Psystar: Good or Bad For The Mac Community?
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 9:10AM With the latest, um, setback for Psystar in its quest to sell generic PCs pre-loaded with Mac OS X, the question becomes, what was is/was the point, and what does/did Psystar do to change the landscape of Macs?
First, although no sales numbers have been announced, it appears unlikely that Psystar sold any great quantity of machines, so in terms of direct harm to Apple's units sold, the effects have been trivial.
What Psystar did help to do though, was reignite the old debate about the cost of a Mac and the existence of the "Apple Tax." Whether intentionally or not, Psystar showed that OS X could be put on a machine with similar, or in some cases better specs from off-the-shelf components, and run just fine.
It also brought another nagging question back from Apple's distant past: Should Apple license the operating system to other hardware manufacturers. Granted, Apple's days of needing the OS on other people's hardware to survive are long past. But if Apple has any aspirations of reaching 30-40% of OS market share (which admittedly, doesn't look like their biggest concern) they will need hardware partners. At some point, tech support alone would overwhelm any single company responsible for the hardware and software.
What we will never know is, what effect, if any, Psystar (and hackintoshes for that matter) might have had, or will have on Apple pricing decisions. There is a price point at which Mac laptops would stop selling if there's an alternative to have the same OS experience on significantly cheaper hardware. Do we have Psystar to thank, in some tiny part, for the specs/price of the newest iMacs?
