Comments on: Apple cloning: Worth it?

In a world where Apple's moved to Intel processors, brought pricing down, and is, well, cool, what's the opportunity for an unsupported cut-rate clone, anyway?

[dredgerie]

I've been looking to buy a new mac for a while now. I currently have a G4 mac mini that I'd like to upgrade, but unfortunately, I can't because of the way it's built. I already had to buy a new monitor and keyboard and mouse and speakers when I bought the mini just a few years ago, should I really be expected to buy an entirely new setup just because I want a faster processor and more RAM? The argument could also be made that Microsoft had the majority share of pc's and therefore is the standard, so any deviation that Apple makes from it is an attempt to screw the customers for profit. Yes, Mac is worth a little extra in my opinion, but since I want to use my existing screen, should I have to spend 3 grand to buy a new mac when someone else is offering me the choice to get a comparable setup for a quarter the price? Furthermore, can Apple really expect this out of their client base? I love my mac, but I've spent a lot to switch over from windows, and to make the upgrade in windows that I want to make now with Mac would cost me about the same as what Psystar is offering. If Mac wants to kill them off, fine- but give me an alternative that's somewhere in the middle. I'll gladly pay more for a genuine product, but the real product I'm looking for is the software- so if I can get the hardware anywhere for 75% off, I'd have to be crazy not to.

[fokkwp]

Since the Mac first came out, users have been seeking a "Hacintosh" that would run the OS on cheaper computers. Personally I think Apple is well within its rights to limit its OS to any conditions it likes, given the huge availability of alternative OS's.

Cost? Yes, Macs have come down to near-parity with PCs. BUT - if you do go out looking for a low-cost, high-power computer you will end up with a PC every time because someone always has one on sale somewhere at a bargain price. There are so many Windows computer manufacturers in competition that you can always find a really good, low-cost PC if you shop around. If you already have a monitor, you are wasting your money buying one built into an iMac - another factor that makes a replacement PC way cheaper in many cases. In addition, the available inventory of low cost near-new refurbished computers is far higher for Windows computers because there are so many more. So whenever you are looking for anything other than a full retail top-end computer with monitor, you can probably spend a lot less for a PC.

[ghaff]

I fully agree that if you're just looking for a basic PC and aren't too fussy about the specifics there are great bargains to be had. Not really applicable to the Mac clone case unless a broad market developed though.

[gregorytga]

Having toyed with the OSX86 project, really Apple doesn't need to bother protecting their OS at this point. hackintosh OS X86s are no where near the same user experience, often with plenty of obscure Kext hacking, partially functioning hardware and problems updating.

For most people its just not a realistic option. There are some who've actually taken the time to create mostly solid machines by buying selected hardware. Unless Psystar is willing to include update patches to ensure compatibility with future updates, for later iterations of OS X 10.5.x its not worth it.

[john_spence]

Could this be the rise of other companies producting Apple clones? If it comes about, this could mean that Apple would be selling many copies of their OS. Could they become a software company rather than a hardware one? They could be in direct competition with MS. Linux is not a viable alternative for the casual user, but Apple OS is. If the court rules in Psystar's favor, MS could be shaking in their boots. Is Leopard better than Longhorn?