Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
First off, a very good summation of the original clone program, IJ Reilly.



There are some differences now compared to the original clone experiment. The largest is that the installed base of Intel machines in the late 2000's is so many orders of magnitude over the installed base of PowerPC machines in the mid-1990s. Where the PPC installed base was in the millions, the Intel base is in the hundreds of millions.

So the possible market for an Intel-based clone is vastly larger then it was for a PPC-based clone, which will insulate Apple sales to a much greater extent now then it did back in the mid-1990s. However, much of what has driven Mac sales these past few years is not the actual hard product - the Mac - but the entire experience and of buying a Mac.

If you are interested in a Wintel PC, you go to a retailer that offers dozens of manufacturers, each with dozens of products, most that overlap both within and across manufacturers, and try and wrap your head around them. Hopefully the sales associate you work with knows each of those products and each of those manufacturers, but often they do not. And it is not as simple as saying the associate is "stupid" or "clueless". When you have a hundred or more combination's to offer a customer, it's very hard to do so without confusing them - or becoming confused yourself.

And even if they do know them all, that can hurt just as much as not knowing them all. I used to work Wintel and Mac retail during my college years. I've worked with computers - of all types - since the late 1970's (when I was eight). I knew these machines backwards and forwards and could easily describe the various systems with a fellow computer geek. The problem was, my customers were not fellow computer geeks. So if I was not careful, I ended up confusing them and they would choose not to buy because they were worried they might be making a mistake. While it was worse with the Wintel side, having Centras and Performas and Quadras falling over each other in terms of specification and price made selling Macs difficult, as well.

Now, if you are interested in a Mac, you go to your Apple store. You have three options each for a portable or a desktop and each option has little to no overlap with the other models in it's product line. Your Apple sales associate needs to only know six models which don't overlap. As such, they can quickly and clearly differentiate them to the customer. The customer is educated, not confused, and they respond by buying the product.

Yes, that product might be more expensive then an equivalent Wintel PC at another retailer, but the Mac sales experience makes them feel confident in their decision so they'd rather be confident spending $2000 then worried in spending $1500.
 
I'm "lol'ing" at how upset the fanbois are getting over this...

I'm "'lol'ing'" [sic] at that fact that someone insists on coming to a Macintosh website and consistently calls other people "fanboys." Do you realize where you are? If so, do you even understand the point of this site? If other people on this site are "fanboys," then that unequivocally makes you a "troll."
 
What I find laugh-out-loud funny is that, according to court documents filed by Psystar, they posit the legal argument that Macs and Windows-based PCs are not interchangeable, either technologically or in the minds of users.

And yet Psystar ships the exact same PC with your choice of Windows or OS X installed. So their own product proves that the two operating systems are technologically interchangeable. :rolleyes:

Not to mention I can run Windows on my Mac, and have been able to since the PowerPC days. Still more proof that they are technologically interchangeable.

It also proves it in the minds of users, since Apple actively advertises this ability to their users.
 
This is nothing new...

How many decades has it been now that I've had to hear people gripe about not being able to run the Mac OS on whatever computer they like?

Whether some of you may agree with it or not, this Pystar company is doing something illegal and it's Apple's prerogative to protect their rights if they so choose. Whether some of you may agree or not, it's Apple's choice whether or not they want to license their software and they choose not to.

In no way, shape, or form does this make Apple guilty of a monopoly or anti-trust practices.

There seems to be this big disconnect with a lot of people... The Macintosh is a singular product - Apple's hardware and OS aren't two separate things.

There's no point in arguing that you prefer one over the other... it's a single product. If you want to use the Mac OS... then you buy a Mac. No one is saying that you have to buy a Mac or that you can't buy a Mac, it's your choice... but a Mac is a Mac - you know what you're buying.

Regardless of that... the fact remains that there's never been a time when it's been so easy to run the Mac OS on non-Apple hardware as it is today - which makes all of this fuss even harder to understand. If you choose to do so, you can go buy a copy of the Mac OS and perform whatever hacks you need to install it on whatever box you like... Apple's not going to come after you for doing so. But there's a HUGE difference between an individual taking the initiative to do so and a company blatantly violating the law by doing so and selling such a product to customers.

As far as I'm concerned... I don't give a rat's behind if someone wants to hack the Mac OS to run on some ugly, plain-jane box.

I know that I use a Macintosh, because that's the computer I choose to use. If I can't particularly afford a brand new system at any given time... then I'll buy a used system, just like anyone else can. Either way... whether new or used, I will run a Mac just like I always have and I have no desire to run a semi-Mac or a fake-Mac or a "Hackintosh."

The bottom line is - A Mac is a Mac for all that entails. It is the way it is and it's not going to change any time in the foreseeable future and it's not our place to tell Apple what they should do with their product.

So my apologies for being a blunt old man here, but deal with it or buy something else.
 
the Mac sales experience makes them feel confident in their decision so they'd rather be confident spending $2000 then worried in spending $1500.

iMac screen gradations, wobbly time capsules, buggy Leopard, occassional wireless in aluminum MPBs...yeah that's confidence inspiring for an extra $500. :rolleyes: And before you accuse me of being a troll, my next two computers will be Macs, so I intend to be as critical with them as I please when they screw up. Which they seem to be doing with reckless abandon the last couple of years. :D
 
What I find laugh-out-loud funny is that, according to court documents filed by Psystar, they posit the legal argument that Macs and Windows-based PCs are not interchangeable, either technologically or in the minds of users.

Spot on. They are forced to make this silly argument because antitrust claims must be defined by a market over which someone is allegedly exerting illegal market power. Theirs claims are based on a "Macintosh compatible computer market" (or whatever their wording was) -- a market we know is a fiction. It's a market they are trying to create, which is a very different beast from saying it's a market that Apple dominates illegally.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.