plain and simple.

I am not a lawyer by any means but I am sure Apple will hit them with everything they can. They are not going to want Dell, HP and others doing the same, they have to put the foot down and make these guys an example.

What I am sorry for is the non-techie customers that buy this system based on the broad advertisement and end up with a BRICK when Apple releases an upgrade.

Specially the kids putting their money together to get a Mac and then see this opportunity, they jump and get hurt. I don't like kids getting hurt.

Joe average consumer is not going to understand what will happen or how to fix it. They are not going to go to forums and blogs to learn how to hack the system back into health.

Not only that but because the systems wont be upgraded, they will not get the security patches and as such they will be vulnerable while the real Mac community is nice and secured. I see a whole BotNet made from these unsecured systems and everyone saying that Macs are vulnerable.

[Virgil-TB2]

The whole thing is really kind of a scam anyway, as if you add the cost of OS-X onto the $399 price that keeps getting quoted it immediately doesn't look like such a good deal. Add the price of the missing iLife suite and the package is over $600 dollars all of a sudden, (more expensive than the entry level mini.)

Since this is basically a "hillbilly" computer (or aimed at that market spec), service and support are probably not needed, but if you add those back in as well, the *actual* cost of this thing is far above what you would pay Apple for comparable gear.

As an option for home hobbyists it's interesting perhaps, but as a value proposition for a "cheap Apple computer" it just doesn't add up. Anyone that thinks they are going to be getting a "deal" will be severely disappointed. Those that are buying a junky "throwaway" computer box so they can tool with OS-X for laughs will be the only ones happy with these computers.

[Booga]

Originally Posted by frugality

If these computers aren't reliable, they won't sell. This is a perfect test of, as you say, "whether Apple's approach creates a better computer, and whether its significant markup is worth paying for." Right now, Apple has a monopoly on OS-X-running computers. Apple's hardware doesn't have the same competition that Dell's hardware has. Dell has to make a reliable product at a competitive price to whatever HP, Sony, etc., are putting out. That's one of the main reasons PC's are cheaper than Macs. Economics has drive the price down.

The problem is that Dell, HP, etc. have to work with Microsoft to resolve technical issues. If it works, this Psystar Corp. will have a tough go with no technical support from Apple if there are compatibility issues with their hardware.

p.s. Slamming people by location is not a sign of maturity. There are lots of intelligent people in Miami.

I'm looking to get a new professional-grade machine soon. Out of curiosity I've been pricing Mac Pro's against Dells. The Dells don't even seem to be in the same ballpark in price-- they're way, way higher. A vanilla $2800 2.8GHz 8 core Mac Pro equivalent, or anything close to it, costs at least $500 more at Dell's store. Am I doing something wrong? Everyone seems to claim Dells are cheaper but I don't see it.

Now yes, in the sub-$1000 market you can get a LOT more on the PC side (where's the mini with a video card slot?) But for most of Apple's products they don't seem to be out of line from what everyone else is charging.

[Calyptus]

Are they just stupid or what? At $400 a pop, where in that price are they actually feigning to pay Apple anything for the us of the OS. Even using their own pathetic "what if" arguments, someone would have been paid for their product before it could be used, even if it was within a locked-in environment.

Without their payment for the license, it's just plain old theft.

I hope they have fun in jail...

[joshdelph]

These people have got to be kidding.

Apple owns OSX...just as Microsoft owns Windows. Each company has a right as part of a free trade society to license and sell its products to whomever and however they choose.

In no way does this even come close to anti-trust laws. Apple is not inhibiting other companies from manufacturing computers...simply manufacturing computers with the software that Apple owns. I hope Psystar doesn't decide to spend too much money just so this can get thrown out of court.

The lack of education on "Robert's" part is simply mind boggling. Companies are not required to allow other people to use their products. If they own it, they own it. Software is nothing more than written "words" and images. If this goes through, then we should all be free to copy every printed word/image/musical notation etc. that we own, then have the freedom to distribute freely.

My word...just when I thought I had seen everything, this comes along.

[dmz]

Um, guys, these machines must be priced at, or very close to the cost of hardware. I doubt there is much profit to be had.

I'd be interested to see if this is blowback from Megashaft's Vista damage -- FUD to harass Apple.

[nagromme]

I just don't see them actually getting a court to force Apple to do all of the following...


* Allow installation on non-Apple systems. (Remember that retail OS X is essentially an upgrade--not an original version. The original version came with the Mac. Look at how Windows pricing is different for an upgrade vs. original install. Apple would charge more--just like Microsoft--for a full version. Now technically the upgrade can install all by itself, and that's great--it's the same when I bought a Photoshop upgrade--but what you're buying is still an upgrade to something you bought already.)

* SUPPORT people who have issues with non-Apple hardware.

* TEST every patch and new feature on non-Apple hardware.

* Add code and bloat to their OS to support non-Apple hardware.

* DELAY every patch or feature or OS Apple ever creates, to accommodate the above.

* Take the heat when an OS X feature only works right on Apple hardware. (Imagine the cries of sabotage!)

* PAY for all that support and development time out of Apple's pockets, when they didn't make the hardware profit, only the OS cost.

* Do all of the above for every other little box maker once the precedent was set.


...forever and all time! And I'd hate to see what happened to the pace and quality of Apple's innovation if they did. (That's a burden that Microsoft can't escape--and I'm glad my chosen OS doesn't share those issues.)

I like CHOICE in computing, and one choice I like to have is to have hardware and software designed TOGETHER as a whole. Those who don't want that have other choices... but this choice has proven to have real benefits. I don't see a court making that choice impossible.

[nacnud]

Apparently they are not about to test the EULA

From engadget - Psystar says rumors of its demise are greatly exaggerated, still selling Open Computers

[GQB]

Originally Posted by frugality

Right now, Apple has a monopoly on OS-X-running computers.

Not to put too fine a point on it, that's a nonsensical statement.
'Monopoly' is a legal term that's been badly misused lately.
Saying Apple has a Monopoly on OS/X computers is akin to saying that Coke has a monopoly on, well, Coke.
Well, yeah... so?
Apple OWNS OS/X... that's not a monopoly.

BTW, before anyone jumps in the the "BUT I OWN MY OS... I CAN LOAD IT ON ANY HARDWARE I WANT!" rant, no, you don't own your OS... you license it.

[solipsism]

Before anyone mentions that their business address is currently at a residence note that is not an uncommon practice for a new company. Especially one that is internet based and doesn't require a nice office space to show off to customers. If they succeed—and I don't see how they can if they go after Apple instead of just selling a machine that has the proper HW for OSx86 KEXTs—they will surely move into a large area and most likely change their address. Though they could have gotten a POBOX, but they probably didn't think of it.

Originally Posted by Buck

Well of course they do! Would you rather they charged $600 for a copy of Leopard?

The only 80% markup I see when compared to other 3rd-party products is on RAM. And when you compare the whole of the parts to a similar machine by Dell the markup seems to completely vanish.

PS: Do you think they planned this ahead of time? They are rivaling Apple in their ability to generate free press.

[wnurse]

Well one thing they could do is sell a computer capable of running Mac OSX but not install the operating system.. ie, leave it up to users to install operating system. Since they are not selling a Leopard, they cannot violate the EULA. Apple cannot dictate a company cannot make compatible hardware. That would be an interesting test. Would apple then go after individual users for violating the EULA?. What a PR nightmare that would be (similar to the PR nightmare the RIAA have when they sue individuals). It would be expensive too.. they'd have to find out who bought the computer, no easy task especially if PsyStar tells them to go jump of a building when apple request customer info (and i don't think there is any court that would force one company to hand over it's customer info, which is considered competitive information, to another).

By installing the operating system themselves, they are opening themself up to apple legal. Maybe they will argue that they make compatible mac hardware (which is legal) and that they are contracted to install the operating system on the hardware by the user (maybe shift the responsibility to the customer) but then refuse to provide customer information. Hmm.. not a lawyer but i wonder how exactly they will defeat Apple in court.

I think the smart thing to do is make the mac compatible hardware and let the customers violate the EULA.

This is only possible because apple runs on intel of course.. PsyStar could then claim that the machine could be used to install unix, or windows or mac and poor innocent souls, they had no idea the user would violate the EULA of apple. Hey, how can they be at fault if the user does something that stupid??(wink, wink).

[derev]

Originally Posted by initiator

Psystar will lose. Plain and simple.

Unfortunately for Psystar (and any sofware user mac or windows) EULAs are evil E.V.I.L.
By clicking on the agreement, which you have to do to open the installer, or in some cases just by opening the wrapper to be able to even read the EULA, you agree to its terms. So, unless the courst want to open up a can of worms with the big layers, they will throw Psystar out on their ear.

[derev]

Originally Posted by initiator

Psystar will lose. Plain and simple.

Unfortunately for Psystar (and any sofware user mac or windows) EULAs are evil E.V.I.L.
By clicking on the agreement, which you have to do to open the installer, or in some cases just by opening the wrapper to be able to even read the EULA, you agree to its terms. So, unless the courst want to open up a can of worms with the big layers, they will throw Psystar out on their ear.http://forums.appleinsider.com/image...ies/1oyvey.gif

[G_Warren]

This could be an interesting development. I'll be watching the legal wrangling with interest, although as a small startup they will require quite a budget to pursue this litigation fully.

I'm sure every mac user would welcome some competition to drive down prices. There are of course compatibility issues, and Mac OS not running as Mac OS does, but Apple could simply provide the OS X product and stay well away from supporting third party products (graphics cards etc), leaving this to others.

There are interesting competition law points here. If we assume that the relevant market is 'Computer hardware capable of running Mac OS X' then clearly Apple is in a dominant position with 100% market share. It is not completely unforseeable that Apple could be forced to licence OS X or remove the relevant paragraphs from the agreement.

Of course, one could argue that in that case, Nokia should be releasing its software so that Sony Ericsson users can use it etc.

A few complaints to national competition authorities might raise some interesting results.

[GQB]

Originally Posted by nagromme

I just don't see them actually getting a court to force Apple to do all of the following...


* Allow installation on non-Apple systems. (Remember that retail OS X is essentially an upgrade--not an original version. The original version came with the Mac. Look at how Windows pricing is different for an upgrade vs. original install. Apple would charge more--just like Microsoft--for a full version. Now technically the upgrade can install all by itself, and that's great--it's the same when I bought a Photoshop upgrade--but what you're buying is still an upgrade to something you bought already.)

* SUPPORT people who have issues with non-Apple hardware.

* TEST every patch and new feature on non-Apple hardware.

* Add code and bloat to their OS to support non-Apple hardware.

* Take the heat when an OS X feature only works right on Apple hardware. (Imagine the cries of sabotage!)

* PAY for all that support and development time out of Apple's pockets, when they didn't make the hardware profit, only the OS cost.

* Do all of the above for every other little box maker once the precedent was set.


...forever and all time! And I'd hate to see what happened to the pace and quality of Apple's innovation if they did.

I like CHOICE in computing, and one choice I like to have is to have hardware and software designed TOGETHER as a whole. Those who don't want that have other choices... but this choice has proven to have real benefits. I don't see a court making that choice impossible.

Well put...
And also, all of these things will end up reflecting on an detracting from Apple's brand.
That's demonstrable harm right there.

[ljocampo]

I remember buying a Mac clone. It was from Power Computing and the problems I had with compatibility almost drove me to buy a Windows machine. I did buy a real Mac directly Apple and I couldn't get over the difference in stability. All the driver and device issues vanished with having the real thing. So from my prospective, I think bringing back Mac clones is a bad idea.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by wnurse

I think the smart thing to do is make the mac compatible hardware and let the customers violate the EULA.

The way head shops sell pipes/bongs for tobacco and N20 chargers for whipped cream.

[shawnathan]

oh christ, here comes the onslaught of mac wannabe's.. well everyone.. i guess we've enjoyed our niche for long enough..

[hmurchison]

Idiots

If Microsoft wanted to write into their EULA that windows should only be installable on Dells they "could". It wouldn't be smart but they could if they wanted to.

"Robert" should be kept away from the press. What a moron. This company will soon be a footnote. I'm sure they have a legal departmen that matches Apple's in every way<sarcasm>

If Apple could shut down Thinksecret over rumors they're going to do a number on this little company that makes Thinksecret look like a love tap on the ass.

[Superbass]

Originally Posted by frugality

The problem is that Dell, HP, etc. have to work with Microsoft to resolve technical issues. If it works, this Psystar Corp. will have a tough go with no technical support from Apple if there are compatibility issues with their hardware.

This won't be such a big problem if Psystar installs Tiger instead of Leopard on their systems.

There most likely won't be any more updates to Tiger, so they can be sure that there won't be any iPhone-style bricking, and Leopard hasn't added very much functionality anyways (other than boot camp, biweekly fixes and lots of crashing...)

[Avor]

Microsoft has a large stake in how this ruling comes out. If Apple loses, Microsoft will begin to see a noticeable change the OS market.

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by ljocampo

I remember buying a Mac clone. It was from Power Computing and the problems I had with compatibility almost drove me to buy a Windows machine. I did buy a real Mac directly Apple and I couldn't get over the difference in stability. All the driver and device issues vanished with having the real thing. So from my prospective, I think bringing back Mac clones is a bad idea.

I had one too, though I didn't have the same trouble you had. I loved that computer for a while (as ugly as it was).

You can take my Mac...when you pry my cold...dead fingers off the mouse!

[ljocampo]

Originally Posted by Bageljoey

I had one too, though I didn't have the same trouble you had. I loved that computer for a while (as ugly as it was).

Well it was pre OS X days and conflicts depended on what software you had on the machine. Hardware wise my Power Computing clone was excellent. It had better specs than a real Apple at the time, but software conflicts drove me insane.

There really is a lot of good to say about having the OS and HW produced by the same company. IMHO most instability on Macs today come from third party software. Not that Apple hasn't had its share of bloopers.

[sandau]

hmm, who is Psystar?

Founded in 2008. Perhaps just a publicity machine for CC numbers and cash? How do we know they are a real business entitiy afterall and not just a front.

My money sticks with Apple. They'll be around after I order and when it ships, it arrives (and runs well). Then they also do a bang-up job of service if I need it.

[Superbass]

Originally Posted by Booga

I'm looking to get a new professional-grade machine soon. Out of curiosity I've been pricing Mac Pro's against Dells. The Dells don't even seem to be in the same ballpark in price-- they're way, way higher. A vanilla $2800 2.8GHz 8 core Mac Pro equivalent, or anything close to it, costs at least $500 more at Dell's store. Am I doing something wrong? Everyone seems to claim Dells are cheaper but I don't see it.

Now yes, in the sub-$1000 market you can get a LOT more on the PC side (where's the mini with a video card slot?) But for most of Apple's products they don't seem to be out of line from what everyone else is charging.

DELL:

PROCESSOR Intel® Core™2 Q6700 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache,2.66Hz,1066FSB) edit
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium with Digital Cable Support edit
MEMORY 4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 4 DIMMs edit
HARD DRIVE 1TB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 32MB Cache edit
OPTICAL DRIVE Single Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability edit
MONITORS No Monitor edit
VIDEO CARD nVidia GeForce 8800 GT 512MB edit
SOUND CARD Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio edit
SPEAKERS No speakers (Speakers are required to hear audio from your system) edit
KEYBOARD Dell USB Keyboard edit
MOUSE Dell Optical USB Mouse edit
FLOPPY & MEDIA READER No Floppy Drive or Media Reader Included

$1958 including Office

Mac Pro
Part Number: Z0EM
One 16x SuperDrive
One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core)
Apple Mighty Mouse
iWork '08 preinstalled
Apple Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X
4GB (4 x 1GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
Accessory kit
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)

$3428 including iWork (75% more expensive than the Dell...)

Dell doesn't offer Xenon "Octo"-core systems, instead they have Core2 Extreme, which is the overclocked gaming equivalent. It would cost $600 to upgrade to it on the dell, $500 to upgrade on the Mac. Also, Apple charges more for memory upgrades, video card upgrades, hard drives and displays, and Dell offers BluRay, which Apple doesn't...

[BrisbaneDigital]

While many of the issues raised in the replies to this post are all valid, perhaps the threshold issue on this subject is through what mechanism and how much is Psystar paying Apple for a licensing fee for OSX. Since Apple does not have an OEM program, the only (arguably) legal mechanism that Psystar has to legally acquire the OS, is to purchase retail versions. This coupled with the cost of components and packaging, is likely drive the Cost of Goods to at least $400, if not higher (that doesn't take into account other costs such as product design, testing, assembly, distribution, marketing, etc... (Of course, we can't forget Legal! ).

The other question raised is, who has the legal duty to support the customers of these systems? Even if Apple wanted to, there is no way that they can provide support without knowing the precise configurations of these systems and the specific components used.


This sounds more like a publicity stunt rather than a legitimate attempt to enter the OSX clone business.

Just my two cents....


(actually, given my hourly rate, that is my $46.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Psystar Corporation, which this week began selling a series of Mac clone systems without Apple's blessing, is determined to challenge the Mac maker in court over the licensing terms for its Mac OS X operating system.

Speaking to InformationWeek, a Psystar employee identified only as Robert said his company sees Apple's end-user license agreement, which prohibits third-party installations of Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, as a violation of antitrust laws.

"What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?," he said. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"

As such, the Psystar representative implied that the company is eager to bring the matter before a court, where it believes Apple will have a tough time defending its stringent licensing terms.

As part of its defense, the Miami-based reseller also appears to be accusing Apple of price gouging its customers with each Mac OS X-based computer it sells.

"They're charging an 80 percent markup on hardware," Robert told InformationWeek.

He said Psystar plans to continue selling its $400 OpenMac clone and insisted that the company isn't "breaking any laws."

Ironically, Psystar on Monday evening changed the name of its offering from "OpenMac" to "Open Computer," presumably to avoid charges that it was indeed violating trademark law.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Superbass]

Originally Posted by Avor

Microsoft has a large stake in how this ruling comes out. If Apple loses, Microsoft will begin to see a noticeable change the OS market.

Dell maybe has the bigger stake - they could add some hackintosh people to their customer service and start selling systems with a choice of Vista, XP, Linux or OSX on a huge scale pretty quickly.

[Dave_M]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"They're charging an 80 percent markup on hardware," Robert told InformationWeek.

He said Psystar plans to continue selling its $400 OpenMac clone

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

I've just been on the Psystar site and that $400 doesn't even include OS X.
That will cost you an extra $155!
Even Firewire will cost you another $50

This brings it into Mini Mac territory and I know which one I would rather buy.

I think that Psystar have missed the point, even if they were'nt about to get annihilated by Jobs' lawyers, these machines just aren't cool!! :-)

[Dave_M]

Dell have already started selling machines withUbuntu on them!! http://www.dell.com/content/topics/s...=19&l=en&s=dhs

[Abster2core]

Lots of missing specs and questions.

Basically, adding Firewire, Leopard, iWorks, Front Row, Airport Extreme (or any wireless), Bluetooth, Speakers?, Ethernet?, S-video and composite output will jack the price to well over $700.

Of course, one must weigh the value of Apple's support and guarantee, as well as, issues raised after reviewing Psystar's currently posted FAQs before making this a choice, e.g.,

How do I eject a CD without an Apple keyboard? This is an issue that may come up from time-to-time when using your Open Computer with the OS X operating system. As you may know Apple keyboards have an eject button and that is what actually opens the drive tray. PC-based keyboards do not have this button. What PCs do have is an eject button on the drive trays, but Apple computers don't and consequently lock the drive and ignore this button like most Linux/BSD operating systems, requiring the drive to be unmounted first.
*
• Press and hold F-12
• type the command 'drutil eject' in terminal

Can I run updates on my Open Computer? The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are safe. It's best to check the web for this information but when in doubt don't update it. You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update.

Will my software work? Psystar has tested our Open computers with standard OS X software. We have not found any software incompatibilities with the standard OS software but we cannot guarantee that any of the software on your computer will work in Leopard. In Windows everything should work just fine assuming you have the proper device drivers and in Ubuntu everything should, in theory, work fine but Linux applications often require dependencies and a bit of work on the user's part.

Awe, the simplicity of a real Mac.

[BlackSummerNight]

Come on, down with monolopies! I hope someone hits iTunes next!

[radwansk]

Originally Posted by Booga

A vanilla $2800 2.8GHz 8 core Mac Pro equivalent, or anything close to it, costs at least $500 more at Dell's store. Am I doing something wrong? Everyone seems to claim Dells are cheaper but I don't see it.

Now yes, in the sub-$1000 market you can get a LOT more on the PC side (where's the mini with a video card slot?) But for most of Apple's products they don't seem to be out of line from what everyone else is charging.

This has been widely written about many times over. If you compare the cost of a mac with specific components, to a PC from the major carriers with near the same specs, you will find the mac is a less expensive system...and in many ways better designed and built.

However when you go below $1000, you find there are many systems less expensive on the PC side. But you have to watch the specs, many times they are using AMD or Hypersonic processors or a lesser video card, which aren't a good point of comparison. If you compare a mac, and a pc, with x HD by brand y, xvideo card by brand y, Xram by brand y, usually the mac is cheaper. Why? I would have to guess that is the uplift for Windows licenses.

[floccus]

Have we all forgotten our computing history? The whole reason Microsoft became so successful was that they specifically allowed their OS to be used on multiple types of computers. Previous to that, the OS and hardware were almost always locked together (e.g., the original Macintosh). Also, Psystar would be aiding and abetting software piracy if they specifically marketed a machine for the purposes of allowing a purchaser to buy/install a copy of OSX in violation of the EULA.