You know, I'm inclined to lean towards what inovica was saying. We do all know Psystar now. I wouldn't be surprised if this is all just a well executed marketing plan by psystar.<p>The upside: Hundreds of thousands of curious people visit their site to see the company that's standing up to Apple. They may even buy the system to get OS X before it's taken off of the market. The company may even do some damage to Apple's PR by bringing the high prices and 1-1 comparisons to the attention of a lot of people.<p>The downside: Apple tells them that they can't offer this computer any more. There are some other negligible downsides like the cost of removing the product or if Apple sues then they might have to do some "reverse advertising" because of a court order.<p>I doubt that this company is going to go through an expensive and lengthy battle with Apple over this.<p>So in the end, I think that Psystar either has a brilliant marketing plan, or just got lucky by all of the coverage.
A Psystar employee:
“They’re charging an 80% markup on hardware,”<p>I've seen a lot of price comparisons over at /. but I don't think even the most fervent Apple haters believe the markup to be that high.
Come on. With <i>any</i> complex product, there's always going to be a rhetorical construct where you can claim somebody has a "monopoly". Do you really think you can distribute X86 "routers" running patched IOS, or roll your own car ECU with Bosch's firmware code?<p>Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior wasn't simply forcing strict terms on who could use Windows; it was using Windows as a cudgel to prevent competing software from being installed on hardware it didn't sell.
Isn't this a straw man?<p>Do we know Apple has said anything to Pystar about EULA violations? I would guess that if Apple has shutdown Pystar it is because they are violating Apple's trademark by selling a product called OpenMac.<p>If Pystar was selling a computer called OpenDell they'd get a call from Dell.