martinibuster - 7:40 pm on Nov 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

It's not the quality of the Apple products that in the past made it better. It's that they were engineered to play nice with each other and thus not produce driver conflicts. Despite that, Macs have always been unstable after long use. Let's not gloss that over.

I've used Macs as well since the eighties and I don't believe their hardware is superior in itself. As recently as last year Mac was sued [infoworld.com] for using a cheap low quality screen for their 20 inch iMacs that could only display "262,144 colors" instead of the millions that normal quality LCD screens displayed, rendering it useless for editing photos and causing the screen to washout. Apple has also had to settle cases regarding the poor hardware quality of some of their other products, like the Nano.

However Macs now use the same hardware that Windows use, so Apple is understandably facing a challenge over it's iron-fisted control over the hardware. Apple says it's about quality control and throws a clause in it's OS prohibiting people from using the OS outside of Apple approved boxes. But let's get real. Now that they're using regular hardware it's really about greed. The hardware does NOT have to cost as much as they charge for it. The hardware is overpriced and Apple will continue shearing their customers as long as the perception remains that there is something special about the hardware, which is an illusion.

An article in PCWorld [pcworld.com] sums it up like this:

I don't agree that Apple should have the ability to restrict the hardware that I install the Mac OS X software on, but based on the application of existing laws I can understand why Apple won this case. The fact that Apple can leverage existing law to maintain draconian control over how its products are used is a flaw with the laws and their application, not with Apple. Imagine if other industries worked like that. Let's use cars as an example. You pay $30,000 for the privilege of indefinitely 'borrowing' a Chevy Camaro... And, if you try to customize or modify it in any way, like changing the factory-default rims or installing a new stereo system, General Motors sues you for creating a 'derivative work'. There would be riots. I fully understand that I can't reproduce the product in part or whole for redistribution as my own. Got it. But, once I have paid Apple for my copy of Mac OS X it shouldn't be Apple's business any longer what I do with it. If I want to modify it to make an automated toaster oven, or use the DVD as a coaster for my coffee mug that should be my prerogative. Its mine, I paid for it.