Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Poll: Apple is suing Psystar (Mac Clone maker). Who do you want to win?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I want Apple to realize why people would have bought these computers:
- Mac mini price
- iMac/better-than-iMac hardware
Solution?
Make the Mac mini taller/wider, put a 3.5" drive in it, add a decent GPU with 128MB (ask Blizzard what they think is "decent", based on World of Warcraft, Starcraft II and Diablo III) and push the RAM limit to 4GB and voilà! Most of us will be extremely pleased.
And since a 3.5" drive costs less than a 2.5" drive, it should offset the cost for the GPU, so the Mac mini should stay at its current price point.
Not everyone wants to buy all-in-one computers.
- Mac mini price
- iMac/better-than-iMac hardware
Solution?
Make the Mac mini taller/wider, put a 3.5" drive in it, add a decent GPU with 128MB (ask Blizzard what they think is "decent", based on World of Warcraft, Starcraft II and Diablo III) and push the RAM limit to 4GB and voilà! Most of us will be extremely pleased.
And since a 3.5" drive costs less than a 2.5" drive, it should offset the cost for the GPU, so the Mac mini should stay at its current price point.
Not everyone wants to buy all-in-one computers.
Or in other words, you want Apple's ownership of its copyrights, licenses, patents and the platform in general to be eroded by lawyers and opened up to all and sundry against their will, because they don't currently make your ideal computer, while you, as a single consumer, know better what the market needs than a company with a research and development arm that produces the most desirable IT objects on the planet.
Seems perfectly justified.
He / we may not know what's better for the entire market, but we know what hardware WE need. Apple doesn't offer that. I reserve the right to break the EULA at the cost of losing official Apple support for the product if I so choose.
What PsyStar did (distribute modified copies of OS X) was obviously wrong, but the concept of allowing a user to choose where (s)he runs software (s)he purchases should be upheld.
-Clive
I could go either way, but lean toward Apple winning.
Fact is, they use Apple trademarks and products in a way that Apple doesn't authorize.
However, they see a need, and try as they might to fill it. That is entrepreneurship, without which Apple itself would never have been created.
I don't want Apple's intellectual property, patent, copyright, or other commerce rights infringed, but I do hope they get the hint.
Yvan is right on, although I would take the specs further. Not everyone wants a built-in screen iMac.
Personally, I want an affordable mac that I can do two things with.
1: run dual external monitors well. Right now that is only Mac Pro, and that is not affordable for just that purpose without a lot more to justify the price.
2: be connectable to a home theater for more local functionality than the Apple TV, with local media storage and server functions, play disc media (DVDs, preferably BluRay in HD through an HDCP video system, DVI or HDMI) with Apple's optical audio in and out, and third party DVR/Tuners for broadcast/sat/cable television in HDTV formats.
The Mac Mini falls just shy of that, despite the Mini doing basic desktop computing, and light server work very well.
A slightly larger form factor, maybe, with just a bit better video hardware, the forthcoming quad-core processors, and a drive attachment that can handle either one 3.5 inch HDD, or two 2.5" drives. (try setting two 2.5" drives side by side, and comparing the footprint to a 90-degree rotated 3.5" drive. Almost identical.)
Apple should realize that a consumer level headless mini-tower with decent specs, at a price point similar, or just below the iMac, and higher than the Mini (justifiable by better hardware/capability than the Mini) is something some folks would want to buy.
Psystar isn't that solution due to it being unofficial, and unsupported, but it would like to be that sort of a mini-tower.
Fact is, they use Apple trademarks and products in a way that Apple doesn't authorize.
However, they see a need, and try as they might to fill it. That is entrepreneurship, without which Apple itself would never have been created.
I don't want Apple's intellectual property, patent, copyright, or other commerce rights infringed, but I do hope they get the hint.
Yvan is right on, although I would take the specs further. Not everyone wants a built-in screen iMac.
Personally, I want an affordable mac that I can do two things with.
1: run dual external monitors well. Right now that is only Mac Pro, and that is not affordable for just that purpose without a lot more to justify the price.
2: be connectable to a home theater for more local functionality than the Apple TV, with local media storage and server functions, play disc media (DVDs, preferably BluRay in HD through an HDCP video system, DVI or HDMI) with Apple's optical audio in and out, and third party DVR/Tuners for broadcast/sat/cable television in HDTV formats.
The Mac Mini falls just shy of that, despite the Mini doing basic desktop computing, and light server work very well.
A slightly larger form factor, maybe, with just a bit better video hardware, the forthcoming quad-core processors, and a drive attachment that can handle either one 3.5 inch HDD, or two 2.5" drives. (try setting two 2.5" drives side by side, and comparing the footprint to a 90-degree rotated 3.5" drive. Almost identical.)
Apple should realize that a consumer level headless mini-tower with decent specs, at a price point similar, or just below the iMac, and higher than the Mini (justifiable by better hardware/capability than the Mini) is something some folks would want to buy.
Psystar isn't that solution due to it being unofficial, and unsupported, but it would like to be that sort of a mini-tower.
You seem to have wrongly deduced something from what I said. I never said anything about Psystar being right in what they did, I only mentioned some points about why people would have bought their machines.
All I said is that I'm hoping Apple realizes why people bought those machines. I don't want to sound harsh, but what Psystar did wasn't quite legal (or at least grey area) and frankly I don't care what happens to them (the company, not the people!).
And yes, as a single consumer I know what I need and I don't care what market research Apple has done. All I can do is complain about their product line-up and vote with my wallet, which means I'm not buying an iMac since I don't want an all-in-one desktop computer, even though the rest of the specifications of iMacs would be within my requirements (good CPU, GPU and hard drive).
But since I don't want to an iMac, especially given that they're worth almost twice the price of the Mac mini (specifications aside), this forces me to buy a Mac mini even though I find the GPU mediocre and the hard drive slow and small in capacity.
Indeed.
I would prefer a single 3.5" drive myself, for bigger capacity, higher transfer speed and lower cost. If they can fit a 3.5" drive inside Time Capsule, I assume they can fit a 3.5" drive in the next Mac mini revision/replacement.
Even if Pystar installed OS X on unauthorized hardware, did they pay Apple for licenses for OS X or did they steal it? If they paid Apple for the licenses for OS X I think they should be allowed to install it on whatever they want. I do not think they should be able to sell an Apple product (OS X) without compensating Apple. Apple should sell a version of OS X that can be installed on any computer for a price comparable to windows $320 and a version for Apple hardware that costs significantly less.
BTW I own Apple stock.
BTW I own Apple stock.
This Juror rules in favor of.....
Pystar is ripping off Apple's work. Pystar doesn't have any legal permission to produce a Mac. I would wager in the 18-24 months, the mini will get a revision or the headless Mac will be introduced.
Pystar is ripping off Apple's work. Pystar doesn't have any legal permission to produce a Mac. I would wager in the 18-24 months, the mini will get a revision or the headless Mac will be introduced.
Didn't the owners of pystar challenge apple to sue them? i remember reading something a while back where they said that they would love apple to sue them and they would be ready. Maybe they have something up their sleeves, some loophole or something their lawyers came up with who knows. or maybe that was all talk for sake of publicity. Anyway i voted apple because i love the imac and dont have a need for a customizable desktop.
The problem with this statement is that you don't define "Mac." Obviously the word "Mac" (as pertaining to computers) is trademarked by Apple so of course PsyStar can't produce and sell "Macs." But if your definition of "Mac" is a computer capable of running OS X, then you're off the mark. Psystar can (and does) produce a hardware combination that is OS X-ready legally. They can resell retail copies of Leopard Legally. If OS X was installed "vanilla," they could STILL sell the thing. The catch here is that they're reselling modified versions of a copyrighted work without Apple's permission.
Choose your words more carefully.
-Clive
If Psystar wins and then it allows other makers to install OS X on unsupported machines, we will be having posts here stating, " OS X runs like crap. I was hearing how OS X is so much more stable and easy to use." because OS X wasn't written to support all of the different hardware that Windows must be programed to run on. That is what makes OS X so stable. Apple controls everything. IMHO, it should stay that way.
let's not forget that unlike companies like microsoft, apple is a "hardware" company. they are competing against dell, hp, and toshiba more than they are competing against microsoft. they only target microsoft because they are using OS X as a selling point to buying a mac.
also, when you purchase a mac, you are paying for all the engineering and R&D that went into that fine piece of machinery. so while i agree, there should be more affordable macs, we will only see this if apple were to sacrifice design and engineering, which kind of defeats one thing that makes a mac a mac.
also, it would put a damper on apple's reputation if other vendors were to make cheap versions of mac only to find a host of hardware issues because the vendor chose to cut corners in order to bring the price down.
clearly, apple is in the right to pursue legal action in this matter.
also, when you purchase a mac, you are paying for all the engineering and R&D that went into that fine piece of machinery. so while i agree, there should be more affordable macs, we will only see this if apple were to sacrifice design and engineering, which kind of defeats one thing that makes a mac a mac.
also, it would put a damper on apple's reputation if other vendors were to make cheap versions of mac only to find a host of hardware issues because the vendor chose to cut corners in order to bring the price down.
clearly, apple is in the right to pursue legal action in this matter.
allow me to clarify my position on this. on the one hand there are arguments that separate OS X and Mac as 2 separate entities. however, in the eyes of apple they are one in the same. they use OS X to sell Macs and Macs to sell OS X. apple has bet all their reputation in the pc market on "it just works". any effort to take a fine product like OS X, and place it on machines that have cut corners to make their pc more affordable, will risk apple's "it just works" reputation.
as far as i'm concerned, like it or not, apple wrote OS X and they can do whatever they want with it. nobody is making anyone buy it, buy into its concept, or even making you like any of the decisions that are made. they have every right to do as they please with their baby... period.
as far as i'm concerned, like it or not, apple wrote OS X and they can do whatever they want with it. nobody is making anyone buy it, buy into its concept, or even making you like any of the decisions that are made. they have every right to do as they please with their baby... period.
(quotes rearranged)
Wah wah, boo hoo. Just because Apple's reputation is at stake, doesn't mean they can force users into doing something that is outside of the law. EULAs are not legally binding, and copyright laws only prohibit others from selling duplications and modifications (the latter of which PsyStar is doing). Copyright laws, however, would not stop a vendor who has discovered how to install an unmodified OS X on 3rd party hardware, nor should they! Why? Because then copyright laws would then be facilitating Apple's anti-competitive means to bind customers of one product to another... which is illegal, by the way. Microsoft got busted for tying Internet Explorer to Windows, if you'll recall. This is no different. Companies cannot engage in anti-competitive activies. This is why people are legally allowed to unlock their iPhones. The DMCA has certain expemtions to protect users from being owned by anti-competitive corporations.
Let me say it another way: Right now, Apple can justify locking OS X to their units because there is no other hardware configuration that will natively support the software. They can simply say, "well we're not technically preventing anyone from installing OS X on other hardware." But once someone discovers how to install retail OS X on generic hardware, that excuse is gone and Apple can no longer prevent users from installing OS X wherever they want, lest they be anti-competitive.
The sake of preserving Apple's "good name" does not allow them to be anti-competitive. If they're worried about their product being perceived poorly, their only choice in this matter is to make it better. And if they're worried about R&D costs or whatever, they should charge more for the product. Simple as that. I've already read maybe posts saying people would gladly pay $500 to be able to run OS X on generic hardware.
-Clive
Wah wah, boo hoo. Just because Apple's reputation is at stake, doesn't mean they can force users into doing something that is outside of the law. EULAs are not legally binding, and copyright laws only prohibit others from selling duplications and modifications (the latter of which PsyStar is doing). Copyright laws, however, would not stop a vendor who has discovered how to install an unmodified OS X on 3rd party hardware, nor should they! Why? Because then copyright laws would then be facilitating Apple's anti-competitive means to bind customers of one product to another... which is illegal, by the way. Microsoft got busted for tying Internet Explorer to Windows, if you'll recall. This is no different. Companies cannot engage in anti-competitive activies. This is why people are legally allowed to unlock their iPhones. The DMCA has certain expemtions to protect users from being owned by anti-competitive corporations.
Let me say it another way: Right now, Apple can justify locking OS X to their units because there is no other hardware configuration that will natively support the software. They can simply say, "well we're not technically preventing anyone from installing OS X on other hardware." But once someone discovers how to install retail OS X on generic hardware, that excuse is gone and Apple can no longer prevent users from installing OS X wherever they want, lest they be anti-competitive.
The sake of preserving Apple's "good name" does not allow them to be anti-competitive. If they're worried about their product being perceived poorly, their only choice in this matter is to make it better. And if they're worried about R&D costs or whatever, they should charge more for the product. Simple as that. I've already read maybe posts saying people would gladly pay $500 to be able to run OS X on generic hardware.
-Clive
These two sentences really jumped out at me.
Consider this for a second: Replace "Apple" with "Microsoft" in the above sentence. Do you still agree with it?
If your answer is no, how do you respond to the charge, laid before the court, that you, sir, are an Apple fanboi ?!?!?
Where I think Pystar is in trouble.
I think the biggest problem for Pystar is actually doing the install of the OS on the Machine, that's the point where they are breaking the agreement.
However, the agreement likely says "End User Agreement". Since the end user is not doing it, they may be free and clear.
It's questionable whether or not the end user agreements can hold any value. Once you buy something, you have the right to do with it what you want as long as you aren't duplicating and reselling it.
I think Pystar could actually win this.
I think the biggest problem for Pystar is actually doing the install of the OS on the Machine, that's the point where they are breaking the agreement.
However, the agreement likely says "End User Agreement". Since the end user is not doing it, they may be free and clear.
It's questionable whether or not the end user agreements can hold any value. Once you buy something, you have the right to do with it what you want as long as you aren't duplicating and reselling it.
I think Pystar could actually win this.
I want Apple to win, but I also think that this should show them what they need to add to their desktop lineup. There's a reason that Psystar was selling these: there was a demand. Apple needs to tap into that demand (pricing point and specs) to prevent this from gaining strength again.
ahh, the wisdom of the internet.
Firstly, EULAs are legally binding and have been widely upheld by the courts. Here's a short excerpt from http://www.jonesday.com/pubs/pubs_detail.aspx?pubID=S1495
And there's even more info here :
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v9n3/kunkel93_text.html#Shrinkwrap License Cases_T
EULAs, shrinkwrap licenses and clickwrap licenses have all been upheld as long as they allow the offeree a chance to accept or decline the contract and return the product.
Secondly, how is it anti-competitive for Apple to decide how and where it's product is sold? No one forces you to use OSX, there are certainly alternatives. Just because you want to use it, but not on the machines they offer, does not make it an illegal monopoly.
Any manufacturer has a natural and legal monopoly on the product they make and has absolute control over where, when and how that product is sold.
It is perfectly legal for a company that makes shoes to decide what colors they come in, how much they cost and whether those shoes will be sold in tesco or harrods.
Don't get this confused with your anger over Apple not offering a machine you like, Apple has done nothing against individuals installing OSX on their computers nor have they moved against the websites that encourage it, they are simply shutting down a company that was trying to make money off their hard work. And I might add, leeching off the OSX86 community's hard work while giving nothing back.
Actually this is completely different. The reason Microsoft got busted with Internet Explorer was because they made it next to impossible to uninstall it and they made it very difficult for other browsers to be installed on the system.
Plus there is nothing anti-competitive in the way Apple operate. Customers are free to buy PCs with a wealth of operating systems if they choose. If you want to use Mac OS X you have to buy the hardware that Apple provide. That is not being anti-competitive that is just selling a product to compete with other products.
Of course they can. I think you should probably do some reading into what constitutes anti-competitive behaviour in business.
Yes. Apple's R&D department aren't doing enough, because there are millions of Mac users out there who want them to make a desktop box. And Apple aren't listening. And don't point to the Mac Mini - an antiquated laptop without a screen and keyboard - or the Mac Pro - a piece of server hardware pretending to be a desktop.
Just give us a desktop machine with a desktop-grade Intel Core 2 quad processor and some non-ECC RAM. Make it mildly expandable (graphics cards, memory, etc) and then they can make this whole Psystar thing go away all on its own. Beat them at their own game.
But no. They won't. Because there's something much much much bigger than Apple's R&D department: Apple's marketing department.
