Would you buy an Apple Clone?

[localoid]

... Think of the clone days; the clones were not hackintoshes, they were computers that were running OS X just like a Mac.

Just to clarify: There have never been any Apple authorized clones that ran OS X. The last authorized clones were of the 1995-1997 era. Apple's System 7 was the last OS the clone makers were licensed to use on their clones.

 

[204467]

Just to clarify: There have never been any Apple authorized clones that ran OS X. The last authorized clones were of the 1995-1997 era. Apple's System 7 was the last OS the clone makers were licensed to use on their clones.

Whoops, my mistake, I forgot the clones were finished before OS X rolled around. Just substitute OS X with whatever Mac OS would fit the time period.

 

[paduck]

I already bought a Mac clone. It was a Power Computing Power100. I thought it was great. Good price. Everything worked fine and very expandable. People today would love to have a basic spec Mac with that level of expandability v. an iMac.

However, Apple bought up the clone licenses when Steve Jobs came back to the company. Apple felt that they couldn't compete with the clone market cannibalizing their sales. I think that they were right.

I've had two iMacs since then. I think they are great as well. The iMac G5 is easily expandable in terms of memory and hard drive. I understand that new iMacs are not so flexible. That's too bad, because I liked being able to swap out hard drives at appropriate times.

As long as Apple maintains a product line like they have now, I don't think I will deviate. The problem in the mid-1990's was that Apple didn't have a good product line. With no compelling reason to buy Apple, I went with a clone and was pleased. Apple was getting creamed at all ends of the market - they couldn't compete at the low-end and the high-end was eroding them as well. Now though, I don't think that Apple will go with that business model as it has already proven unsuccessful in the past. Apple is making a lot of money of its Mac hardware line. It isn't going to trade in for the Microsoft model. Remember, they will have to test and certify and write software that deals with a much wider range of hardware if clones come into being. Microsoft does a pretty good job with that, but there are huge obstacles.

 

[paduck]

One recognized definition of a monopoly is:
the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.

If you want OS X, then there is only one seller of hardware. Apple obviously does not have exclusive control of the computer market, but they have control of the OS X market.

My point is that Microsoft does not have a monopoly over PCs because everyone and their grandmother builds PC hardware and licenses windows for it. Apple has complete control over what hardware OS X runs on (at least legally). This is what makes Apple products (and OS X in my opinion) much more stable than windows -- which is one reason I like OS X.

GameBoys
Wii
PS2/3
Xbox360
DishNetwork
My local cable franchise (Cox)
Sirius Satellite Radio

All of these are not recognized by the US Government as monopolies. However, they really don't have effective competition within their sphere - they control their own ecosystem end-to-end. Apple competes with the rest of the PC market and has the problem of also having a competing operating system that is going up against a near monopoly (Microsoft). When you go to a store and buy a Dell, do you really have any choice but to get Vista? No, you really don't. With 85% market penetration, I think that looks a lot more like a monopoly than Apple...