"Apple does not need this, for the same reason BWM does not need an equivalent to the Ford Festiva, and Starbuck's does not need a 50Ñž cup of coffee."

Ah, the old Apple user assumption that just because you paid more for your box it is some how made out of better parts. This has not been true for a long time now (not since they dropped SCSI in favor of cheaper IDE devices), especialy since an Apple computer is now literlay the same thing as a PC except for the OS. (Which granted I will give you that the current OSX is MUCH better than MS's current Vista offering) Of course you also think BMW makes something other than an over priced car made out of the same cheap parts everyone else uses, and that StarBucks is a high end coffee shop. (Sorry, but if you are talking about quality there are much better cars and coffee shops. I don't think any franchise coffee shop qualifies as high end in my opinion. And BMW hasn't made a quality car in a long time.)

I just find it very interesting that Apple fans like to pick on MS for being an abusive monolopy (which they are, and I also enjoy picking on them) yet fail to realize that in many ways Apple is more restrictive on their users than MS by a long shot! Infact if the tables were turned, and Apple had the 90%+ market share, I think they would have an even worse reputation than MS does for abusing their monopoly. Just imagine if MS started selling computers and then told everyone they could only run Windows on MS branded boxes. Their market would colapse over night! Or if MS kept deleting posts on their user forums (or on other forums through take down notices) about lagre groups of people having problems with their products. (If you were not aware of this Google it and you will find Apple has been caught doing this numerous times, even just recently) Yes we know MS lies to us and with holds info about vulnerabilities, but when this kind of thing comes to light they do not threaten the sites that report on it with take down notices like Apple does. In these ways Apple's attitude towards their users is almost worse than MS!

Perhaps this is a lesson Apple will finally learn some day. Their hardware hasn't been any thing to brag about for a long time now, it's their software that makes the differnce! I really think they are selling them selves short by limiting their OS to only run on Apple hardware. MS is in the position they are because their hardware can run on so many brands of systems. Since an Apple box is nothing more than a PC now they really should just focus on selling the OS and expanding that user base!

Of course I am going to get flamed now by the Apple fan boys who still think their Intel boxes are some how better than other Intel boxes. (but know jack about hardware engineering to begin with and cannot actually quantify this level of quality) I know not all Apple users are link this, but it seems some of you actually want Apple to stay a niche player so you can continue to feel that you are some how in an exclusive club by purchasing one... Why else would you be against Apple expanding their user base by selling their OS on other boxes? From a business marketing stand point this move would make complete sense! So the only reason I can come up with for not wanting Apple to expand in this direction is that some of you actually want them to stay in their niche.

Quote

Guest wrote:
When will people realize that Macs are a closed system. As such, they should operate with 100% uptime.

What? You need to take a course in logic. (And anyone operating "with 100% uptime" is not applying their critical security updates, no matter whether they're running OSX, Windows, Linux, or anything else.)

Quote

Guest wrote:
Apple bad.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. No harm there.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Microsoft is the open company. You can install their software on any computer.

What? You need to take a course in logic. (The fact that you can install Windows "on any computer" suggests to me that it's the hardware that's open, not the software.)

In case it's not, I had the foresight to grab a screenshot when I saw this on reddit.com 2 days ago...
http://flickr.com/photos/ghoti/2412827108/

Quote

jbruni wrote:
I wonder how their "EFI V8 emulator" works without violating copyright. You can't just copy firmware.

EFI is a specification, not an implementation.

Quote

Guest wrote:
In case it's not, I had the foresight to grab a screenshot when I saw this on reddit.com 2 days ago...
http://flickr.com/photos/ghoti/2412827108/

I visited the site about 20 minutes go and it took a long time to load the index page. I did a whois and they seem to move servers quite a bit.

Quote

geoduck wrote:

Quote

jbruni wrote:

Apple does not need this, for the same reason BWM does not need an equivalent to the Ford Festiva, and Starbuck's does not need a 50Ñž cup of coffee.

Agreed, but it does suggest that the Mini is a bit overpriced for what you get.

What? The Mac Mini or the BMW Mini? Ah wait... yep. You're right on both counts...

Afraid to stray from what ever their leader tells them to do. "I could never use one of those, the corners aren't rounded enough"

OSX runs on a BSD kernel, not Linux.

Y'know, I just did a price comparison on the mid-level MacBook and a Dell with the same specs, the Dell cost $50 more. Hmm, overpriced indeed.

Quote

jbruni wrote:
I wonder how their "EFI V8 emulator" works without violating copyright. You can't just copy firmware.

it's not their, it's mine

I'm netkas, they use my bootloader, without even asking me.

Remember (as Jobs did on his return), at the end of the day Apple sells HARDWARE; the software (OS X) and firmware (iPod) is just the shiny tease to get you to buy the iron. They're selling a whole-box, unwrap-n-go experience, that clones are unlikely to match.

How can it be a monopoly with less than 20% of market share? Furthermore, you lauded your ability to build your own PC and put whatever software on it that would install. This makes the PC industry decidedly free and open. Come to think of it, on an intel mac, you can install whatever you want on it.

How is it a closed system? If you wanted to never boot OS-X you don't have to, reFIT ensures your ability to boot Windows, Linux, *BSD's and maybe even openSolaris. That sounds fairly open to me.

To be honest, I have two macs (desktop and macbook pro) and two PC's. I use them all and find value in each one. Brand name zealotry is useless and a waste of time. I favor mac's because of their construction. If you open a powermac and pull the system board and compare the construction(capacitors of macs are always top quality, better heat dissipation, etc) then you'll understand what I'm talking about. A few years ago most of the capacitors that came out of taiwan that went into 'value' PC's had the wrong catalytic mixture which resulted in pre-mature death of the components that used them. The adage is true, you get what you pay for. Mac's are about 25% more expensive than PC's however, apple care and a lower failure rate of the higher end Mac's compared to the optiplex/capacitor fiasco of Dells certainly makes me lean toward Mac.

There is a question you have to ask yourself; would you rather have more expense on the outset, or keep having to re-install your OS after you get it back from the cheaper PC support departments of various Best-Buy's and Dell's of the industry?

I would rather keep my system settings and not have to re-install windows every-time spyware and boot sectors become corrupt.

Sure,

Using that logic If you ignore all the people that use anything other than a mac then they have captured 100% of the market!!

<Don't be stupid, you don't get to define reality>

"Pre-install" Leopard was a foolhardy idea.

About the only way to stay anywhere near afloat would be to offer the hardware and the emulator as items in a box; the user breaks the Apple EULA.

The margin on this setup must be around 10 percent at best.

In any case, no matter what, it's likely Apple would bury these folks with legal costs.

Quote

Guest wrote:
The real business model seems to be for all of the PC users that love the Mac OS because it really is vastly superior to Vista, but scoff at paying double the price of much higher performance PCs.

Agreed. I was in an Apple store in the Detroit area and some idiot salesman was trying to tell me that an Dual G4 1GHz, 512MB RAM, crap ATi card, and 120GB of HD was somehow a better value for $1,000 more than it cost me to get a Dual 2.2GHz Xeon, PNY Quadro4 XGL 700, and 500+ HD (I bought a 250GB drive and cannibalized two others from a previous machine).

The funniest thing though was overhearing a Best Buy salesman who specialized in Mac trying to sell a customer a system and telling them they "didn't need to buy bloated hardware that Windows required". The funny part was literally 25' away from the Mac he was trying to sell them sat a PC with identical hardware. Other than branding and the OS, the only difference was a few extra $100's on the price tag of the Apple

Can some enlighten me, please. Why are there no other EFI-Boards out there and if there are any why I can't I use OS X directly with them?

The EFI Emulator is pretty cool but it doesn't solve the driver problem. Maybe we'll see it in a VMWare soon

Quote

geoduck wrote:

Quote

Intruder wrote:
Wow, amazing how many Apple haters come out to Apple-centric sites to spew their vitriol.

Absolutely amazing.

Yeah, I never understood Troll mentality.
I wonder if these same sort of people go to the Chevy web sites and spew about how the Corvette is garbage?

What truly amazes me is how members of this community continually deride anyone who posts an opion counter to their own as trolls and their words being nothing but Fear, Uncertainty, and Disinformation.

BTW, did you know no one has ever been fired for buying IBM?

I think apple's lineup is sorely lacking. A mid range tower would attract a lot of users.

EFI was orginally designed by Intel to replace the standard BIOS that have been used on IBM compatiable PCs since the 80's. The only processors that Intel made motherboards for that used EFI were Itanium processors, Intel's first 64-bit processor. Itanium failed horribly in the market. EFI is a natural fit for Apple.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Can some enlighten me, please. Why are there no other EFI-Boards out there and if there are any why I can't I use OS X directly with them?

The EFI Emulator is pretty cool but it doesn't solve the driver problem. Maybe we'll see it in a VMWare soon

"75,000+ viruses for the PC platform, still not ONE for MacOSX in the wild after 8 years of the OS being released."

Are you high? Right off the top of my head, there was the OSX/Leap-A worm that spread via iChat. A google search for 'mac virus' reveals many more.

And that's just viruses (virii?). If you go into security vulnerabilities, OS X had significantly more in 2007 than Vista did.

This would be good for Apple but Jobs is to much of an a-hole to let it happen. Enjoy your closed platform i-tards. I'll stick with Linux.

Quote

daemon wrote:

Quote

geoduck wrote:

Quote

Intruder wrote:
Wow, amazing how many Apple haters come out to Apple-centric sites to spew their vitriol.

Absolutely amazing.

Yeah, I never understood Troll mentality.
I wonder if these same sort of people go to the Chevy web sites and spew about how the Corvette is garbage?

What truly amazes me is how members of this community continually deride anyone who posts an opion counter to their own as trolls and their words being nothing but Fear, Uncertainty, and Disinformation.

BTW, did you know no one has ever been fired for buying IBM?

Oh cmon now. For years you i-tards have been trolling Windows forums telling PC users how "Mac's just work, never crash, never get viruses or spyware, blah blah blah.". Truth is, Macs are overpriced boxes of fail and aids.

Are you a troll, or just ignorant? The former is inexcusable, the latter indicates that that you don't know what you're talking about.

The whole point of whether a virus is bad or not (and I don't deny that there have been viruses for OS X) is whether they propogate. There have not been any that have propogated.

Leap-A is undoubtedly malware.

Quote

Macworld wrote:
To get Leap-A on your machine, you must (a) receive the file, which is compressed; (b) expand the archive; and (c) double-click what appears to be an image file to execute the code. You cannot get the malware by simply browsing the Internet, reading e-mail, or chatting with friends in iChat.

All the other viruses have been along the same lines. They all require, so far, some sort of action by the user to install themselves. It was difficult to do that then; it is now (under Leopard) more difficult again.

So get your facts right. Or go away and wallow in your own viruses. On your Windows box. Because things (so far) are fine here.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

geoduck wrote:

Quote

jbruni wrote:

Apple does not need this, for the same reason BWM does not need an equivalent to the Ford Festiva, and Starbuck's does not need a 50Ñž cup of coffee.

Agreed, but it does suggest that the Mini is a bit overpriced for what you get.

What? The Mac Mini or the BMW Mini? Ah wait... yep. You're right on both counts...

Well...
As it happens I own a 2005 Mini.
http://homepage.mac.com/geoduck/Mini/Mini1.jpg
I didn't think it was a bad price at all. Most of all it performs well but unlike most sports cars, my 6'1" carcass fits in it with extra headroom.

The point being that "overpriced" is a matter of perspective. My Mini Cooper and my PowerBook, (as well as the MacBook Pro I plan on getting later this year) are not overpriced for ME. Someone with different needs might be happy with a $300 PC running Windows. That's cool but it won't do it for my needs.

As of 7:03PM PST, I can add the openmac computer to the shopping cart, and proceed to checkout. If was down, it is back up now.

I do agree that apple has been growing for a while, but do you really accomplish anything by making COMPLETELY untrue statements like 0 viruses and 21% market share? Stick to the truth. Apple products stand up, but you ruin any argument when you throw false info in to support it.

Could it be that Psystar is just a front for Apple? Let's see what the real demand might be for an Apple OS on non-Apple hardware?

"How many Americans had not a CLue what a free market means, and assume they have a right to whatever product they want at a price THEY consider reasonable, and cry like babies if they don't get it. Apple offers a product. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But saying it's overpriced means "it's overpriced for ME", not for the rest of the world."

No, actually, that's pretty much what they're saying, by assumption. But they of course tend to think that reasonable people would agree with them. And as it turns out, reasonable people do think Macs are too expensive, but for some people, it is worth it.

As it stands, really, the issue isn't take it or leave it from Apple. The issue is take-it-or-leave it from OpenMac.

As for whether this is a legitimate offering, I defer to property-rights based principles. IP rights are an injustice, but contracts are legitimate; hence, it depends on the terms of the EULA. But it isn't clear that they're violating the EULA, just allowing users to do this, which they could do anyways (anyone can assemble a machine that will run OSX).

The listed specs are confusing. I can look up all of the data, but you don't list the speed of the RAM on the Mac, the video card, etc. The information isn't complete for people to make a comparison without doing their own research. Would have only taken a second to straighten that out.

And outside of empty criticism, why not just sell the machine and let people purchase their own version of MacOS? Not "legal" per sй, but it would definitely launch them over the hurdles spoken of here. It's also quite easy to install, even for the most novice of users. If it's unmodified, it shouldn't even require driver installation. However, I would be willing to bet most people buying these "Macs" would be nerdier users that don't care about support (which you obviously miss out on) and are comfortable with having a product that maybe isn't as flashy as Apple's own machines.

$399 with an OS? Not a bad deal, even if it came with Windows.

It is $399 WITHOUT an OS.

I'd buy one to try out it's compatibility claims and would probably buy more if it turns out to be all it promises. Apple makes some great products but there is no reason they should be allowed to repress the clone market so long as the cloens are clearly labeled not to be Apple products.

If these work well then I'd get them for family members and for employees that need a Mac environment.

I will be looking into these OpenMacs.

So let me get this right. Software should be open source and free, and so should operating systems, unless of course it's Apple. And then of course other manufacturer's EULA's should be disregarded without merit, but Apple's should be enforced, instead of course when the iTunes for Windows EULA says that it can only be installed on an Apple branded computer, in which case it's a silly oversight.

Download the OS from bit torrent and install. Is how I first got it running in virtualization.

So their web site is back and it is now called an open computer not an open mac. Interesting.

Given the current windows market of slap together some hardware, install windows, and call it a system, it is not surprising to see that someone thinks they could accomplish the same thing with Mac OS X.

I have several windows machines that are just that--slapped together hardware. There were so many problems with my windows machines that I decided that paying a premium to a company that develops both the hardware and software would be worth it for the quality of service received. I have never been happier with a computer than I have been with my Macs--yes plural.

Of course there are still problems but there are far fewer problems with my Mac than I had with my windows machines. Almost so few that I would claim that the macs are nearly fault free.

Anyone who is so naive as to think that they can offer up Mac clones without striking a deal with Apple has a bad business plan. I would also be very surprised if Apple would even negotiate.

I'd rather pay 20-30% and get a much faster more cpable machine running Linux, it really is getting better for desktop use at a very fast rate.. i think it's funny when emo /art/psuedo intellectual ppl think they are "cool" because they spent $2500 to dick around on photosop and check in facebook .. And I hope the company is very successful and steals much business from MAc.. MAC ripped off BSD .. see how it feels now hipster kids who like to spend 5000% more for the same $#!% ..

More ignorant trolling - substantiate your rant, or - disappear.

Luckily reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability is explicitly exempted from DMCA. So it is unclear how Apple can persue legal action. IMHO this is great news for those who like OS X but are unwilling to pay for overpriced hardware.

But you can emulate it quite legally unless some of the functions ar ptented.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Monopoly: exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Apple (and Linux) provide an alternative to PCs running windows. But where is the competition for someone who wants a MAC but can't afford a Mac? Many years ago, there were Mac clones offered. That company was very quickly forced out of business. Any thoughts on this?

Yes, Mac Clones appeared when Apple looked like it was going to fail. They sold licenses to a handful of companies to make Mac-Compatible hardware. This was in an effort to keep Apple's head above water (so to speak), by opening the platform and attempting to aid in revenue from licenses/royalties. These computers were cheaper than real macs price-wise, and most people who owned Power Computing, UMAX or other Mac clones usually felt that the hardware was inferior as well.

When Steve Jobs was hired back, they did try to force the Mac-Clone companies to pay higher per-computer royalties, but decided just to not renew the licenses for the next operating systems (basically cutting off the mac clones from the next generation). But in the end, Apple used $100 million of their recently acquired $150 million (from no-other-than Microsoft) to buy out the largest Mac-clone manufacturer, Power Computing.

I am a Mac fan, I don't have a lot of money but I recently purchased a real Mac Book which I thought was a decent price (with a few caveats). Before that, I had (and still do have) a Hackintosh Pro - Even with the same style case as these new mac clones. I still use Windows, but prefer Mac.

For the life of me, I don't know how Apple gets away with all their proprietary software and hardware. For example, if you buy an iPod, you can only use iTunes to put music on it (I know there are unofficial ways now). Microsoft was sued many times over similar issues having to due with forcing consumers to use their software.

My suggestion is to stay away from this company. If you cannot set up a Mac clone by yourself, you probably won't be able to recover from an update that causes your clone to stop working properly (I have installed/upgraded Mac OS X on my Mac clone about 10 times since 10.4.9 due to problems during upgrades). If you want to build a Mac clone yourself, I would suggest that you read as much as you can and then buy your hardware based on it's similarity to it's real Mac counterpart. This will allow you to minimize the amount of modified drivers you will need to function properly. I would also set aside a weekend or even a week depending on your skill level. Lastly, it would be a good idea to have a working computer available, and a flash drive to transfer drivers (kext's) to the new computer (I had issues with my Hackintosh network card working).

And honestly, you can't call Apple a Monopoly just because it company is based on proprietary hardware/software. A lot of people are using car examples, but it really doesn't compare. It is more like two separate companies with similar products, but one company promotes itself as being a better product and therefore charges a higher price. Some people agree with this claim and feel that the product is worth the price difference. Others do not. Look anywhere... Certain brands cost more than others due to claims of better quality. Why is Corsair RAM cost more than a generic brand? Why is a Lexus more expensive than a similar Toyota? Why is Grey Goose Vodka more expensive than Smirnoff? It's all the same... it's up to you which one you like better and if it is worth the difference in price.

Apple has 21% of the retail market does it? I find that highly improbably (it's probably more like 4.5%)

Try.. http://siliconvalleysleuth.co.uk/2007/08/apples-market-s.html

On topic... I'm more of a WinXP/Linux guy myself, but this announcement really piques my interest. It's not that I love or loathe MacOS - it's that I wouldn't even begin to consider purchasing hardware at an artificially-high price. Especially when it's essentially "just a PC" now (as opposed to PowerPC etc). If/when Apple resolve that issue, and if/when Apple stop trying to fleece their customers over use of bootcamp etc, and if/when Apple come down off their high horses and address security concerns in a responsible and timely fashion, then I'd consider purchasing. Not until.

People can argue back and forth about which is better Mac or PC (or *nix for that matter).

The main difference between any computer is software - plain and simple.

Mac and *nix have always suffered a similar problem... The relatively low number of users never pushed software developers to make the extra effort to develop software for those platforms. I develop software myself, and have come to love XCode (Apple's FREE software development kit and Apple's FREE ADC subscription, compared to Microsoft's Visual Studio Standard/Pro that costs $299/$799 with no MSDN subsription). That was the main reason I personally switched back to Mac. I believe over time, if Apple continues to gain in popularity - the software development companies will follow. Microsoft will surely hold the business aspect of the world due to it's solid hold it has on today's businesses and the fact that it would cost companies far to much money to switch to the Mac platform that was developed for the user, and not for businesses.

The gaming aspect also proves this point. Look at World of Warcraft, which runs great on both platforms. The lack of user base and possible revenue detracts most smaller companies from developing cross-platform. I also feel that the problems with viruses/malicious software are usually due to lack of user knowledge. The fact that Mac less prone to viruses is not necessarily because of the OS, it is due to the fact that someone who creates a virus is more likely to succeed if the virus attacks a vulnerability that affects more computers with the likelihood of transmission - which today means Windows based PC's.

Lastly, the Operating System is software, and Windows XP/Vista, Mac OS, or *nix is simple to use if you take the time to learn them. I have a 10 year old brother that I taught to use Mac in a about day. I could teach him Windows or *nix just as easy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7340315.stm

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7340315.stm

Interesting, but not sure what it has to do with the topic at hand.

Go to Dell.com, and in ANY form factor try to build a PC that has the same specs as a mini, including a low end monitor from Bestbuy or something. You can make an equivolent Dell for about $130 less. Of course, it's in a big case, is missing some features, and within the first 2 years or so, it's going to suck so much more electricity that it's going to end up costing more than the mini. This is before you factor in AV/AS security software, iLife equivolent software, and more...

Quote

kevinolive wrote:
Anyone who is so naive as to think that they can offer up Mac clones without striking a deal with Apple has a bad business plan.

Actually, what is naive is thinking that an EULA can restrict what people do with copies of software that they own. Apple's EULA states that "You own the media". Guess what the legal definition of a "copy of software" is: the media.

Section 117 of the Copyright Act gives the owner of a copy of software to use that copy of software. Therefore, the owner does not need permission (i.e. a license) to use the software. Apple is mistaken in believing that they can:

a) Sell copies of software, and
b) Tell people what they can or cannot do with that software after the sale.

This is why software companies typically insist that software is "licensed, not sold". However, Apple makes the mistake of conceding that the end-user owns the physical media.

See soldnotlicensed.blogspot.com for more explanation of this sort of thing.

What else but an underpriced Mac would pave the way for OS/X to be in every house instead of Windoze? Freshman grade marketing strategy, very workable.

Quote
Guest wrote:

Quote
Intruder wrote:

Quote
Anonymous wrote:
The real business model seems to be for all of the PC users that love the Mac OS because it really is vastly superior to Vista, but scoff at paying double the price of much higher performance PCs.




"But they both run much more slowly than XP."


Odd. I'm running Leopard on an old "Sawtooth" G4 PowerMac. I don't know how well XP would run on a PC from 1999.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
See soldnotlicensed.blogspot.com for more explanation of this sort of thing.

Read the bottom of the blog:

"I am not a lawyer. I am not a legal expert. I'm just a guy who happens to think that there is something not right about the way software is sold and used today, and who wants to do some serious venting about it. The opinions in this article (and this entire blog for that matter) are just that -- opinions. My opinions. I don't intend for any of this to be construed as expert analysis, legal advice, or any other kind of authority. If you find this topic interesting, as do I, then feel free to use my blog as a starting point to do your own research. If you have a legal problem and are searching for help, this is not the place for you. Seek help from a professional."

Quite frankly, it is just as valid (or invalid) as everything posted in this thread.

In my opinion (IANAL), Psystar made a couple of major mistakes. First, they called the system "OpenMac", which begins to infringe (actually, directly infringes) on the Mac trademark held by Apple (see http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html), and they offer for sale a system with OS X preinstalled when they are neither an OEM nor an authorized reseller. They have fixed the first part by changing the name. They have not addressed the second part.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
Lots of folks jump to defend Apple in this case; if Microsoft tried to tell anyone that they couldn't install Windows on &amp;quot;non-Microsoft branded software&amp;quot; they would be up in arms.

Btw, this seems like a great way to gain some market share if you ask me. What harm could come from allowing some of these evil clones infiltrate the market? Seems Apple still has a lot to learn from Microsoft's marketing tactics.

You make no sense. &quot;if Microsoft tried to tell anyone that they couldn't install Windows on non-Microsoft branded software they would be up in arms.&quot; Are you suggesting installing windows on microsoft software? That might not work so well, usually software is used on HARDWARE. Apple make the harware and software, microsoft just makes the software.

People seem to have the wrong impression about Apple. So many still act like we are in the days of the PowerPC processor and the original iMacs... Apple is best viewed as what it really is: An integrator and software developer.

Let's level the playing field, shall we? Apple doesn't make their hardware. There is no debating that. Take a Mac Mini for example. They bring together drives from Seagate, DVD-ROMs from Hitachi/Samsung/etc, processor, chipset and graphics from Intel , Atheros WiFi and Marvell networking controller, Agere 1394 adapter, the list goes on. They simply place an order with a motherboard maker (Like Asus) to assemble these parts to their specifications. The specifications are startlingly similar (OK, identical) as many low-end, off-the-shelf PCs, with the exceptions of the EFI firmware and super small case size (which is mostly a function of using Laptop parts instead of desktop parts).

They wrote an operating system, integrated parts and have a marketing department that seems to defy reality. I'm not disenchanted with them, but I hardly put them on a pedestal as some sort of gift to the computer world. Yes, I own an Apple. Have for years. But I am also grounded in reality and believe they have crossed a line with their EULA. This smacks of anti-competition even more than IE in the days of Netscape (And we should all recall that MS didn't shutdown Netscape's site).

The fact is, Apple IS closing their OS to people with a stifling EULA. The trouble for Apple won't be legal backlash, but consumer backlash. Keeping one of your target demographics (Windows/Linux "PC" Users) from being able to buy your software and install it on their machine just because the hardware isn't sold by Apple will lose you revenue and pigeonhole you with (other) monopolistic companies. AS much as they could do, they disappoint me these days.

I don't care if this is illegal, the fact is, it does everything a Mac can do, for several hundred dollars less, and if Apple will rip me off that badly I'll gladly support this "illegal" operation with my money.

It wouldn't be illegal if Apple weren't intent on restricting their users freedoms either, and were willing to let people use their overpriced software without also being forced to buy overpriced hardware