The results of this case should set precedent for all future EULA cases hopefully. A part of me wants Apple to win so they can put a company out of business that is knowingly reverse engineering and modifying OS X to install on their hardware, but the other part wants Psystar to win so there can be more competition and make Macs more affordable to all. However Psystar isn't helping their cause by some silly things they have been doing.
If someone can't afford a Mac (yet), then they should save up. It sounds crazy, I know, but just think about it. LOL
If you dont think it's worth it even if you DO have the money, then it comes down to a matter of personal taste. In which case you can do what you please.
Macs are as affordable or as expensive as the market can bear. That's all there is to it.
Seems to be working out just fine. People are buying and Apple's making its margins. Done. There's no reason for it to be any more complicated than that.
If there was an actual problem, we'd see Apple unable to sell their prodcuts and sharp drops in sales and revenue, and all the other obvious signs that something isn't right. We're not seeing any of that, especially in this recession (imagine how much more consumers will buy at these prices once we're out of the woods!) So Apple's prices are just fine. The company seems to know what it's doing.
Why should Macs be affordable by all? All you need to do is replace "Mac" by a few other premium brand names like BMW, Rolex, Armani etc. to see how ludicrous the whole argument is. Are you saying these companies should be denied intellectual property protection just so you can afford to buy one of their products for less than you might otherwise? It's your choice - if you don't think the product is worth the price, don't buy it.
In any case, I'd argue against the assumption that Macs aren't affordable. They're not THAT expensive, and quite apart from the Mac Mini there are always plenty of offers on old stock when a new model is introduced, refurbished machines from Apple, etc. that can significantly reduce the cost. Macs tend to have a very long usable life, so you're not missing much if you can't justify paying for the latest and greatest top of the range model.
I agree, I don't want macs to be for everyone, I want macs to be amazing machines for those who can afford them (as you say they aren't that expensive anyway). A third party PC running OSX does not make a mac. Where is the machined aluminum case? Light weight? Thin profile? Hard drive drop sensor? Illuminated keyboard? Multitouch trackpad? Ambient light sensor? Slot loading drive? I also agree on the long life part. I've had my macbook pro longer than any PC I've ever owned.
Destroying evidence sounds like a criminal offense. If it turns out to be true,
some person(s) at Psystar could end up behind bars.
They're just lowlifes looking to profit from Apple's work. I'm not too worried about them. Their days of being in business are numbered, anyway. November is getting closer and closer.
I agree, I don't want macs to be for everyone, I want macs to be amazing machines for those who can afford them (as you say they aren't that expensive anyway). A third party PC running OSX does not make a mac. Where is the machined aluminum case? Light weight? Thin profile? Hard drive drop sensor? Illuminated keyboard? Multitouch trackpad? Ambient light sensor? Slot loading drive? I also agree on the long life part. I've had my macbook pro longer than any PC I've ever owned.
What if you don't want the aluminum case, the thin profile (overheating?) the illuminated keyboard, the multitouch trackpad, the light sensor, the slot drive, the isight? What if a person just wants OS X? That's the issue with some. I don't want any of those things. I want a desktop hard drive, a desktop processor that I can change out and over clock, I want standard drives and be able to install a blue-ray drive if i wish. I want to be able to upgrade to USB3 when it comes out, or install a new networking card. I want to be able to use a standard graphics card that isn't specially built for Mac, and more so I want SLI or CrossFire. I want this in a smallish desktop form factor. Apple doesn't sell this. I want all this AND OSX, but that's not a possiblitiy through Apple... so then what do I do?
Gotta do it myself.
And also, my PCs have lasted over 2 times longer than my MacBook Pro ever did (three of them). And when I sold the machine after 1.5 years, it was obsolete to the fact that it won't run some current Apple software. At least with my 300 dollar netbook, I can't complain that its slow or when it does die (which it is out lasting the MBPs and not showing any signs of dying) I can't complain that I didn't get my bang for my buck. For 2000 dollars, and the machine only lasts 8 months at the most, then yes, I can complain (three laptops, one lasted 3 weeks, the next 3 months, the final, 8 months, yay for going outside the warranty. Sad I couldn't afford the AppleCare be cause I saved up all my money for just the computer alone. It wiped me out.)
Some people want choice, and Apple doesn't give them too much choice. I'm not pro Psystar, but I'm pro happy consumers. And I know quite a few Apple consumers who are not happy. Myself included.
If someone can't afford a Mac (yet), then they should save up. It sounds crazy, I know, but just think about it. LOL
If you dont think it's worth it even if you DO have the money, then it comes down to a matter of personal taste. In which case you can do what you please.
Macs are as affordable or as expensive as the market can bear. That's all there is to it.
Seems to be working out just fine. People are buying and Apple's making its margins. Done. There's no reason for it to be any more complicated than that.
If there was an actual problem, we'd see Apple unable to sell their prodcuts and sharp drops in sales and revenue, and all the other obvious signs that something isn't right. We're not seeing any of that, especially in this recession (imagine how much more consumers will buy at these prices once we're out of the woods!) So Apple's prices are just fine. The company seems to know what it's doing.
Perhaps the U.S. government will soon institute a "Pennies for PCs" program for people wishing to purchase a new Mac.
They can trade in their crappy Windows PCs (which will be promptly destroyed even if the hardware is in prime condition) and receive credit towards the Mac of their choice.
Nah. It'll never happen. Apple is actually a well-run, profitable, innovative company that doesn't need unconstitutional government intervention to stay afloat.
They're just lowlifes looking to profit from Apple's work. I'm not too worried about them. Their days of being in business are numbered, anyway. November is getting closer and closer.
I don't disagree with you, but I was just thinking of the scenario where the
people at Psystar are just paid stooges for some as yet unnamed third party
behind the scenes. When they started out, the masterminds might have
told the stooges, "don't worry, all the legal disputes we foresee will be
civil in nature, and we will pay for everything so you don't have to worry."
Now that there might be a criminal aspect to the dispute, the stooges might
end up spending some time in jail, which is something they may not have
thought possible. I think it would be poetic justice, plus it would provide
motivation for the stooges to identify the masterminds.
Well I completely disagree with how Pystar is selling their machines by hacking OS X and putting it on their machines. I think if Psystar wins, it creates better competition by selling OS X on machines with cheaper components. Do it the right way by legally winning this battle, and selling legit, unhacked OS X installs. As for as who is all, I am talking about the people who want to get a Mac computer, but are not able to pay $1,000 dollars for a model. I know the Mac Mini starts at $599, but most people I know want a laptop instead and Apple doesn't cut it at that price range. Also when they go into an Apple Store, the Mini isn't exactly displayed prominently like an iMac or portable solutions. For me, I think a $700 dollar MacBook type price point is a great starting price.
There are many things you must keep in mind of why PC laptops are so cheap and apple will NEVER be able to produce them.
1) Software companies pay the hardware companies to get their software on their machines. This helps lower costs.
2) The hardware companies use poorer components (plastic casings, cheaper power supplies, bottom of the barrel hard drives). This helps lower costs.
3) The hardware companies don't have much for research and development. A case design and they slap pre-made components inside the case. Apple does much more R&D than any other company. This helps the hardware companies lower costs.
4) The hardware companies don't have any software R&D. Apple invests a lot of money in developing OS X. They don't make that money from selling the upgrade copies for $130. They make it in their margins for their computers. The hardware companies just have to buy a copy of windows (FOR VERY VERY CHEAP). This helps the hardware companies lower costs.
Some people want choice, and Apple doesn't give them too much choice. I'm not pro Psystar, but I'm pro happy consumers. And I know quite a few Apple consumers who are not happy. Myself included.
Well, as anyone who would bother to read my other postings would know, I'm all for consumer choice, but it's just not possible for Apple to make all computers for all people. And, as I pointed out in an early reply to this thread, the business model where Apple becomes a software company isn't really viable either. I think they've made the right choice for themselves to flourish by avoiding the low-end, low-margin market and focusing on higher margin products where there really isn't any competition.
It would be great if they could make everyone exactly the computer they want, at exactly the price they want, but, unfortunately, it's just not a realistic scenario.
I'm sick of people thinking that Macs have to be affordable.
Yes, because as is observed so frequently in today's society (e.g., this plaintiff and supporting posters), some distort reality/laws/sense to cover one's weaknesses in the irrational/lame attempt of behavior justification or making it appear as somebody else's fault/responsibility. As my parents were known to say, "The jails are full of them."
Psystar has valid points and we should be supporting their efforts rather than fighting them!
Your being sarcastic aren't you?
Psystar are no better that chop shop car thieves or chinese electronic clone companies with no respect for anyones IP. More than that their dishonesty runs to destroying evidence. They are nothing more than common criminals and should be treated as such.
So true. I'm sick of people thinking that Macs have to be affordable. They aren't for everyone -- they provide a better experience because they're more expensive and therefore generally have higher quality hardware. And yes, they have higher profit margins, but they also deserve it, because their hardware and software work almost flawlessly. Not only that, they have to deal with the consumer if he/she has any problems because they're directly responsible. Try telling that to Microsoft or any of the PC makers...
If Apple decides it wants to be part of the market, NOT the whole market, so be it. Pystar shouldn't be allowed to force it to do otherwise .
To clarify that last part further, the courts should not be allowed to force Apple to do otherwise. Apple has not been found to be practicing anti-trust or anti-competitive business practices.
Well I completely disagree with how Pystar is selling their machines by hacking OS X and putting it on their machines. I think if Psystar wins, it creates better competition by selling OS X on machines with cheaper components. Do it the right way by legally winning this battle, and selling legit, unhacked OS X installs.
I really don't understand your position. On the one hand you seem to be saying that what Psystar has been doing IS wrong. ie Illegal. On the other hand you are telling them to legally win this 'battle'.
What if you don't want the aluminum case, the thin profile (overheating?) the illuminated keyboard, the multitouch trackpad, the light sensor, the slot drive, the isight? What if a person just wants OS X? That's the issue with some. I don't want any of those things. I want a desktop hard drive, a desktop processor that I can change out and over clock, I want standard drives and be able to install a blue-ray drive if i wish. I want to be able to upgrade to USB3 when it comes out, or install a new networking card. I want to be able to use a standard graphics card that isn't specially built for Mac, and more so I want SLI or CrossFire. I want this in a smallish desktop form factor. Apple doesn't sell this. I want all this AND OSX, but that's not a possiblitiy through Apple... so then what do I do?
Gotta do it myself.
And also, my PCs have lasted over 2 times longer than my MacBook Pro ever did (three of them). And when I sold the machine after 1.5 years, it was obsolete to the fact that it won't run some current Apple software. At least with my 300 dollar netbook, I can't complain that its slow or when it does die (which it is out lasting the MBPs and not showing any signs of dying) I can't complain that I didn't get my bang for my buck. For 2000 dollars, and the machine only lasts 8 months at the most, then yes, I can complain (three laptops, one lasted 3 weeks, the next 3 months, the final, 8 months, yay for going outside the warranty. Sad I couldn't afford the AppleCare be cause I saved up all my money for just the computer alone. It wiped me out.)
Some people want choice, and Apple doesn't give them too much choice. I'm not pro Psystar, but I'm pro happy consumers. And I know quite a few Apple consumers who are not happy. Myself included.
Most mac users are happy, in fact Apple tends to have a higher percentage of satisfied customers than most other pc manufactuers. I'm sorry that you had a bad experience, but that is not typical.
Honestly, what you want from a computer represents a very small market. While many people have asked for Apple to release a consumer desktop, I think Apple would only introduce one if they could do something truely innovative in that market, if not they would be stuck in the low margin high production business model that they don't want to follow (despite your experience, the low margin manufacturers still deliver lower quality products). Most people don't get desktops for their upgradability, most never open up their computers, they get them because they are cheap. Apple doesn't fit that model.
Lastly, Apple is under no obligation to allow OSX to be used with any computer and if they did, you should expect OSX to cost close to twice as much if they can't subsidize it through hardware sales.
...In any case, I'd argue against the assumption that Macs aren't affordable. They're not THAT expensive, and quite apart from the Mac Mini there are always plenty of offers on old stock when a new model is introduced, refurbished machines from Apple, etc. that can significantly reduce the cost. Macs tend to have a very long usable life, so you're not missing much if you can't justify paying for the latest and greatest top of the range model.
Since our first Mac, a Performa 630CD purchased in 1994, we've used each of our Macs at least 6 years or longer. Last week I just replaced our 9 year oldG4 Cube with a refurbished, current generation Mac Mini!
I wonder if Psystar is actually selling any Mac clones. Who would buy one with this pending legal situation? Where is their money coming from? How can they afford attorney fees and other court costs? They must have backers.
What if you don't want the aluminum case, the thin profile (overheating?) the illuminated keyboard, the multitouch trackpad, the light sensor, the slot drive, the isight? What if a person just wants OS X? That's the issue with some.
Then I guess it sucks to be them.
While you are out there wishing for stuff, I want a pony too.
The Mac is special because of it's combination of hardware and software - OS X in and of it's self isn't that interesting. It's the Apple Way. If you don't like their model, there are plenty of other choices out there.
You keep saying you want a Mac and then immediately set about trying to change what makes the Mac a great platform. It's illogical. Your like the corporate raiders that buy a company because it's great and then immediately set about screwing up everything that made the company you just bought great. It makes no sense.
If your honest with yourself, you don't want a Mac. You want the Mac experience for free. You want something for nothing (or as close to nothing) as you can get. Again, I want a pony. Suck it up and buy a Mac or go buy something else, but stop whining like you are entitled to the Mac experience. You aren't. Having an "affordable" (whatever the heck that means) Mac experience not an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence (it's the Pursuit of Happiness BTW).
If you don't have the money now, do what I and other responsible people do - save or do without.
Comments
some person(s) at Psystar could end up behind bars.
The results of this case should set precedent for all future EULA cases hopefully. A part of me wants Apple to win so they can put a company out of business that is knowingly reverse engineering and modifying OS X to install on their hardware, but the other part wants Psystar to win so there can be more competition and make Macs more affordable to all. However Psystar isn't helping their cause by some silly things they have been doing.
If someone can't afford a Mac (yet), then they should save up. It sounds crazy, I know, but just think about it. LOL
If you dont think it's worth it even if you DO have the money, then it comes down to a matter of personal taste. In which case you can do what you please.
Macs are as affordable or as expensive as the market can bear. That's all there is to it.
Seems to be working out just fine. People are buying and Apple's making its margins. Done. There's no reason for it to be any more complicated than that.
If there was an actual problem, we'd see Apple unable to sell their prodcuts and sharp drops in sales and revenue, and all the other obvious signs that something isn't right. We're not seeing any of that, especially in this recession (imagine how much more consumers will buy at these prices once we're out of the woods!) So Apple's prices are just fine. The company seems to know what it's doing.
Why should Macs be affordable by all? All you need to do is replace "Mac" by a few other premium brand names like BMW, Rolex, Armani etc. to see how ludicrous the whole argument is. Are you saying these companies should be denied intellectual property protection just so you can afford to buy one of their products for less than you might otherwise? It's your choice - if you don't think the product is worth the price, don't buy it.
In any case, I'd argue against the assumption that Macs aren't affordable. They're not THAT expensive, and quite apart from the Mac Mini there are always plenty of offers on old stock when a new model is introduced, refurbished machines from Apple, etc. that can significantly reduce the cost. Macs tend to have a very long usable life, so you're not missing much if you can't justify paying for the latest and greatest top of the range model.
I agree, I don't want macs to be for everyone, I want macs to be amazing machines for those who can afford them (as you say they aren't that expensive anyway). A third party PC running OSX does not make a mac. Where is the machined aluminum case? Light weight? Thin profile? Hard drive drop sensor? Illuminated keyboard? Multitouch trackpad? Ambient light sensor? Slot loading drive? I also agree on the long life part. I've had my macbook pro longer than any PC I've ever owned.
Destroying evidence sounds like a criminal offense. If it turns out to be true,
some person(s) at Psystar could end up behind bars.
They're just lowlifes looking to profit from Apple's work. I'm not too worried about them. Their days of being in business are numbered, anyway. November is getting closer and closer.
I agree, I don't want macs to be for everyone, I want macs to be amazing machines for those who can afford them (as you say they aren't that expensive anyway). A third party PC running OSX does not make a mac. Where is the machined aluminum case? Light weight? Thin profile? Hard drive drop sensor? Illuminated keyboard? Multitouch trackpad? Ambient light sensor? Slot loading drive? I also agree on the long life part. I've had my macbook pro longer than any PC I've ever owned.
What if you don't want the aluminum case, the thin profile (overheating?) the illuminated keyboard, the multitouch trackpad, the light sensor, the slot drive, the isight? What if a person just wants OS X? That's the issue with some. I don't want any of those things. I want a desktop hard drive, a desktop processor that I can change out and over clock, I want standard drives and be able to install a blue-ray drive if i wish. I want to be able to upgrade to USB3 when it comes out, or install a new networking card. I want to be able to use a standard graphics card that isn't specially built for Mac, and more so I want SLI or CrossFire. I want this in a smallish desktop form factor. Apple doesn't sell this. I want all this AND OSX, but that's not a possiblitiy through Apple... so then what do I do?
Gotta do it myself.
And also, my PCs have lasted over 2 times longer than my MacBook Pro ever did (three of them). And when I sold the machine after 1.5 years, it was obsolete to the fact that it won't run some current Apple software. At least with my 300 dollar netbook, I can't complain that its slow or when it does die (which it is out lasting the MBPs and not showing any signs of dying) I can't complain that I didn't get my bang for my buck. For 2000 dollars, and the machine only lasts 8 months at the most, then yes, I can complain (three laptops, one lasted 3 weeks, the next 3 months, the final, 8 months, yay for going outside the warranty. Sad I couldn't afford the AppleCare be cause I saved up all my money for just the computer alone. It wiped me out.)
Some people want choice, and Apple doesn't give them too much choice. I'm not pro Psystar, but I'm pro happy consumers. And I know quite a few Apple consumers who are not happy. Myself included.
If someone can't afford a Mac (yet), then they should save up. It sounds crazy, I know, but just think about it. LOL
If you dont think it's worth it even if you DO have the money, then it comes down to a matter of personal taste. In which case you can do what you please.
Macs are as affordable or as expensive as the market can bear. That's all there is to it.
Seems to be working out just fine. People are buying and Apple's making its margins. Done. There's no reason for it to be any more complicated than that.
If there was an actual problem, we'd see Apple unable to sell their prodcuts and sharp drops in sales and revenue, and all the other obvious signs that something isn't right. We're not seeing any of that, especially in this recession (imagine how much more consumers will buy at these prices once we're out of the woods!) So Apple's prices are just fine. The company seems to know what it's doing.
Perhaps the U.S. government will soon institute a "Pennies for PCs" program for people wishing to purchase a new Mac.
They can trade in their crappy Windows PCs (which will be promptly destroyed even if the hardware is in prime condition) and receive credit towards the Mac of their choice.
Nah. It'll never happen. Apple is actually a well-run, profitable, innovative company that doesn't need unconstitutional government intervention to stay afloat.
They're just lowlifes looking to profit from Apple's work. I'm not too worried about them. Their days of being in business are numbered, anyway. November is getting closer and closer.
I don't disagree with you, but I was just thinking of the scenario where the
people at Psystar are just paid stooges for some as yet unnamed third party
behind the scenes. When they started out, the masterminds might have
told the stooges, "don't worry, all the legal disputes we foresee will be
civil in nature, and we will pay for everything so you don't have to worry."
Now that there might be a criminal aspect to the dispute, the stooges might
end up spending some time in jail, which is something they may not have
thought possible. I think it would be poetic justice, plus it would provide
motivation for the stooges to identify the masterminds.
Well I completely disagree with how Pystar is selling their machines by hacking OS X and putting it on their machines. I think if Psystar wins, it creates better competition by selling OS X on machines with cheaper components. Do it the right way by legally winning this battle, and selling legit, unhacked OS X installs. As for as who is all, I am talking about the people who want to get a Mac computer, but are not able to pay $1,000 dollars for a model. I know the Mac Mini starts at $599, but most people I know want a laptop instead and Apple doesn't cut it at that price range. Also when they go into an Apple Store, the Mini isn't exactly displayed prominently like an iMac or portable solutions. For me, I think a $700 dollar MacBook type price point is a great starting price.
There are many things you must keep in mind of why PC laptops are so cheap and apple will NEVER be able to produce them.
1) Software companies pay the hardware companies to get their software on their machines. This helps lower costs.
2) The hardware companies use poorer components (plastic casings, cheaper power supplies, bottom of the barrel hard drives). This helps lower costs.
3) The hardware companies don't have much for research and development. A case design and they slap pre-made components inside the case. Apple does much more R&D than any other company. This helps the hardware companies lower costs.
4) The hardware companies don't have any software R&D. Apple invests a lot of money in developing OS X. They don't make that money from selling the upgrade copies for $130. They make it in their margins for their computers. The hardware companies just have to buy a copy of windows (FOR VERY VERY CHEAP). This helps the hardware companies lower costs.
Some people want choice, and Apple doesn't give them too much choice. I'm not pro Psystar, but I'm pro happy consumers. And I know quite a few Apple consumers who are not happy. Myself included.
Well, as anyone who would bother to read my other postings would know, I'm all for consumer choice, but it's just not possible for Apple to make all computers for all people. And, as I pointed out in an early reply to this thread, the business model where Apple becomes a software company isn't really viable either. I think they've made the right choice for themselves to flourish by avoiding the low-end, low-margin market and focusing on higher margin products where there really isn't any competition.
It would be great if they could make everyone exactly the computer they want, at exactly the price they want, but, unfortunately, it's just not a realistic scenario.
I'm sick of people thinking that Macs have to be affordable.
Yes, because as is observed so frequently in today's society (e.g., this plaintiff and supporting posters), some distort reality/laws/sense to cover one's weaknesses in the irrational/lame attempt of behavior justification or making it appear as somebody else's fault/responsibility. As my parents were known to say, "The jails are full of them."
Psystar has valid points and we should be supporting their efforts rather than fighting them!
Your being sarcastic aren't you?
Psystar are no better that chop shop car thieves or chinese electronic clone companies with no respect for anyones IP. More than that their dishonesty runs to destroying evidence. They are nothing more than common criminals and should be treated as such.
So true. I'm sick of people thinking that Macs have to be affordable. They aren't for everyone -- they provide a better experience because they're more expensive and therefore generally have higher quality hardware. And yes, they have higher profit margins, but they also deserve it, because their hardware and software work almost flawlessly. Not only that, they have to deal with the consumer if he/she has any problems because they're directly responsible. Try telling that to Microsoft or any of the PC makers...
If Apple decides it wants to be part of the market, NOT the whole market, so be it. Pystar shouldn't be allowed to force it to do otherwise
To clarify that last part further, the courts should not be allowed to force Apple to do otherwise. Apple has not been found to be practicing anti-trust or anti-competitive business practices.
Well I completely disagree with how Pystar is selling their machines by hacking OS X and putting it on their machines. I think if Psystar wins, it creates better competition by selling OS X on machines with cheaper components. Do it the right way by legally winning this battle, and selling legit, unhacked OS X installs.
I really don't understand your position. On the one hand you seem to be saying that what Psystar has been doing IS wrong. ie Illegal. On the other hand you are telling them to legally win this 'battle'.
?
What if you don't want the aluminum case, the thin profile (overheating?) the illuminated keyboard, the multitouch trackpad, the light sensor, the slot drive, the isight? What if a person just wants OS X? That's the issue with some. I don't want any of those things. I want a desktop hard drive, a desktop processor that I can change out and over clock, I want standard drives and be able to install a blue-ray drive if i wish. I want to be able to upgrade to USB3 when it comes out, or install a new networking card. I want to be able to use a standard graphics card that isn't specially built for Mac, and more so I want SLI or CrossFire. I want this in a smallish desktop form factor. Apple doesn't sell this. I want all this AND OSX, but that's not a possiblitiy through Apple... so then what do I do?
Gotta do it myself.
And also, my PCs have lasted over 2 times longer than my MacBook Pro ever did (three of them). And when I sold the machine after 1.5 years, it was obsolete to the fact that it won't run some current Apple software. At least with my 300 dollar netbook, I can't complain that its slow or when it does die (which it is out lasting the MBPs and not showing any signs of dying) I can't complain that I didn't get my bang for my buck. For 2000 dollars, and the machine only lasts 8 months at the most, then yes, I can complain (three laptops, one lasted 3 weeks, the next 3 months, the final, 8 months, yay for going outside the warranty. Sad I couldn't afford the AppleCare be cause I saved up all my money for just the computer alone. It wiped me out.)
Some people want choice, and Apple doesn't give them too much choice. I'm not pro Psystar, but I'm pro happy consumers. And I know quite a few Apple consumers who are not happy. Myself included.
Most mac users are happy, in fact Apple tends to have a higher percentage of satisfied customers than most other pc manufactuers. I'm sorry that you had a bad experience, but that is not typical.
Honestly, what you want from a computer represents a very small market. While many people have asked for Apple to release a consumer desktop, I think Apple would only introduce one if they could do something truely innovative in that market, if not they would be stuck in the low margin high production business model that they don't want to follow (despite your experience, the low margin manufacturers still deliver lower quality products). Most people don't get desktops for their upgradability, most never open up their computers, they get them because they are cheap. Apple doesn't fit that model.
Lastly, Apple is under no obligation to allow OSX to be used with any computer and if they did, you should expect OSX to cost close to twice as much if they can't subsidize it through hardware sales.
Psystar has valid points and we should be supporting their efforts rather than fighting them!
Really? Which "valid points" would those be?
Personally, I want linux to win.
Two thoughts: 1) Good luck with that 2) You'll get what you paid for
...In any case, I'd argue against the assumption that Macs aren't affordable. They're not THAT expensive, and quite apart from the Mac Mini there are always plenty of offers on old stock when a new model is introduced, refurbished machines from Apple, etc. that can significantly reduce the cost. Macs tend to have a very long usable life, so you're not missing much if you can't justify paying for the latest and greatest top of the range model.
Since our first Mac, a Performa 630CD purchased in 1994, we've used each of our Macs at least 6 years or longer. Last week I just replaced our 9 year oldG4 Cube with a refurbished, current generation Mac Mini!
What if you don't want the aluminum case, the thin profile (overheating?) the illuminated keyboard, the multitouch trackpad, the light sensor, the slot drive, the isight? What if a person just wants OS X? That's the issue with some.
Then I guess it sucks to be them.
While you are out there wishing for stuff, I want a pony too.
The Mac is special because of it's combination of hardware and software - OS X in and of it's self isn't that interesting. It's the Apple Way. If you don't like their model, there are plenty of other choices out there.
You keep saying you want a Mac and then immediately set about trying to change what makes the Mac a great platform. It's illogical. Your like the corporate raiders that buy a company because it's great and then immediately set about screwing up everything that made the company you just bought great. It makes no sense.
If your honest with yourself, you don't want a Mac. You want the Mac experience for free. You want something for nothing (or as close to nothing) as you can get. Again, I want a pony. Suck it up and buy a Mac or go buy something else, but stop whining like you are entitled to the Mac experience. You aren't. Having an "affordable" (whatever the heck that means) Mac experience not an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence (it's the Pursuit of Happiness BTW).
If you don't have the money now, do what I and other responsible people do - save or do without.