OSNews

Did you even *READ* what I wrote; the alternative they have provided is crap, absolutely crap. The point of competition is for the competitor to provide a BETTER, meaning SUPERIOR product. The product which they are providing is crap. End of story.

What they did was a half-assed hack job; if they truly wanted to be some damn effort into it, they would have gotten a motherboard, paid for an EFI firmware off one of the many firmware companies and would have made things work properly out of the box - and for the damn thing not to sound like a jet engine when turned on.

Again, I stress - the whole point of a competitor is for that very competitor to provide a superior product to the status quo. The company in question has failed miserably at it. Its nothing more than a publicity stunt made by an individual (or individuals) who have far too much time on their hands.

Just as I told Kroc in the last thread: competition doesn't have to be on quality. It can be on price too. You don't have to be better to compete. Just be cheaper.

Edited 2008-05-01 12:06 UTC

If you look at the big picture, the psystar computer and how it stands up to a genuine mac doesn't matter. What matters is how Apple is going to handle this and what the outcome is going to be if and when they try to put a stop to it. If they ignore it then other people might go the extra mile to really build a comparable system to a genuine mac in terms of experience and probably for a cheaper price. This is just the start, testing the waters if you will. It may or may not be shut down where it stands, who knows at this point.

Did you even *READ* what I wrote; the alternative they have provided is crap, absolutely crap. The point of competition is for the competitor to provide a BETTER, meaning SUPERIOR product. The product which they are providing is crap. End of story.
"

Before switching into Snark-drive you should reflect on your own reading comprehension. The previous poster wrote that your argument is missing the point, you even quote that part. S/He presumely does so because s/he read your post, got the point and disagreed. You, however, fail to get the previous poster's point -- which is: once proven that competition is possible at all, better competition will arise -- and attack a strawman.

Have fun.

This isn't a very good analogy. Power Computing, Motorola, etc. were all legally licensing the Mac OS back in the mid-90's. They didn't have the hardware-software interfacing issues that seem to plague the Psystar computer.

Jobs pulled the plug because the clone makers were only taking market share from Apple and weren't actually growing the user base (ie. the revenue they made on the OS licenses was much much less than what they lost from not selling the hardware). In the case of Psystar, I wouldn't be surprised if they avoid litigation altogether and simply let them go out of business because they're selling a non-updatable, loud, semi-compatible computer that has zero support from the OS developer.

This is not an option, because if you don't actively enforce your patent/copyright, then in the eyes of the law, you've effectively abandoned your patent/copyright. Another reason to go after infringers is to send a warning to future would-be infringers.