Psystar thought it could take 50% of the OS X market

Psystar, love them or hate them, they took a chance and began to publically sell Mac OS X clones to the general public. While the ongoing legal battle will continue between the two companies, information has leaked out about Psystar's initial expectation for sales.

"Under its conservative projections, Psystar told investors it would sell 70,000 computers in 2009, 470,000 systems in 2010 and 1.45 million machines in 2011. The firm's aggressive growth model, however, put those numbers at 130,000, 1.87 million and 12 million during 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively."

It seems rather bullish of the company to estimate such incredible growth while selling a product that is nothing more than a clone; the company was also estimating that they could get fifty percent of the OS X market.

For a company that no one had heard of and was only offering products that could be deemed illegal to sell, it's no surprise that they didn't come even close to their targets. One estimate was that the company had sold only 768 computers, a far cry from the expected 70,000.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft introduces Silverlight streaming for iPhone

Next Story

Rumour: Apple testing next generation iPhone

59 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Some interesting comments, but too many revisionist views to be factual...

But first some background... Apple builds the "entire" widget, so that is a far different approach than Microsoft or HP... that's why Macs work extremely well and hold their value far longer, even though you pay 5-10% more up front. Windows is really for people that don't place value on their "time". They don't have a lot of OS requirements and don't mind tinkering.

The Mac is a "complete product" from end to end... Apple builds all the hardware, they build all the software. YES, there are some components that are similar to a PC, but Macs are fully engineered by ONE company, so they run far longer, smoother.

As for the revisionist history: Before Steve returned in late 1996, Apple DID dabble in licensing, it wasn't all that successful, they were mainly rehashes of Apple's work, with low quality hardware for a couple hundred less. Yes, Steve did buy out PowerComputing, but there was no time Apple was "on the brink" or "hanging by a thread". Apple on its worst day had $1.2 Billion in pure cash, YES sales were down, but it was never close to bankruptcy, that's an urban myth... today, it has more cash than Microsoft at $36 Billion, and Apple is worth far more than HP and DeLL combined, so Apple has always been wealthy despite the poor management in the middle 90's.

There is NO reason to sell OSX separately... what would be the point? PC hardware just isn't up to the quality level of Mac hardware no matter how you slice it. Apple is focused on extreme customer value, you simply can't get that with an OS made by one company, the hardware from another, video card from another, etc... it just doesn't work. Look at the mess that became Windows, NOBODY wants to repeat that mistake.

Currently Macs are the cheapest machines you can buy IF you value your time... A new Mac goes for about $589 and they average around $1,200. Someday, everyone will have a real Mac... but for now it seems some people still will settle for a poorly made "Mac Clone" called "Windows"... which is FINE, but don't say Macs are "overpriced" since technically and factually, they are the cheapest machines for the features given.

You can find the National Real Time Mac Price Matrix Here:

http://www.macprices.net/

Merry Christmas!

So, name one difference between that Intel processor and Seagate hard drive in a Mac then in the computer I have sitting next to me right now.

what do you mean? those are just basic components... alone, they are nothing, but with solid engineering & design they can become parts of extremely well built machines. PC vendors don't ever go to that level since they aren't focused on the customer or building the best, but Apple does, that's why Macs have more value in the market and are growing faster than the rest of the PC market.

You can learn how it works here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0fe800C2CU

---

Ted Landry said,
Windows is really for people that don't place value on their time. They don't have a lot of OS requirements and don't mind tinkering.

I'm sorry but that is really a load of crap. Sure, some people like to tinker with their machine and those users have the ability to. General consumers would have no interest in doing so at all and want their machine to come pre built and include what they need out of the box as much as any other computer user does.

Though you may deny it, your post reeks of fanboyism. You say that Apple has the best design and engineering of any PC available. I say you're wrong. I find that my Toshiba laptops serve my needs very well, thank you very much. And as for desktop machines, I build my own. Yes, I am the type of person who likes to tinker with my machines. I also love being able to service them myself rather than pay another company to do so for me (something which greatly annoys me about laptops). As for design... that's completely your opinion. I happen to think some PC gaming cases look a whole lot better than any Mac out there.

Macs may be great for users who don't care about what OS they are running and just want it to work. If you want to use a Mac, fine. OS X is a solid Unix-based OS and it runs just great. But calling Windows-based machines "Mac clones"?

Also, what features exactly are you referring to that Windows doesn't offer? Windows Vista and Windows 7 run just fine, though some manufacturers are better than others about loading unwanted software on their machines. For anyone who doesn't want to have to deal with that, there's always the Microsoft Store.

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009...-its-stores.ars

It most certainly is not a mess with 90-95% marketshare, which suggests that it works just fine for a majority of computer users. If everyone will someday have a "real Mac"... well, I don't believe we will ever see that day. Lack of competition only drives prices up, not down.

I should add that Macs aren't immune to hardware defects and software issues. This recent Neowin article is a perfect example.

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/11/26/n...ckering-screens

Ted Landry said,
There is NO reason to sell OSX separately... what would be the point? PC hardware just isn't up to the quality level of Mac hardware no matter how you slice it. Apple is focused on extreme customer value, you simply can't get that with an OS made by one company, the hardware from another, video card from another, etc... it just doesn't work. Look at the mess that became Windows, NOBODY wants to repeat that mistake.


Lol, do you seriously believe what you just typed?

Please, ask someone to read it out to you, and tell me if this isnt the funniest thing you ever heard!

Ted Landry said,
But first some background... Apple builds the "entire" widget, so that is a far different approach than Microsoft or HP... that's why Macs work extremely well and hold their value far longer, even though you pay 5-10% more up front. Windows is really for people that don't place value on their "time". They don't have a lot of OS requirements and don't mind tinkering.

The Mac is a "complete product" from end to end... Apple builds all the hardware, they build all the software. YES, there are some components that are similar to a PC, but Macs are fully engineered by ONE company, so they run far longer, smoother.


Apple hasn't built all the hardware for any of their systems since Woz was designing the AppleIIs (perhaps Newton). They have, like all Smart companies, realized their strengths and sought third party components when appropriate.


Ted Landry said,
As for the revisionist history: Before Steve returned in late 1996, Apple DID dabble in licensing, it wasn't all that successful, they were mainly rehashes of Apple's work, with low quality hardware for a couple hundred less. Yes, Steve did buy out PowerComputing, but there was no time Apple was "on the brink" or "hanging by a thread". Apple on its worst day had $1.2 Billion in pure cash, YES sales were down, but it was never close to bankruptcy, that's an urban myth... today, it has more cash than Microsoft at $36 Billion, and Apple is worth far more than HP and DeLL combined, so Apple has always been wealthy despite the poor management in the middle 90's.


So Bill Gates' personal investment of $150M USD was not because of any financial troubles. I guess all we can do is speculate on those motives.

Ted Landry said,
There is NO reason to sell OSX separately... what would be the point? PC hardware just isn't up to the quality level of Mac hardware no matter how you slice it. Apple is focused on extreme customer value, you simply can't get that with an OS made by one company, the hardware from another, video card from another, etc... it just doesn't work. Look at the mess that became Windows, NOBODY wants to repeat that mistake.


Can you tell me what is inside of the new iMacs? Oh I see an ATI Radeon graphics chip, an Intel CPU. Looks a lot like an OS from one company, a graphics chip from another company, and oh a CPU from a third company.
Unless you somehow believe that Apple has licensed these designs and have their own fab plant somewhere to press the silicon.

I would wager at this point they aren't even building their own motherboards, but buying whichever manufacturer's board passed their own internal compatability testing.


Ted Landry said,
Currently Macs are the cheapest machines you can buy IF you value your time... A new Mac goes for about $589 and they average around $1,200. Someday, everyone will have a real Mac... but for now it seems some people still will settle for a poorly made "Mac Clone" called "Windows"... which is FINE, but don't say Macs are "overpriced" since technically and factually, they are the cheapest machines for the features given.


This is an unsubstantiated fanboy claim. We are at the point these days in the world of personal computing where personal preference is the deciding factor behind PC purchases. Yes I call a mac a PC, because it is. it has all of the internal specifications. I would call a Solaris based system, or any other *nix system a PC as well. They are all Computers for Personal use. Every OS has it's strength, and since they all run on the same hardware now, you'll just have to spell out in great detail what this value Apple adds that makes it the cheapest machine you can buy.


Ted Landry said,
You can find the National Real Time Mac Price Matrix Here:

http://www.macprices.net/

Merry Christmas!


I'm sure you can find this in any industry.... try looking for volkswagon price sites, or Acura Price sites, or GM price sites.....

This doesn't make it cheapest, just that you can find online bargains.

Happy Festivus.

Ted Landry said,
Yes, Steve did buy out PowerComputing, but there was no time Apple was "on the brink" or "hanging by a thread".

lol you are joking right? I actually bought Apple stock when it was down at $3 a share and that was considered a gamble as all indications were that Apple was going bankrupt.
Steve Jobs got re-hired, turned the company around, and has made me a nice profit :)

Yes, the $150 Million was to help Microsoft make IE the standard Browser on Macs to try and bury Netscape, allow them to continue to develop MS Office and settle several patent disputes including the QuickTime thefts.

Steve had Bill in a massive headlock at the time because of the federal antitrust proceedings, so Bill had little choice but to pay up. The final amount MS had to pay Apple was around $600 million, a good read on what happened is here:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech....7362B533B9.html

Yes, Apple engineers their own motherboards, their own chips, they always have, always will. You're just talking about some components, not the complete engineering of the machine. Only Apple does that, that's how they get their devices so small and powerful. Check out the iMac for currently the most feature rich PC on the market for the price, simply amazing.

http://www.apple.com/imac/features.html

Ted Landry said,
Check out the iMac for currently the most feature rich PC on the market for the price, simply amazing.


Goofy Mouse, proprietary chat software and that displayPort thingy

ooh feature rich.
aside from that, my homebrew windows box has it all.

no, the Apple mouse is quite advanced, if you don't need that many features, plug in any Logitech or Microsoft mouse and you'll be just fine.

Keep in mind, everything Apple does is STANDARD, so iChat of course works with any common standard chat protocol.

Ah, DisplayPort is what replaces HDMI, (HDMI doesn't have enough resolution capacity) so it's the standard video port going forward. Yes, Apple is always moving the industry forward so items like DisplayPort are what you'll see the rest of the industry adapt to over time... Apple machines run about 6 years ahead of the industry, so I realize why you go confused.

Nah, for the money, Apple is far ahead of any homebrew machine, but YES, if you don't have a lot of needs, limping along with a slow, noisy, quirky OS based box is just fine.

If your on a budget, check Apple's special deals page, it's rather amazing if you know this secret.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac

-

Apple has a monopoly sans the market share. Anything which interferes with that is deemed illegal in their eyes.

Incorrect, Apple is "vertically integrated" within a market... they have no "monopoly", not even close. Yes, they have the top portion of the PC market at about 8%, but until they get to 80% of that same market, they can't and won't be considered any form of a monopoly.

Please learn your business terms.

"Not necessarily. If they sold many more copies it could result in even higher profits as a result of sheer volume."

Let's do a little math.

Mac OS X Snow Leopard sells for $29. Let's say Apple makes 80% gross margin (typical for software products) - that's $24 per copy sold.

The average Mac is around $1400 at roughly 35% gross margin. That's $490 per Mac sold.

Apple currently has about 8% US market share. If they lost all that business to clones, they would need 160% market share in the US to break even. Or let's try world wide. They have about 3% market share. In order to break even on the loss of hardware sales, they'd need to get to 60% market share - even assuming that their support costs didn't go up (which is extremely unlikely).

Consider that even after a year of pushing their junk, Psystar only sold 768 computers (and half of those appear to have been to journalists and bloggers from what I've been reading). Just how in the world would anyone expect that Apple could possibly sell enough copies of OS X to make up for the loss of business? 'Cheap' isn't what drives Mac sales - as Psystar proved.

Joe Anonymous said,
"Not necessarily. If they sold many more copies it could result in even higher profits as a result of sheer volume."

Let's do a little math.

Mac OS X Snow Leopard sells for $29. Let's say Apple makes 80% gross margin (typical for software products) - that's $24 per copy sold.

The average Mac is around $1400 at roughly 35% gross margin. That's $490 per Mac sold.

Apple currently has about 8% US market share. If they lost all that business to clones, they would need 160% market share in the US to break even. Or let's try world wide. They have about 3% market share. In order to break even on the loss of hardware sales, they'd need to get to 60% market share - even assuming that their support costs didn't go up (which is extremely unlikely).

Consider that even after a year of pushing their junk, Psystar only sold 768 computers (and half of those appear to have been to journalists and bloggers from what I've been reading). Just how in the world would anyone expect that Apple could possibly sell enough copies of OS X to make up for the loss of business? 'Cheap' isn't what drives Mac sales - as Psystar proved.


Apple spread FUD throughout that year (a large reason why Psystar's sales remained flat was due to the cloud that hung over them from day one); as much as some folks want to talk up Apple's quality, haven't they had their own QA woes during that same stretch? (Consider the current issues involving iMacs and even some Mac Pros.) Therefore, Apple is in no position to brag on their quality, especially given recent events.

Given Apple's own issues (especially in terms of QA) it is very much Power Computing (the last legal clone-maker) all over again. Apple did the same sort of FUD attack against Power and *got away with it*. (Remember, at that time, clones were legal.) Power was profitable, while Apple itself was hanging on by a thread. Steve Jobs was burning through LOTS of money developing OS X (which was, even then, largely tested on Intel hardware) and realized that being a software-only company was a very sure way to get dead. Jobs knew there was no way he could compete heads-up with Microsoft, and didn't want to even try (despite public statements to the contrary); that meant that clones had to die. Apple's entire push for a summary judgement was that a legitimate Psystar would kill Apple as a company (in other words, closed-source and exclusivity was a requirement for Apple's survival). And the judge bought it.

PGHammer said,
Apple's entire push for a summary judgement was that a legitimate Psystar would kill Apple as a company (in other words, closed-source and exclusivity was a requirement for Apple's survival). And the judge bought it.

The issue was that Psystar was violating Apple's copyright on OSX. Psystar argued that because they were including a copy of OSX with the product, copyright was not an issue. The judge ruled against them because in their operations Psystar was taking a master copy of OSX, modifying it and mechanically copying it onto the drives of the systems they were selling. The judge found this to be a basic violation of copyright and that was the issue that stopped them.

Why would Apple open up OS X? They would lose so much money it isn't even funny. Their markup on hardware is well over 50%. Look at the components in a Mac Mini and what they sell it for. It is all PC hardware, Intel processor, mini-ITX motherboard, SODIMM for memory and a slot loading drive. All in all it would cost about $400 to make.

The old Macs needed a higher price due to the fact it was using a different architecture in IBM's PowerPC, and the old Macs used to be SCSI. All we have now is a company that designs a fancy product with cheap hardware.

OSX is the most OPEN of all popular OSes don't forget. It's 90% OPEN, not like the 100% CLOSED nature of Windows. That's why power users and geeks always use Macs.

Yes, Apple is the only company to entirely build their own hardware, a "Mac mini" is currently the best value in the industry. It's silent, has the most features for the price, and retains its value far longer than any Windows or Linux PC.

You can join the modern world here:

http://www.macprices.net/

Yea, I'm sure you know what your talking about. It's funny how their crappy OS is experiencing growth that outpaces any other OS. Windows has a large market share but its not gaining overall, they're upgrading from older versions of windows but not switching from Linux or OSX. OSX is gaining more market share each quarter, so I'm sure they don't need your advice on how to survive.

You don't have to like Apple to see their success. It's pretty easy to pick up a newspaper and see their financial reports. Good computers or not, they have one hell of a business model and are making more money than any other tech company is.

ThePitt said,
if apple want survive, they better find an agreement with that ppl. (snipped)

It's finally nice to see someone put some real effort and in-depth arguments into their posts.

Can't believe they expected such a growth. That's insane. I think most people are under the impression, why pay for something that can only be deemed illegal?

Just an FYI to the author, the title is spelled wrong... forgot the "s" in the company name.

Jugalator said,
I agree; they must have known they violated the EULA all along. :S

It's all kinda surprising. They must have had huge balls, haha.


Psystar was NOT expecting the EULA to hold up in front of a judge. (In fact, they had cause, as far less draconian EULAs have, in fact, been struck down.) What Psystar didn't count on was the ability of Apple to make the case that a successful Psystar challenge to the EULA would doom Apple as a company (even though Apple for years had been arguing the exact opposite in court, and especially in their lawsuits against Microsoft). Apparently, hypocrisy means nothing to lawyers OR Apple.

Well yea they could do that, but dont forget as it is now your paying for the hardware with the OS. If they opened it to everyone, you would see apple profits plummet because you can by the hardware equivalent for much less.

Sean2989 said,
Well yea they could do that, but dont forget as it is now your paying for the hardware with the OS. If they opened it to everyone, you would see apple profits plummet because you can by the hardware equivalent for much less.

Not necessarily. If they sold many more copies it could result in even higher profits as a result of sheer volume.

Bemani Dog said,
What's sad is, Apple could probably take over the world if it set OS X free. I'd certainly buy it.

(And yes, I know about all the OSX86 stuff.)

They would certainly raise their market share. But I doubt they would surpass windows. But I doubt it would actually help them, they wouldn't be able to sell overpriced Macs and their profits would just go down.
Low software price and high hardware price works perfect for them.

If Apple were to open the OS to any PC hardware, they would have the same support issues that Microsoft currently has with hardware vendors and driver compatibility. It's probably just not in their business model to have to deal with that kind of support when they can lock the OS to particular hardware specifications now.

That's a big if. What they haven't done since the 1980s they won't do it ever. It allows them to survive with a niche market. Plus, Microsoft pwns the enterprise with its end to end management software, server OS, middleware and client so only the consumer market is likely to be "affected".

Glen said,
If Apple were to open the OS to any PC hardware, they would have the same support issues that Microsoft currently has with hardware vendors and driver compatibility. It's probably just not in their business model to have to deal with that kind of support when they can lock the OS to particular hardware specifications now.

I've never really had Windows hardware issues. Microsoft has a hardware compatibility lab that tests drivers/hardware for a fee for manufacturers. If you make sure your components are on the HCL you usually don't have an issue. Apple could do the same thing. I'd buy the OS as well, but I don't really want to buy a new computer just for the OS when the one I have is already satisfactory.

Bemani Dog said,
What's sad is, Apple could probably take over the world if it set OS X free. I'd certainly buy it.

(And yes, I know about all the OSX86 stuff.)


No, they'd get too bad rep when it wouldn't run on all but a fraction of the hardware out there. I don't think it'd work. I also don't think that Apple has the resources to one-handedly provide the necessary drivers to be up to par with Microsoft. It took MS a long time to get where they are today with all the vendor support, from having been a minority. And that was also during a time when there was no OS in the market with a strong foothold. I wonder how companies would best compete with MS today in the desktop software market, really.

GreyWolfSC said,
I've never really had Windows hardware issues. Microsoft has a hardware compatibility lab that tests drivers/hardware for a fee for manufacturers. If you make sure your components are on the HCL you usually don't have an issue. Apple could do the same thing. I'd buy the OS as well, but I don't really want to buy a new computer just for the OS when the one I have is already satisfactory. :)

My dads computer passed the Windows 7 test downloaded from Microsoft but when installed it wouldn't work.

My own laptop I had to track down several drivers.

evo_spook said,
My dads computer passed the Windows 7 test downloaded from Microsoft but when installed it wouldn't work.

My own laptop I had to track down several drivers.



Always when installing Windows 7 or Vista make sure the PC/Laptop is connected to the internet so that Windows can download drivers

Apple is a hardware company. It would be as impossible for them to set the OSX free as it was impossible to set all the various Unix flavors out there that are made for the specific bread-and-butter hardware - IBM, Sun, HP, etc. Apple is not in business of selling software, and OSX, beyond the pretty UI shell, is still a Unix, and not made to work well across different hardware.

Apple doesn't seem to have much interest in being competitive, though. They like being in a white shinny plastic league of their own.

Bemani Dog said,
What's sad is, Apple could probably take over the world if it set OS X free. I'd certainly buy it.

Who says they want that?

You have to keep in mind that the business model for Apple and Microsoft are quite different. I'm sure Apple can easily predict what would happen if they released OSX to everyone. They didn't make billions of dollars by being stupid.

winrez said,


Always when installing Windows 7 or Vista make sure the PC/Laptop is connected to the internet so that Windows can download drivers

Not possible, one of the drivers that needed installing was the wifi and I had no ethernet cable handy.

evo_spook said,
My dads computer passed the Windows 7 test downloaded from Microsoft but when installed it wouldn't work.

My own laptop I had to track down several drivers.


Maybe you did an upgrade. Many times, either drivers or applications are at fault when upgrades don't work. I always recommend doing a clean install.

With your laptop, there is no way Microsoft can pack all the drivers in the world and keep the media size small enough. Things like looking for updated drivers are to be expected if your computer is/was not designed for a particular version of Windows.

Bemani Dog said,
What's sad is, Apple could probably take over the world if it set OS X free. I'd certainly buy it.

(And yes, I know about all the OSX86 stuff.)


Psystar was actually right; however, Apple tried allowing clones once, and nearly went the way of DEC.

DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation) was literally the next to last of the Big Iron (mainframe) vendors to also sell PCs (the only other one at the time was IBM). Unlike IBM, they didn't turn out *bad* PCs (they had no PCjr in *their* lineup), and they also had the Alpha 21x RISC processor (one of only two RISC processors to ever be able to run Windows NT). What trainwrecked DEC (and nearly killed Apple) was their inability to compete on price.

After Apple managed to force their then-legal clonemakers out, they took great pains to prevent what happened to DEC (and nearly happened to them) from happpening again (hence that rather draconian EULA included with all their software, not just OS X). While Apple is profitable, they took a path to profit that is more that of a non-computer company (in fact, it's more like that of Nintendo); keep margins high! (And the ONLY way they could do that is to keep the product closed.)

ajua said,

Maybe you did an upgrade. Many times, either drivers or applications are at fault when upgrades don't work. I always recommend doing a clean install.

With your laptop, there is no way Microsoft can pack all the drivers in the world and keep the media size small enough. Things like looking for updated drivers are to be expected if your computer is/was not designed for a particular version of Windows.


it was a clean install due to XP not being a upgrade option.

PGHammer said,


Psystar was actually right; however, Apple tried allowing clones once, and nearly went the way of DEC.

Actually wasn't the clone market one of the only things they were making a profit on at the time? Had it not been for that the company probably would have gone under because everything else they were doing was garbage.

When Steve Jobs returned he cut out the clone market because that's not the direction he wanted the company to be going in, and he brought along his business skills and all of his assets from NEXT so Apple didn't need to be licensing to clone makers any more.

Saburac said,


Actually wasn't the clone market one of the only things they were making a profit on at the time? Had it not been for that the company probably would have gone under because everything else they were doing was garbage.

When Steve Jobs returned he cut out the clone market because that's not the direction he wanted the company to be going in, and he brought along his business skills and all of his assets from NEXT so Apple didn't need to be licensing to clone makers any more.


The clone-makers were profitable; however, Apple itself was not. The iPod literally enabled Apple to survive until it could force the clone-makers to implode. (And the very reason WHY the clone-makers were profitable was because they had lower costs than Apple.)

What happened with IBM and DEC (and nearly happened to Apple) has been repeated since (SGI, Sun, even Cray). Closed-source or niche marketing is how high-margin products (and the companies that make them) survive. Sun certainly wasn't surviving building SPARC boxes (especially since the exact same software was, and is, not only available for garden-variety clones, but cost less in terms of hardware, and nit in terms of training; the dirty little open secret for over a *decade* was that even before Solaris went open-source, it was free for the downloading, legally, from Sun itself, and could run happily bare-metal on any hardware that Linux could run on, or even in a VM).

Incorrect... it was the iMac that put Apple back on top of the computer industry, the iPod came many years later. iMac came out in 1998, the iPod wasn't until 2001, and even then it was 2, 3 years later before it took off... Apple was profitable all those middle years and was never in a mode of "survival" so please don't post false information.

Max1978 said,
Apple is a hardware company. It would be as impossible for them to set the OSX free as it was impossible to set all the various Unix flavors out there that are made for the specific bread-and-butter hardware - IBM, Sun, HP, etc. Apple is not in business of selling software, and OSX, beyond the pretty UI shell, is still a Unix, and not made to work well across different hardware.


What?

It all comes down to drivers.

yes, drivers are fairly important, but with OSX it comes from an endless polishing of the OS, so new people will feel at home, but all the power of the most sophisticated OS in the world is a simple command or click away. Windows users don't have that access... they are locked into a proprietary OS, while OSX remains 90% opensource.

You can download the OSX Distro for free, by googling... "Darwin Opensource"... why can't you download the Windows Distro?

Hum...

.Neo said,
Who says they want that?

it sure seems like it when they pretty much lock the $#@! out of you justifying it by 'simplicity'