Comment buried. Show
1. Roehlstation

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2001

   +1
   03/18, 08:27am | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   Anyone own one?

   They have to be selling, otherwise they wouldn't do it, Has anyone purchased one that can comment on them?

Comment buried. Show
1. lamewing

   Forum Regular

   Joined: Aug 2004

   -11
   03/18, 09:03am | report spam | (3 replies) close | reply

   I would buy it...

   I think it is a great idea. I would buy a copy of OSX if I could easily install it on my hand-built PC or my wife's Dell laptop.
   
   People claim that it will take sales away from Apple, but I don't believe that. Folks who love Apple are going to buy an Apple machine no matter what. Apple will simply get a larger base of buyers.
   
   The same thing happened with the iPod. It didn't sell that well (not badly either) until it was officially opened up to the PC world, at which point it took off. I used my 5GB iPod for over a couple of years and no one even knew what the thing was.
   
   The only difficulty I see is that there would be support issues which would need to be worked out.

Comment buried. Show
1. eldarkus

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Feb 2004

   +7
   03/18, 09:15am | report spam | close reply

   lamewing

   The support issue you talk about is the exact reason why Apple will never do it. Quality control is what Apple wants

Comment buried. Show
1. revco

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: May 2005

   +3
   03/18, 09:21am | report spam | (2 replies) close | reply

   Fair price

   With Apple's recent price hikes to anyone outside the US it seems like a good deal. I fully spec'd up the Psystar Open(3) and it came to half the price of the new entry level MacPro system. Including shipping to Australia! I think they're going to sell a lot of these to users outside of the US.

Comment buried. Show
1. JNGowan

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Feb 2009

   +4
   03/18, 09:45am | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   You're wrong

   "People claim that it will take sales away from Apple, but I don't believe that. Folks who love Apple are going to buy an Apple machine no matter what. Apple will simply get a larger base of buyers" - lamewing
   
   Failure to remember the past, you're doomed to repeat it, fella! Just as clones were killing Apple's business in the mid 90s, this wouldn't be good if allowed. This is different of course, because the general public doesn't even know about these and even if they did, would be afraid to buy and then eventually be unsupported due to the eventual ruling in Apple's favor. A larger base of buyers for $129 each takes away from the $599-$2500 chunk Apple makes on their hardware. Ask yourself: would you want the $129 slice or the $2500 slice? Get real.

Comment buried. Show
1. vasic

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: May 2005

   +7
   03/18, 09:51am | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   Precisely the point

   Apple is the company we know today for one main reason: being able to sell the 'whole widget' -- a computer and OS, specifically built for each other. A combination like that is priced at (sometimes) hefty premium, which allows Apple to plow money into R&D, testing and support at a scale not possible at nickel-and-dime PC box assemblers (Dell, HP, PsyStar).
   
   When anything goes wrong with your Mac, you go to a Mac Genius, or call Apple support. Single point of contact, they fix it for you.
   
   Who do you call when your webcam stops working in iChat after the most recent update of Skype (happened to me)? Apple? Skype? PsyStar? (Apple Genius fixed it for me) Expect some volleyball among the three, with you being the ball, and Apple refusing to hear anything about it.
   
   If by some miraculous chance PsyStar ends up winning this suit, Apple's retail price for a boxes OS X should be set at $600 (no OEM deals). In order to install OS X on that PsyStar machine, they'd tack that price on top of their retail. That way, Apple could (presumably) afford to provide support for the box assemblers' machines.

Comment buried. Show
1. Mr. Strat

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jan 2002

   -4
   03/18, 10:25am | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   C'mon Apple

   C'mon Apple, stamp these snake oil salesmen into the ground.

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2001

   -14
   03/18, 10:28am | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   Re: You're wrong

   Just as clones were killing Apple's business in the mid 90s, this wouldn't be good if allowed.
   
   The clone makers were getting into the same markets as apple, as opposed to developing new ones. And customers realized that the OS is what was important, not some mythical "whole widget" that the faithful like to project.
   
   But what if Apple allowed cloning into areas they don't want to get in? Why not allow a cloner of netbooks? Or a cloner of mini-towers? Or 12" laptops with expresscard slots and firewire? Or large-screen macbooks? OEM the OS for $500. See what happens.
   
   Or would this just drive potential customers to these cloners, because it turns out the reason MBPs sell so well is because of the screen size, not because people need all those features? And half the people buying MacPros have absolutely no need for all that computing power, but want the ability to add eSATA and several hard drives.
   

Comment buried. Show
1. JeffHarris

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Oct 1999

   +5
   03/18, 10:35am | report spam | close reply

   Apple Should Make One

   This is the type of machine that some people have been screaming for Apple to make for years.
   
   A reasonably sized, headless, marginally expandable machine, with all the usual ports. A machine that I can choose a graphics card for. Something that starts at $899 or $999 for a base model.
   
   The fact that some other company is attempting to produce and market one is proof that there's room for it in Apple's product matrix.
   
   I just don't get why Apple refuses to do so.
   
   Apple nearly failed in the 90's, not solely because of Mac clones, but because Apple was trying to produce and market every imaginable peripheral (scanners, laser and inkjet printers, digital cameras, etc.) AND the Mac lines were ridiculously complex. They offered separate model numbers for machines with different sized hard drives. Macs from the low-end Performa line significantly overlapped Macs from the pro line.
   
   It was a nightmare to recommend or decide which machine to buy. It was a mess.

Comment buried. Show
1. jorgebob

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 2006

   +7
   03/18, 11:16am | report spam | close reply

   Mac Clones

   As one who had to support Mac clones in the '90s, I say never again. What a total pain! Having a single source for any support issues, which was pretty much zilch with real Macs versus the hassles with the clones, the cost of ownership is far better with a real Mac. If you want to tinker, go ahead but one needs to figure in lost business and credibility into the TCO.

Comment buried. Show
1. mytdave

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2000

   +8
   03/18, 11:16am | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   apple's fault

   You know, there is more than price at issue here... Psystar probably wouldn't exist if Apple would pull their heads out and just build machines their customers have been asking for.
   
   Apple existing machines are great, but incomplete. Many people just want a mid-range desktop where they can get decent processing and a video card of their choice. How hard is that? Apple would not even have to price it cheaply like the Dell's of the world - they could still have a premium for quality built gear - they just need to build the damn thing.

Comment buried. Show
1. nativeNYer

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Apr 2005

   +4
   03/18, 12:09pm | report spam | close reply

   Agreed

   I have to agree with mytdave above.
   I'm beginning to see more and more that if Apple took all that money and resources they're spending on lawyers to fight the Psystars of the world and redirected it toward producing a mid range tower similar to what Psystar is offering here, they would wipe them out, all without having to take legal action. Who, wanting a mid range semi expandable Mac tower, wouldn't just buy the one Apple makes, even if it was a little more expensive? You know that the support and quality would be leaps ahead of what Psystar offers, so it would effectively put this clone company out of business.
   
   But Apple just stubbornly refuses to see what many potential customers want from them. Its starting to get tiresome really. I wonder if they'll ever wake up to this fact, or if they will just plow ahead with what Steve deems Apple should be producing.
   
   I know, many will argue that Apple is doing quite well for themselves with their current lineup, and this I can't deny. The problem is, we can't see all the lost sales that happen because of people sitting on the sidelines waiting for something like this. I can only imagine how much better Mac sales would be if they made this in their own style and image. C'mon Apple, please do it!

Comment buried. Show
1. eddd

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Dec 2001

   +2
   03/18, 12:34pm | report spam | close reply

   Don't hold your breath

   Apple stays out of mainstream competition. If you consider their offerings, there is very little that falls into the mainstream marketplace:
   
   towers: no way - MacPros are industrial Xeon powerhouses, not consumer towers
   all in ones: very little competition, period
   mini: nothing like it... the smallest of SFF computers
   laptops: the most competition, but Apple gravitates to extremes of design and construction
   
   So don't expect them to suddenly jump into the mainstream and build a tower for everyman. The story of modern Apple hardware is low volume, high margins, and exclusivity. They like it that way, and they won't be changing any time soon.

Comment buried. Show
1. PRoth

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2008

   +2
   03/18, 12:44pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   @testudo - whole widget

   "The clone makers were getting into the same markets as apple, as opposed to developing new ones. And customers realized that the OS is what was important, not some mythical "whole widget" that the faithful like to project."
   
   You're totally right that the OS is what was important to customers and it still is. But why? If you look at Windows, Vista being a perfect example, is that the OS just didn't run properly on many permutations of hardware. Apple avoids that complication and invests into the whole widget idea from hardware, through OS right to numerous apps. To some people, that's worth the premium they're expected to pay and judging by Apple's sales figures, crappy economy notwithstanding, the idea isn't all that mythical.

Comment buried. Show
1. ibugv4

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jun 2003

   +1
   03/18, 01:20pm | report spam | close reply

   moot point

   All the hardware is Intel. The chipsets for wireless are from one of about 4 true vendors. Video card? ATI, nVidia or Intel. As the vendors for the hardware become one, the exclusiveness of a Mac is less and less. This might hold true if they'd not abandoned the better processors in favor of Intel.
   
   Look at it this way. Apple was a diesel company, the rest of the world was gasoline. The diesel offered longer range, cheaper operational costs, and a few disadvantages (sometimes harder to start in the winter, not every station carried its fuel, etc).
   
   Apple decided to go mainstream with gasoline (intel) and be done with being the novelty, excellent and valued product they were. They did this citing "heat and power" concerns; which might be true for mobile processing, but if it was... why is the iphone still ARM (reads: RISC, reads cousin to PowerPC)powered and not Intel XSCALE?
   
   HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
   
   Apple going Intel signaled me moving to Linux. I've used a Hackintosh since the day leopard got "opened" and I've yet to rebuild or run into "major issues" ... yes it did take an hour to setup all the KEXTs to get all my hardware to work; but in a licensing agreement you limit the maker (say, Dell) to use certain hardware that is supported by your OS. If you change the config in your order, you pay for the support to make it work.
   
   If Apple used more of Red Hat's service approaches, they could become what they want to be: a really well liked software and perpherial company with inroads to media distribution (al la Sony).

Comment buried. Show
1. MacScientist

   Junior Member

   Joined: Feb 2000

   0
   03/18, 01:42pm | report spam | close reply

   re: Re: You're wrong

   testudo wrote The clone makers were getting into the same markets as apple, as opposed to developing new ones. ...
   
   But what if Apple allowed cloning into areas they don't want to get in? ...Which planet are you on. This is close enough to Apple's intentions during the Mac clone era that the differences are insignificant.
   
   It would have been illegal for Apple to formally restrict the clones to certain markets. It was understood that Apple wanted them to grow the market for MacOS. The whole point of the clones was that they were supposed to enter new markets.
   
   Instead, the clones went after Apple's customers. They did nothing to bake a bigger pie. They were satisfied to grab however big a slice of Apple's existing pie. What generally gets lost in this discussion is that the clones were not clones at all. Every clone as based on a genuine Toolbox ROM (aka Old World ROM) manufactured by Apple. Effectively, the clones were genuine Macs sold in different cases. Because their profits did not redound to Apple, Apple was subsidizing its own competition.
   
   Fool me once, shame on you;
   Fool me twice, shame on me.
   
   Apple is many things. Stupid, it is not.
   
   As to the notion that Psystar is satisfying some unmet market niche--poppycock! Its hardware can run any Intel-compatible OS. Nobody gives a c*** that it can run Linux, FreeBSD, or several of the various versions of Windows. Its ability to run MacOS X has us all talking.
   
   This is called advertising!

Comment buried. Show
1. MacScientist

   Junior Member

   Joined: Feb 2000

   -2
   03/18, 01:43pm | report spam | close reply

   re: Re: You're wrong

   testudo wrote The clone makers were getting into the same markets as apple, as opposed to developing new ones. ...
   
   But what if Apple allowed cloning into areas they don't want to get in? ...
   
   Which planet are you on? This is close enough to Apple's intentions during the Mac clone era that the differences are insignificant.
   
   It would have been illegal for Apple to formally restrict the clones to certain markets. It was understood that Apple wanted them to grow the market for MacOS. The whole point of the clones was that they were supposed to enter new markets.
   
   Instead, the clones went after Apple's customers. They did nothing to bake a bigger pie. They were satisfied to grab however big a slice of Apple's existing pie. What generally gets lost in this discussion is that the clones were not clones at all. Every clone as based on a genuine Toolbox ROM (aka Old World ROM) manufactured by Apple. Effectively, the clones were genuine Macs sold in different cases. Because their profits did not redound to Apple, Apple was subsidizing its own competition.
   
   Fool me once, shame on you;
   Fool me twice, shame on me.
   
   Apple is many things. Stupid, it is not.
   
   As to the notion that Psystar is satisfying some unmet market niche--poppycock! Its hardware can run any Intel-compatible OS. Nobody gives a c*** that it can run Linux, FreeBSD, or several of the various versions of Windows. Its ability to run MacOS X has us all talking.
   
   This is called advertising!

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2001

   -3
   03/18, 02:05pm | report spam | close reply

   niche

   As to the notion that Psystar is satisfying some unmet market niche--poppycock! Its hardware can run any Intel-compatible OS. Nobody gives a c*** that it can run Linux, FreeBSD, or several of the various versions of Windows. Its ability to run MacOS X has us all talking.
   
   It has to do with the hardware, not just that it runs OS X. If they sold a Psystar tower with xeon CPUs and cost $3500, no one would care that much, because you'd argue that "I can get that same as a mac, and cheaper."
   
   It's the cost and/or the product that is tantalizing. A mini-tower mac, with ability to add cards and harddrives, far less than the $2500 Apple wants for that same service, is what intrigues people.

Comment buried. Show
1. derbbre

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Oct 2000

   +1
   03/18, 02:18pm | report spam | close reply

   More Interesting...

   If you configure a Psystar, you may notice they offer iLife and iWork together for $60. How are they able to put $160 worth of software together, legally, for $60? I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of licensed Apple clone makers, but I don't believe in paying someone to steal for me, either.

Comment buried. Show
1. derbbre

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Oct 2000

   -1
   03/18, 02:18pm | report spam | close reply

   More Interesting...

   If you configure a Psystar, you may notice they offer iLife and iWork together for $60. How are they able to put $160 worth of software together, legally, for $60? I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of licensed Apple clone makers, but I don't believe in paying someone to steal for me, either.

Comment buried. Show
1. resuna

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jan 2005

   +3
   03/18, 03:21pm | report spam | close reply

   Mini Pro

   It's the "Mini Pro" we've been asking Apple for since the Mac mini came out.

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2001

   -4
   03/18, 04:34pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   Re: More interesting

   If you configure a Psystar, you may notice they offer iLife and iWork together for $60. How are they able to put $160 worth of software together, legally, for $60?
   
   See, now that's something Apple can take them to court and easily win on.
   
   However, it could be just that they'll buy the MacBundle for $170, instead of a copy of OS X at $130.

Comment buried. Show
1. zaghahzag

   Dedicated MacNNer

   Joined: Aug 2006

   -1
   03/18, 07:21pm | report spam | close reply

   the obvious thing

   The thing nobody has mentioned is that when apple started clone manufacturers back in the day, they didn't get ONE large PC manufacturer to sign on b/c they would have had to support PPC hardware. Now OSX runs on intel machines and it would be very simple for Dell, HP, etc to build OSX machines that could run either windows or OSX.
   
   Contrary to what people think here most apple hardware is off-the-shelf parts with very minor modifications, mostly done so you can't replace your expensive Mac Pro motherboard with one that costs 150 bucks.
   
   If apple started selling the OS with the caveat that they only supported hardware that was on a list somewhere, they would double their market share. Why? because people with PCs would install OSX.