Psystar Working on Mac Laptop Clone, Apple Files DMCA Charges

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/02/psystar-working-on-mac-laptop-clone-apple-files-dmca-charges/)

ZDNet reveals (http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3112) that Apple has amended its lawsuit against Psystar with charges of violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act) is a controversial law that criminalizes the act of circumventing copy protection. Apple alleges that Psystar did just that in developing their Mac-compatible Open Computer: Defendant has manufactured, imported, offered to the public, provided or otherwise trafficked a product, device, component, technology, software, or “code” (”the Circumvention Devices”) that are primarily designed or produced for the purpose of either circumventing Apple’s technological protection measures that effectively control access to Copyrighted Works, or allowing third parties to access Apple’s Copyrighted Works without authorization. The court documents also confirm that Psystar was actively working on a Mac OS X laptop clone this past October: On information and belief, in fall 2008, Psystar worked to develop a laptop product that runs Mac OS X and in October, 2008, Psystar announced that it is planning to sell in commerce additional computers, servers, laptops, and/or hard drives that are preinstalled with or which will run a modified, unauthorized, version of Mac OS X operating system, including but not limited to a product referred to on Psystar’s website as the “mobile Open Computer.”Whether Psystar will release such a product will obviously depend on their ability to successfully defend against this lawsuit from Apple. The lawsuit hasn't prevented Psystar from continuing to sell (http://store.psystar.com/) their desktop Mac clone and release new features (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/10/28/psystars-mac-clone-offers-blu-ray-and-nvidia-9800gt-options/) such as Blu-ray and additional graphics card support.

Article Link: Psystar Working on Mac Laptop Clone, Apple Files DMCA Charges (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/02/psystar-working-on-mac-laptop-clone-apple-files-dmca-charges/)

[Zwhaler]

Sounds cool, but I'll take the new MacBook, thank you.

[BRLawyer]

Aren't these criminal freeriders in jail yet? It's about time.

[anubis]

In the end, Psystar is pretty irrelevant compared to the osx86 project

Nonetheless, I really wish Apple would offer a lower cost desktop. I realize their business model is based on having ridiculously high margins that we all pay for, but I think Apple is really shooting themselves in the foot in terms of their potential market share

[JG271]

How on earth are they making enough money to manufacture/design a laptop? Its not like generic laptop parts are easily available...

[yorkshire]

I'd really love to see the design they've come up with. Then laugh at it.

[midwich]

Said it before, but I'm a Mac user since the late '80's and as far as I'm concerned Jan 6th is High Noon for Apple hardware. If we get more of the same and no midrange tower or equivalent, it's a Psystar for me on Jan 7th. Actually, if there's no Mac mini update it'll be two Psystars. It genuinely pains me to say all this, but I'm not kidding. Still keeping my fingers crossed though - going down the Psystar route would not be a happy day for me.

[Tallest Skil]

This is what I believe Apple will do:

Drain every last cent from Psystar with legal fees
Get them shut down
Get as many people responsible personally fined
Then release their own xMac that would have killed Psystar's offerings anyway, had they not been sued into oblivion. :p

Said it before, but I'm a Mac user since the late '80's and as far as I'm concerned Jan 6th is High Noon for Apple hardware. If we get more of the same and no midrange tower or equivalent, it's a Psystar for me on Jan 7th. Actually, if there's no Mac mini update it'll be two Psystars. It genuinely pains me to say all this, but I'm not kidding.

I hate to see you go... but you will, if this is your ultimatum.

[midwich]

I'd really love to see the design they've come up with. Then laugh at it.

It seems to me there's at least two kinds of Mac user: one who appears attracted by the design factors, and another who's primarily motivated by OS X and perhaps internals value-for-money. I'm in the latter camp as it happens and so couldn't care less what the Psystars look like. I'm not alone in this attitude either I suspect. Laughing at a product simply on the basis of its looks seems a little silly then, but to each their own I guess.

[midwich]

This is what I believe Apple will do:

Drain every last cent from Psystar with legal fees
Get them shut down
Get as many people responsible personally fined
Then release their own xMac that would have killed Psystar's offerings anyway, had they not been sued into oblivion. :p



I hate to see you go... but you will, if this is your ultimatum.

Not really meant as an ultimatum actually (my bad if so), more an increasingly desperate plea. My current office G4 crashes perhaps three times a day, but I've been holding on until MacWorld SF rather than grab a Psystar. I guess the resulting frustration might be showing through a little too much.

Oh: the EULA thing is not legally binding, and so I don't think there'd ever be the slightest question of Psystar's customers being fined. The EULA could well be ILLEGAL actually in many countries in the world if challenged, including perhaps my own.

PS All Apple really has to do to destroy Psystar is to release hardware that people want. Problem solved, everyone happy (except Psystar). Not hard, one would have thought.

[skellener]

MSI Wind Netbook with Intel® Atom™ Processor (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9078534&st=msi+wind&lp=1&type=product&cp=1&id=1218016541018) - $349. Runs OS X 10.5.5 just fine.

[theheadguy]

Said it before, but I'm a Mac user since the late '80's and as far as I'm concerned Jan 6th is High Noon for Apple hardware. If we get more of the same and no midrange tower or equivalent, it's a Psystar for me on Jan 7th. Actually, if there's no Mac mini update it'll be two Psystars. It genuinely pains me to say all this, but I'm not kidding. Still keeping my fingers crossed though - going down the Psystar route would not be a happy day for me.
So I'm not missing anything, the Psystar works fine, it's just cheaper, right? If that is the case then I agree; if apple doesn't release something with much value, why NOT get a Psystar? Who the hell cares if someone gets an "unauthorized" mac? Hate to see someone "go"? Where are we going? Seems like that 80's commercial where that woman smashed the screen of the talking head (i'm tired enough to not look it up)... I'm happy to go and use a mac on unauthorized hardware. Who gives a crap. Calm down people.

And for the people who act like AAPL is affected by them, get a grip on reality. Psystar is being made an example of, they aren't actually bringing the stock price down enough to cry about it.

[Durendal]

I found it hilarious that Psystar was selling Hackintosh servers. Any sysadmin who buys one for his/her company should be shot. Great, a server that is hacked and has no real support options! Perfect!

[Durendal]

So I'm not missing anything, the Psystar works fine, it's just cheaper, right? If that is the case then I agree; if apple doesn't release something with much value, why NOT get a Psystar? Who the hell cares if someone gets an "unauthorized" mac? Hate to see someone "go"? Where are we going? Seems like that 80's commercial where that woman smashed the screen of the talking head (i'm tired enough to not look it up)... I'm happy to go and use a mac on unauthorized hardware. Who gives a crap. Calm down people.

And for the people who act like AAPL is affected by them, get a grip on reality. Psystar is being made an example of, they aren't actually bringing the stock price down enough to cry about it.
Because a Psystar may be a dead end. What if Snow Leopard includes additional bits and pieces that mean your Psystar is stuck on Leopard for the forseeable future? What about real support, especially if Psystar will go byebye? You wont be getting OS support, that's for sure. There are far too many loose, dangling ends with Psystar for me to even think of getting one. If I want a Hackintosh, I'll build one myself as more of a hobby machine. I would NEVER use a Hackie as a production/main computer.

[macnvrbck]

Because a Psystar may be a dead end. What if Snow Leopard includes additional bits and pieces that mean your Psystar is stuck on Leopard for the forseeable future? What about real support, especially if Psystar will go byebye? You wont be getting OS support, that's for sure. There are far too many loose, dangling ends with Psystar for me to even think of getting one. If I want a Hackintosh, I'll build one myself as more of a hobby machine. I would NEVER use a Hackie as a production/main computer.

I don't know much about these Hackintosh's but...

So the computer is stuck using Leopard... for $500, who cares?

[jrrdnx]

It seems to me there's at least two kinds of Mac user: one who appears attracted by the design factors, and another who's primarily motivated by OS X and perhaps internals value-for-money. I'm in the latter camp as it happens and so couldn't care less what the Psystars look like. I'm not alone in this attitude either I suspect. Laughing at a product simply on the basis of its looks seems a little silly then, but to each their own I guess.

I guess I'm a little of both. I've used Windows since 3.1 up until last week when I bought the new MBP 'cause I just couldn't take the stress/headaches of dealing with Winblows anymore. In that sense OS X and its security and reliability drew me in. But the design factor is a big factor also, although it sounds stupid to say. I was disappointed when the 17" wasn't refreshed in October, and talked myself down to the low-end 15" to justify getting the new 24" led-backlit ACD. Beautiful system, and haven't had a single problem running it even though it hasn't had a break yet.

I'm surprised Psystar hasn't caved in: I can't see them winning anything here. But I guess they do have to sell as much as possible so they at least make some money to pay those legal fees. I'd at least stop the R&D on the laptops, though. I see bad things in Psystar's future.

[icoffee]

This is what I believe Apple will do:

Drain every last cent from Psystar with legal fees
Get them shut down
Get as many people responsible personally fined
Then release their own xMac that would have killed Psystar's offerings anyway, had they not been sued into oblivion. :p



I hate to see you go... but you will, if this is your ultimatum.

I completely agree. Psystar really didn't offer a performance benefit or substantial cost savings when compared to apple's current offerings. Citing the "need" for a mid-range tower really is a poor excuse for breaking the eulaand copy protection measures as many of the so named reasons for doing so can also be accomplished with upgrades to the hardware or peripherals. While video cards can't be upgraded in iMacs or macbooks, you do get what you pay for. If I pay for a ford, that doesn't give me the right to go steal a Ferrari engine no matter how overpriced I think the ford might have been.

[Sun Baked]

I would NEVER use a Hackie as a production/main computer.

You wouldn't want to use it on a business machine, since the business is in the crosshairs of the BSA -- whereas an individual at home isn't.

Basically the business is required to abide by the software licensing agreements, or a single angry customer or employee can get the company audited.

[ditzy]

I found it hilarious that Psystar was selling Hackintosh servers. Any sysadmin who buys one for his/her company should be shot. Great, a server that is hacked and has no real support options! Perfect!

Should be shot, that's a bit of an extream reaction isn't it. I mean in the country I live in you don't even get that for murder.

[Tallest Skil]

I don't know much about these Hackintosh's but...

So the computer is stuck using Leopard... for $500, who cares?

Except to gain functionality equal to that of an iMac, it's more like $1,000.

[localoid]

Snow Leopard (http://netkas.org/?p=67) running on a Hackintosh...

[yorkshire]

It seems to me there's at least two kinds of Mac user: one who appears attracted by the design factors, and another who's primarily motivated by OS X and perhaps internals value-for-money. I'm in the latter camp as it happens and so couldn't care less what the Psystars look like. I'm not alone in this attitude either I suspect. Laughing at a product simply on the basis of its looks seems a little silly then, but to each their own I guess.

"Apple gets plenty of small things wrong, but one big thing it gets right: when you use a device every day, you cannot help, as a human being, but have an emotional relationship with it. It’s true of cars and cookers, and it’s true of computers. It’s true of office blocks and houses, and it’s true of mobiles and satnavs. A grey box is not good enough, clunky and ugly is not good enough. Sick building syndrome exists, and so does sick hand-held device syndrome. Fiddly buttons, blocky icons, sickeningly stupid nested menus - these are the enemy. They waste time, militate against function and lower the spirits. They make the user feel frustrated and (quite wrongly) dense. Mechanisms so devilishly, stunningly, jaw-dropping clever as the kind our world can now furnish us with are No Good Whatsoever if they don’t also bring a smile to our face, if they don’t make us want to stroke, touch, fondle, fiddle, gurgle, purr and coo. Interacting with a digital device should be like interacting with a baby."


Stephen Fry

[localoid]

You wouldn't want to use it on a business machine, since the business is in the crosshairs of the BSA -- whereas an individual at home isn't.

Basically the business is required to abide by the software licensing agreements, or a single angry customer or employee can get the company audited.

Business Software Alliance: Outright liars or just truth challenged? (http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/sbt/2006/0626networker3.html)

[efixusa]

In less than two weeks. Cheaper hardware, not illegal, faster than a Mac Pro and half the price of one.

[yorkshire]

In less than two weeks. Cheap hardware, not illegal, faster than a Mac Pro and half the price.

I'm a bit sceptical. Can't think why.

[BanjoBanker]

Said it before, but I'm a Mac user since the late '80's and as far as I'm concerned Jan 6th is High Noon for Apple hardware. If we get more of the same and no midrange tower or equivalent, it's a Psystar for me on Jan 7th. Actually, if there's no Mac mini update it'll be two Psystars. It genuinely pains me to say all this, but I'm not kidding. Still keeping my fingers crossed though - going down the Psystar route would not be a happy day for me.
If indeed, you have using Macs since the late 80s, I would like to know when you had a mid range tower. I too have been on board since the Macintosh SE, and they have never offered anything "mid-range," Apple products have always been limited to a small selection of high end machines. The clones from the 90s were awful at best. That is what happens when a soda salesman tries to run a computer company. :eek:The Mac Mini was an answer looking for a question. The iMac fits the bill nicely for those who do not want or need a Mac Pro.

[Tallest Skil]

In less than two weeks. Cheap hardware, not illegal, faster than a Mac Pro and half the price.

By faster, he means it doesn't weigh as much, so if you were to tie them both to skateboards and push them down a steep hill, this mystery computer would get to the bottom more quickly.

[Paladinkn00be]

Said it before, but I'm a Mac user since the late '80's and as far as I'm concerned Jan 6th is High Noon for Apple hardware. If we get more of the same and no midrange tower or equivalent, it's a Psystar for me on Jan 7th. Actually, if there's no Mac mini update it'll be two Psystars. It genuinely pains me to say all this, but I'm not kidding. Still keeping my fingers crossed though - going down the Psystar route would not be a happy day for me.

That is a bit extreme, I did see what you said in response to another post. But, What do you want a mac mini to do??? I have an old G4 1.42 Ghz, 1gb ram and I was running Adobe CS fine on it for a while. I then used it as a web/printer/music/ftp server because I was then using a macbook for Adobe CS. You do have your various lines. Low: Mini, Mid: iMac (which is an amazing computer for the midrange) and High: Pro
There isnt much between Mini and iMac because there isnt a need for a crappy but better than a mini computer.

[apull]

I'm a bit sceptical. Can't think why.

considering that was from efixusa, i wouldn't be surprised. efix, bring it. give us an expresscard efix for notebooks and things would be even better. (who uses expresscard anyways?)

[ImageWrangler]

Wow, out come the newbie trolls for this threat. Weird.

Next will come the mid-range tower zanies professing how it's a must have item, well, for them at least, but the rest of the collective sigh a massive "meh" as the majority has for quite some time.

I'm all for a cheaper Mac, hell, the Mac Mini, despite what Apple brass wants to say about it, is overpriced, that or sticking an LCD screen on a machine costs less than $100 bucks, and I doubt it.

There's your "midrange" tower in that, excepting the Mac Pro, Apple seems to not like people having an ability to upgrade their GPU, and very very very slim market for people who use expansion cards anymore (add another very, and add another very and a "the majority of those people buy Mac Pros). It's not like Apple doesn't do their market research on these things.

And some of us, especially us designers, DO care about what a machine looks like, and we're willing to pay a slight charge for something not cringeworthy in our offices, sorry those aesthetically challenged types who don't get this. Pyster make a currently pretty FUGLY machine, can't imagine their laptop wouldn't look like a bad block of soap carved up with keys and a screen shoved in it. No thanks.

[Roderick Usher]

I too have been on board since the Macintosh SE, and they have never offered anything "mid-range," Apple products have always been limited to a small selection of high end machines.
I think it is reasonable to characterize both G3 towers (beige and blue-and-white), as well as the "outrigger" desktop models, as mid-range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_G3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_G3_(Blue_%26_White)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outrigger_Macintosh

[localoid]

In less than two weeks. Cheaper hardware, not illegal, faster than a Mac Pro and half the price of one.

i7 Hackintosh...? :D

[motulist]

Awesome, I'm all for competition. IMO, Apple's computer hardware quality and diversity have gone into a serious decline over the past couple of years. Since the day I've been able to make my own computer buying choices (which is a long time), I've always greatly preferred Apple's OS and Apple's hardware over the competition's offerings. But starting about 2 years ago Apple's new hardware has really begun to suck compared to the competition. This is all IMO of course.

Psystar is acting in accordance with law as far as I can tell, so until the court rules otherwise, I hope Psystar keeps rockin out new OS X compatible hardware. Even if I never buy a Psystar product, the competition will force Apple to start making more and better products again.

[SPUY767]

In less than two weeks. Cheaper hardware, not illegal, faster than a Mac Pro and half the price of one.

Considering that it still costs one a pretty penny to best the original mac pro, I can't imagine why I'd be skeptical of your claim.

[air-ick]

And some of us, especially us designers, DO care about what a machine looks like, and we're willing to pay a slight charge for something not cringeworthy in our offices, sorry those aesthetically challenged types who don't get this. Pyster make a currently pretty FUGLY machine, can't imagine their laptop wouldn't look like a bad block of soap carved up with keys and a screen shoved in it. No thanks.

Slight charge?

I own a macbook because I like the aesthetics. It's thin and looks nice. But I think that Apple could use a little OSX competition. It would only make for better pricing and a better product line. I seriously wonder what they are thinking sometimes.

Eric

[motulist]

I think it is reasonable to characterize both G3 towers (beige and blue-and-white), as well as the "outrigger" desktop models, as mid-range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_G3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_G3_(Blue_%26_White)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outrigger_Macintosh

The G4 generations all had midrange priced models too. The last G4 midrange tower was still around through the beginning of 2004.

http://lowendmac.com/ppc/mdd-power-mac-g4-1.25-ghz.html

[rhpenguin]

I would NEVER use a Hackie as a production/main computer.

I have been for about two years now. Not one hiccup.

[slolifesux]

i wish apple would worry about fixing their products rather than stopping someone from possibly making a better product. and i wish the courts would throw this kind of stuff out. as long as kids are going to bed hungry in this country and rapists and murderers are walking the streets.....some company trying to make a mac clone just doesnt sound that big of a deal anymore!

[mcnallym]

Psystar works on Mac Clone Laptop shocka

search osx86 forums for most compatible system, find oem and get built with Psystar badge.

End of story.

What are they really going to DESIGN a laptop. I don't think so somehow.

[skellener]

IMO, Apple's computer hardware quality and diversity have gone into a serious decline over the past couple of years.I'll disagree. My 24" iMac is the best Mac I have ever had.

[motulist]

I'll disagree. My 24" iMac is the best Mac I have ever had.

Weird, on and off I kept getting errors from Apple's iMac page that say "Http/1.1 Service Unavailable." It happened on a few different iMac pages for about a minute or two, then it stopped happening. It only happened on the iMac pages, not any other pages. Could this be a sign that they're updating something on their servers in preparation of an imminent update? Probably not, but it's fun to imagine.

http://www.apple.com/imac/specs/

[Slidemonster]

Because a Psystar may be a dead end. What if Snow Leopard includes additional bits and pieces that mean your Psystar is stuck on Leopard for the forseeable future? What about real support, especially if Psystar will go byebye? You wont be getting OS support, that's for sure. There are far too many loose, dangling ends with Psystar for me to even think of getting one. If I want a Hackintosh, I'll build one myself as more of a hobby machine. I would NEVER use a Hackie as a production/main computer.


You mean like the Apple iMac G5 (PPC) which is limited to the latest OS of Tiger 10.4? I think a computer should last more than 2-3 years, especially with the higher cost of Apple Hardware - so why not pay 1/2 the price for a clone, support Apple for the OS and applications with the expectations (and limitations) if the iMac G5?

[BRLawyer]

I'll disagree. My 24" iMac is the best Mac I have ever had.

Ditto here. The build quality of Macs is as best as ever...what a wonderful machine.

Wonderful screen and faster, more stable, more integrated, more silent, more beautiful and more compatible than any PC on Earth. Not to mention zero viruses and the most advanced OS ever.

There is simply no reason not to buy Macs nowadays...even if it's for running Crappindows.

[Tallest Skil]

You mean like the Apple iMac G5 (PPC) which is limited to the latest OS of Tiger 10.4? I think a computer should last more than 2-3 years, especially with the higher cost of Apple Hardware - so why not pay 1/2 the price for a clone, support Apple for the OS and applications with the expectations (and limitations) if the iMac G5?

It can run Leopard.

[Slidemonster]

It can run Leopard.

My sincerest apologies..... I was unaware of this.

[slolifesux]

a G5 can run leopard, just not well. leopards big deal was full integration with intel chips..........who cares who buys what and who cares about support. you should know and research what your buying. apple should not be stepping in the way. either they will continue to reign supreme or competition will build and we the consumers will win with better products and more options.

[motulist]

There is simply no reason not to buy Macs nowadays...

Sorry, but that's completely untrue. Would you like me to make a list? How about the most obvious one that's staring you in the face right this second - the glossy screen. You and many others may prefer a glossy screen, but there are TONS of people out there that can't stand them. And before anyone tries to dismiss this argument, dislike of glossy screens is NOT just limited to visual industry professionals. (and not that that would be a legitimate dismissal anyway, but that doesn't stop a lot of pro-glossy people from saying it.) I do not work in a visual industry job, but a glossy screen is an absolute deal breaker for me. And I am far, far, far from alone on this. If you prefer a glossy screen, there's nothing wrong with that and the current generation Apple hardware may be great for you, but there are LOTS of us out there that glossy screens are a deal breaker for.

[vellocet]

The G4 generations all had midrange priced models too. The last G4 midrange tower was still around through the beginning of 2004.

http://lowendmac.com/ppc/mdd-power-mac-g4-1.25-ghz.html


I would guess that wasn't by choice - apple probably had a pile of G4 processors they needed to sell, but I don't really know. Plus they may have wanted to continue supply a machine that could still run OS9 after the G5s were out.

[rhpenguin]

If you prefer a glossy screen, there's nothing wrong with that and the current generation Apple hardware may be great for you, but there are LOTS of us out there that glossy screens are a deal breaker for.

I'm a design professional. I need matte. And I need two matched displays.

I do not need a Mac Pro to run Photoshop. Nor do I want to foot the power bill for said machine.

[motulist]

I would guess that wasn't by choice - apple probably had a pile of G4 processors they needed to sell, but I don't really know. Plus they may have wanted to continue supply a machine that could still run OS9 after the G5s were out.

No, your analysis is completely off. The G4 models ALWAYS had a midrange model, not just in the last gen because they were trying to clear out stock. In fact, it was quite the opposite. The G4s were continually plagued with an UNDERSUPPLY of CPUs forever, yet even so Apple always sold a midrange model anyway. And OS 9 support ended long before the G5 came out.

[NoSmokingBandit]

There is simply no reason not to buy Macs nowadays...

You could not be more wrong. I built my own hacintosh because i wanted something mid-range that i could actually upgrade when i see fit. I spend about $650 on my current rig and its got a E6750 (266ghz core2duo), 4gb 800mhz ram, an 8600gt (the bottleneck of my system when it comes to gaming), a 500gb 7200rpm drive, and a 160gb 5400rpm drive. The benefit to having this over the iMac is:
1) price
2) its not made with laptop hardware crammed into a desktop model
3) i can choose what monitor i want, glossy or not
4) its easily upgradable, every single part of it. If i want to go to a quad core all i have to do is buy one and pop it in (and probably redo my cooling system, but thats understood)
5) price

Sure, if i wanted a machine i could work on i could just buy a mac pro, but i dont have a ton of money to spend on a computer, and even if i did it would be wasteful to blow a ton of money on something like the mac pro when i can get the same performance at a much more reasonable price.

[Roderick Usher]

There is simply no reason not to buy Macs nowadays...
Good thing Apple doesn't think this way. Any company starting with that as its working premise deserves to fail.

[skellener]

You mean like the Apple iMac G5 (PPC) which is limited to the latest OS of Tiger 10.4? Leopard runs on my Mom's 1Ghz PPC eMac, why wouldn't it run on a G5?

[icoffee]

I'm a bit sceptical. Can't think why.

Did I miss something?

[icoffee]

Leopard runs on my Mom's 1Ghz PPC eMac, why wouldn't it run on a G5?

Leopard even runs great on my MDD 1.25 2GB RAM G4. The only thing it really lags on is video encoding, but I got an H264 from Elgato and it is very usable. While my Macbook and iMac smoke the G4 in benchmark tests due to their Core Duo processors, I just don't buy the argument that people go for Hackintosh because Apple doesn't make a product that suits them. If that's the case, do some research and buy an older model, e.g. one from a year or two ago that doesn't have matte screens or a used Mac Pro with AppleCare.

[hiptobesquare]

In less than two weeks. Cheaper hardware, not illegal, faster than a Mac Pro and half the price of one.

Yes, bring it on. Preferably with i7 support soon, when Gigabyte brings out their i7 motherboards.

I just don't buy the argument that people go for Hackintosh because Apple doesn't make a product that suits them. If that's the case, do some research and buy an older model, e.g. one from a year or two ago that doesn't have matte screens or a used Mac Pro with AppleCare.

Your solution is to spend money on accelerated obsoleteness, even if it doesn't meet the need? And just hope you can get a machine that works well and hasn't been abused or overheated? AppleCare is only 3 years. If you buy used, it is less, perhaps less than half of that. The specs are that much further away from upcoming software requirements. I don't need a Mac Pro's configuration specifications now, but I want something newer than a year old, or perhaps two, if given budget constraints. an obsolete Mac Pro, or PowerMac G5 is not a better solution for that situation, it is just a differently insufficient solution.

I don't mind the current iMac's specs, especially if they weren't hindered by space considerations, and could actually use desktop components... But Apple doesn't see it that way, at least right now. But I don't need or want ANY built in screen. In one setting, I want to use two matching monitors of my choice. In another setting, I want to use a 1080p high quality monitor for television and cinema viewing in a home theater central media server and library. And if Apple doesn't do it, why not step up to the new i7 desktop/workstation (commercial server-grade hardware not required) architecture, and have something even more current than Core 2 Duo?

If Apple refuses to sell the product that the market demands, I say it is fair game to build it one's self from parts. A legal retail version of Mac OS X being one of those parts, EFiX perhaps being another. I would not expect warranted support beyond the basic inherent operation of the specific part, in that case. Liable for replacing defective physical items, or obviously not meeting advertised capabilities, being the only real claims to be made on any vendor of any part, for a user-assembled system.

All Apple has to do is listen to it's customers, and release a mid-range headless computer with some moderate specs. Quad-core or i7, DDR3, with a great, or at least upgradeable video card, and replaceable internal hard drive(s), perhaps even 3.5"... Keep the digital audio, Firewire (1600-3200, even?), and add eSata.

MiniDisplayPort that is capable of driving two monitors on a desktop, or a single large screen monitor compatible with HD/BluRay content in Home Theater setups. (either via dual DVI adapter, or two MDP sockets).

Apple is very capable of creating an even better product than MacMini currently is, even if it requires a slight increase in size for true versatility.

Apple can do it. Apple can nip this in the bud. I would rather buy something official, and with a warranty, but if they don't, I don't owe them allegiance, and am capable of building something myself with products on the market to fill my role. A set of roles that many people seem to be clamoring for.

I am an Apple fan, but I am not blindly obedient to a corporation's business plan. Certainly not to the point of scrounging for their leftovers and table scraps from years past.

[localoid]

Yes, bring it on. Preferably with i7 support soon, when Gigabyte brings out their i7 motherboards.
...


They've been available (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?bop=And&Submit=Property&N=2%2050001314%2040000280&PropertyCodeValue=705%3a45356) since last month and if you visit the "usual places" you'll find reports of people already running OS X on them...

[hiptobesquare]

They've been available (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?bop=And&Submit=Property&N=2%2050001314%2040000280&PropertyCodeValue=705%3a45356) since last month and if you visit the "usual places" you'll find reports of people already running OS X on them...

Great, even better for the 'diy' community.

It has been a couple weeks since I have had the time to really get myself up to the minute from those usual places.

[synth3tik]

My views on running OS X on non Apple hardware has done a 180 recently. Apple has been creating limited products as of late.

I tell you what Psystar, put me done for a 12-13" notebook with 2.4G Core 2 Duo, 4G RAM, and most importantly a matte display.

[icoffee]

Your solution is to spend money on accelerated obsoleteness, even if it doesn't meet the need? And just hope you can get a machine that works well and hasn't been abused or overheated? AppleCare is only 3 years. If you buy used, it is less, perhaps less than half of that.

In one setting, I want to use two matching monitors of my choice. In another setting, I want to use a 1080p high quality monitor for television and cinema viewing in a home theater central media server and library.

If Apple refuses to sell the product that the market demands, I say it is fair game to build it one's self from parts.

All Apple has to do is listen to it's customers, and release a mid-range headless computer with some moderate specs. Quad-core or i7, DDR3, with a great, or at least upgradeable video card, and replaceable internal hard drive(s), perhaps even 3.5"... Keep the digital audio, Firewire (1600-3200, even?), and add eSata.

I am an Apple fan, but I am not blindly obedient to a corporation's business plan. Certainly not to the point of scrounging for their leftovers and table scraps from years past.

Okay, I really enjoy these discussions on MacRumors, and I appreciate the fact that we can discuss hardware options for running Mac OS X.

While I am a die-hard Apple fan, self-made "genius" and more than average PC user and developer, I can only speak for myself and my computing requirements. For my work and personal use, Apple's hardware offerings are perfect although pricey, but I still buy Apple mostly because I like the quality of their hardware, don't want to fuss with Hackintosh updates, and would rather fuss with errors in coding :D

On the other hand, I think you and others make some strong points. While I've heard similar arguments before, I have to agree that : (1) why should you have to buy older hardware, (2) the only affordable headless Mac, a.k.a. mac mini doesn't offer support for 2 displays - what a joke although the hardware is capable of supporting it, (3) while Apple offers some decent hardware specs, to get to the newest or top of the line the consumer is forced to go Mac Pro otherwise the machine isn't upgradeable (video, esata, multiple hard drives) compared to pc tower offerings, (4) there really does seem to be a gap in market demand vs apple hardware offerings.

Here's THE PROBLEM: It's not legal, and in the environments I work in I'd probably get into a lot of trouble for using one of those machines. At home, fine, but at work, no way. I think the legality of hackintoshes keeps most people from going that route. Otherwise, I do agree with your points.

[grue]

Maybe Psystar can make a laptop that doesn't suck. Small (unlike anything Apple offers), full featured, with a matte screen.

Apple apparently can't.

[Joe The Dragon]

Yes, bring it on. Preferably with i7 support soon, when Gigabyte brings out their i7 motherboards.



Your solution is to spend money on accelerated obsoleteness, even if it doesn't meet the need? And just hope you can get a machine that works well and hasn't been abused or overheated? AppleCare is only 3 years. If you buy used, it is less, perhaps less than half of that. The specs are that much further away from upcoming software requirements. I don't need a Mac Pro's configuration specifications now, but I want something newer than a year old, or perhaps two, if given budget constraints. an obsolete Mac Pro, or PowerMac G5 is not a better solution for that situation, it is just a differently insufficient solution.

I don't mind the current iMac's specs, especially if they weren't hindered by space considerations, and could actually use desktop components... But Apple doesn't see it that way, at least right now. But I don't need or want ANY built in screen. In one setting, I want to use two matching monitors of my choice. In another setting, I want to use a 1080p high quality monitor for television and cinema viewing in a home theater central media server and library. And if Apple doesn't do it, why not step up to the new i7 desktop/workstation (commercial server-grade hardware not required) architecture, and have something even more current than Core 2 Duo?

If Apple refuses to sell the product that the market demands, I say it is fair game to build it one's self from parts. A legal retail version of Mac OS X being one of those parts, EFiX perhaps being another. I would not expect warranted support beyond the basic inherent operation of the specific part, in that case. Liable for replacing defective physical items, or obviously not meeting advertised capabilities, being the only real claims to be made on any vendor of any part, for a user-assembled system.

All Apple has to do is listen to it's customers, and release a mid-range headless computer with some moderate specs. Quad-core or i7, DDR3, with a great, or at least upgradeable video card, and replaceable internal hard drive(s), perhaps even 3.5"... Keep the digital audio, Firewire (1600-3200, even?), and add eSata.

MiniDisplayPort that is capable of driving two monitors on a desktop, or a single large screen monitor compatible with HD/BluRay content in Home Theater setups. (either via dual DVI adapter, or two MDP sockets).

Apple is very capable of creating an even better product than MacMini currently is, even if it requires a slight increase in size for true versatility.

Apple can do it. Apple can nip this in the bud. I would rather buy something official, and with a warranty, but if they don't, I don't owe them allegiance, and am capable of building something myself with products on the market to fill my role. A set of roles that many people seem to be clamoring for.

I am an Apple fan, but I am not blindly obedient to a corporation's business plan. Certainly not to the point of scrounging for their leftovers and table scraps from years past.
mini dp is big no for a desktop put full size with a full dp to mini dp shipping with the system.

[rockosmodurnlif]

No one talking about the validity of the DCMA here? I mean every time DCMA comes up as it relates to CSS or MP3s it's practically lambasted.

You could not be more wrong. I built my own hacintosh because i wanted something mid-range that i could actually upgrade when i see fit. I spend about $650 on my current rig and its got a E6750 (266ghz core2duo), 4gb 800mhz ram, an 8600gt (the bottleneck of my system when it comes to gaming), a 500gb 7200rpm drive, and a 160gb 5400rpm drive. The benefit to having this over the iMac is:
1) price
2) its not made with laptop hardware crammed into a desktop model
3) i can choose what monitor i want, glossy or not
4) its easily upgradable, every single part of it. If i want to go to a quad core all i have to do is buy one and pop it in (and probably redo my cooling system, but thats understood)
5) price

Sure, if i wanted a machine i could work on i could just buy a mac pro, but i dont have a ton of money to spend on a computer, and even if i did it would be wasteful to blow a ton of money on something like the mac pro when i can get the same performance at a much more reasonable price.
How does that work with updates?

[skellener]

No one talking about the validity of the DCMA here? If you buy a copy of OS X it's yours. If you have the skill and tenacity and you want to install it on a machine you built yourself, I'd say that's fair use. It's yours. It's paid for. Do what you want with it. There are no OS cops out there to stop you.

Psystar is another issue because they are selling complete systems. If it's all bought and paid for and not marketed as an Apple Macintosh, well, I'd say sure.

[rockosmodurnlif]

If you buy a copy of OS X it's yours. If you have the skill and tenacity and you want to install it on a machine you built yourself, I'd say that's fair use. It's yours. It's paid for. Do what you want with it. There are no OS cops out there to stop you.

Psystar is another issue because they are selling complete systems. If it's all bought and paid for and not marketed as an Apple Macintosh, well, I'd say sure.
So then the end around would be for Psystar to sell OS X and a beige box then ship them both to consumer to install on their own? Would it then be reasonable to charge an installation fee?

[Joelg88]

The lawsuit hasn't prevented Psystar from continuing to sell their desktop Mac clone...
They're still selling them on there site.

[macadmiral]

yes! come on psystar!!!

Arn makes money off these guyys:cool:

[rhpenguin]

How does that work with updates?

Fantastic.. I actually ran 10.5.5 from Software Update just like you would have. The only difference, I had to start a quick shell script first to prevent the hosing of my legally purchased operating system.

Double click script, Install, reboot, enjoy. Just that simple.

[cheekybobcat]

Interesting...
I'd like the new MacBook though.
My little brother's getting one :mad:

[Trip.Tucker]

Sorry, but that's completely untrue. Would you like me to make a list? How about the most obvious one that's staring you in the face right this second - the glossy screen. You and many others may prefer a glossy screen, but there are TONS of people out there that can't stand them. And before anyone tries to dismiss this argument, dislike of glossy screens is NOT just limited to visual industry professionals. (and not that that would be a legitimate dismissal anyway, but that doesn't stop a lot of pro-glossy people from saying it.) I do not work in a visual industry job, but a glossy screen is an absolute deal breaker for me. And I am far, far, far from alone on this. If you prefer a glossy screen, there's nothing wrong with that and the current generation Apple hardware may be great for you, but there are LOTS of us out there that glossy screens are a deal breaker for.

Your argument amounts to naught when you purchase a Mac Pro or Mac mini with the original Cinema Display.

Besides, citing YOUR personal dislike for a technology (glossy screens) is not a valid argument against purchasing a Mac.

[Trip.Tucker]

Fantastic.. I actually ran 10.5.5 from Software Update just like you would have. The only difference, I had to start a quick shell script first to prevent the hosing of my legally purchased operating system.

Double click script, Install, reboot, enjoy. Just that simple.

You bought a copy of the OS but you are still running it illegally. End of discussion.

[bradl]

You bought a copy of the OS but you are still running it illegally. End of discussion.

Hate to say it, but the MS Windows argument comes into play here. If you bought a copy of Windows, it is your legally licensed copy. If you install it on a machine you built, you're free to do so. If that box crashes, or you decide to rebuild it, you install it again, you're free to do so. It is your copy, you bought it.

Same could apply to OS X, and that would pretty much hold up in court. Just as if you bought it OEM.

BL.

[IJ Reilly]

No one talking about the validity of the DCMA here? I mean every time DCMA comes up as it relates to CSS or MP3s it's practically lambasted.

Why do that when we can start yet another pointless "mid-range tower Mac" debate?

I'm no fan of the DCMA but I was surprised that Apple didn't whack Psystar with DCMA violation charge in their first filing.

Hate to say it, but the MS Windows argument comes into play here.

No, it doesn't, because Apple does not license OSX to OEMs.

[skellener]

You bought a copy of the OS but you are still running it illegally. End of discussion. Not really. If it's bought and paid for, it's yours. Run it however you want.

[Thunderbird]

You bought a copy of the OS but you are still running it illegally. End of discussion.

No he's not running it illegally. End of discussion.

[137489]

Ok, could not resist.... but it is the same old song...

Part of me says, I would not buy a non-true apple because of the end-to-end that works so well.

Another part of me says, price is a factor, and if I want something cusomized (like a Gigabyte M912 with OSX) then why could I not do this for myself.

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/8313/gigabytem912xtabletpcfh2.jpg

Gigabyte's M912X is a great portable hybrid. It has the functions of a tablet PC, the power of a UMPC, yet it is priced at just a little bit above a top-end MID. it's an impressive combination.

People have already installed OS X on this little thing.

I can see why Apple is suing pystar, but I think we should have a choice if we want it on a customized machine. I mean MS went the route of selling the OS, and then you have to pay for support. why not apple? You install OS X on a machine that is not an Apple, either you don't get support - or you pay.

But because Apple does not license OSX to other distributors (except maybe axiotron), I can see Pystar being sued. But I think we need to let consumers build their own machines, if they are not selling them.

Not everyone would want to build their own, except maybe techno geeks on this forum.

[rhpenguin]

You bought a copy of the OS but you are still running it illegally. End of discussion.

Yes, but look at this from my point of view.

I bought an iBook. I had to have seven logic board replacements in two years before it was finally stolen. I also bought a PowerMac which needed three logic board replacements in six months.After that I said no more Apple. Which is a shame because I liked their OS. So, when the switch to Intel happened I got the opportunity to start building my own boxes again. If you had the same issues with Apple that I've had, would you buy another one of their computers?

I can happily say I wont. I can also say that most of this machine has been running strong for two years. I've been able to upgrade my motherboard and GPU without buying a completely new machine. And the working pulls from this machine have built my second Hacintosh that sits on my TV.

[IJ Reilly]

I can see why Apple is suing pystar, but I think we should have a choice if we want it on a customized machine. I mean MS went the route of selling the OS, and then you have to pay for support. why not apple? You install OS X on a machine that is not an Apple, either you don't get support - or you pay.

Because Microsoft has no computer hardware business. You can bet that if they started out manufacturing PCs, they would not be in the business of creating competitors for themselves. In fact that concept is so radical, I have to wonder why so many people seem to think it's a sound idea.

[hiptobesquare]

mini dp is big no for a desktop put full size with a full dp to mini dp shipping with the system.

Yeah, normally, I would agree...

But if the pins are compatible, does it really matter? As far as anyone has been able to explain, the same 20 or so pins are present in both connectors, and the data scheme is the exact same.

So, whether you adapt DP to miniDP, or vice versa... I figured since Cinema Display is going with a mini plug, they would probably keep it consistent on the computers, and offer adapters for other monitors with full-size DP, or DVI, perhaps even HDMI for those who really want it.

Mostly what I care about, is that it can run TWO monitors of the same type, at the same time. For an office desktop that doesn't need to be a server, that is not too much to ask, and lining up an LCD cinema display next to an iMac is not an ideal match, and some people work on budget monitors, others like high end color calibrated monitors. Options can be good things.

[skellener]

You install OS X on a machine that is not an Apple, either you don't get support - or you pay.Absolutely not. That will never fly. You install OS X on a machine that is not an Apple, you don't get support. Period. There is no other option. Apple is NOT going to help you whether you pay or not.

[gnasher729]

I'm no fan of the DCMA but I was surprised that Apple didn't whack Psystar with DCMA violation charge in their first filing.

I can tell you why. The DMCA act makes it illegal to circumvent effective copyright protection measures. I don't know about any effective copyright protection measures in Leopard, and it looks like Apple's lawyers didn't either, so they couldn't sue for DMCA violation.

In comes Psystar's counterclaims, claiming that Apple is a monopoly. Hidden in those counterclaims is the accusation that Apple added code to its operating system that makes it crash on non-Apple computers (apparently to support Apple's non-existing evil monopoly). In other words, Psystar itself _claims_ that Leopard contains effective copyright protection measures. All that Apple has to do is to agree with Psystar, and those "effective copyright protection measures" become reality, at least as far as the court is concerned. Anything that Psystar says in their court filings can be used against them, and that is exactly what Apple has done again.

[ppc750fx]

I bought an iBook. I had to have seven logic board replacements in two years before it was finally stolen. I also bought a PowerMac which needed three logic board replacements in six months.After that I said no more Apple. Which is a shame because I liked their OS.

I bought an iBook G3. It had one replacement board. I bought a PowerMac G4. It still works great with original hardware (upgraded hard drives though.) I bought a PowerBook G4 12". It never needed any replacement parts. I bought a MacBook Pro and a MacBook. They've worked great with no replacement parts.

I'm moving away from Apple now (I prefer a more conventional *nix, like Slackware), but I like their OS.

What does this all mean? Absolutely nothing. I just figured I should add another anecdotal data point.

[Joe The Dragon]

Yeah, normally, I would agree...

But if the pins are compatible, does it really matter? As far as anyone has been able to explain, the same 20 or so pins are present in both connectors, and the data scheme is the exact same.

So, whether you adapt DP to miniDP, or vice versa... I figured since Cinema Display is going with a mini plug, they would probably keep it consistent on the computers, and offer adapters for other monitors with full-size DP, or DVI, perhaps even HDMI for those who really want it.

Mostly what I care about, is that it can run TWO monitors of the same type, at the same time. For an office desktop that doesn't need to be a server, that is not too much to ask, and lining up an LCD cinema display next to an iMac is not an ideal match, and some people work on budget monitors, others like high end color calibrated monitors. Options can be good things.

But Video card makes are unlikely to go the a mini port of a full size card and full size to mini is better.

And a desktop with a mini port and no adapters shipping with the system is a big joke.

[PVguy]

"So the computer is stuck using Leopard... for $500, who cares?"

Not I. I'm still running Tiger on my 2002 Quicksilver. Leopard had and has nothing of interest.

Since any computer hardware without an expansion slot will be a 'frisbee into the dumpster' candidate about 6 months after USB 3 ships, this limits my possible Apple hardware selection to two models, the MacBook Pro, and the Mac Pro. I don't want a laptop. And the Mac Pro is overkill on price, performance, and power consumption grounds. I'd have to plug it into the air conditioner outlet.

Especially since a Dell that sits right between an iMac and the Pro in performance is a whole $650 with Ubuntu preloaded. And since I'm probably switching to Open Office, and don't use 2/3 of iLife, why pay an Apple Tax at all?

I'm waiting for Nehalem and Snow Leopard. If I don't see decent hardware (my specs, not Steve's) for a fair price (my wallet, not Steve's, and I am willing to pay some premium) then I'm out of here. And since my first Mac was an SE/30 in 1989, that's saying something.

[rockosmodurnlif]

I can tell you why. The DMCA act makes it illegal to circumvent effective copyright protection measures. I don't know about any effective copyright protection measures in Leopard, and it looks like Apple's lawyers didn't either, so they couldn't sue for DMCA violation.

In comes Psystar's counterclaims, claiming that Apple is a monopoly. Hidden in those counterclaims is the accusation that Apple added code to its operating system that makes it crash on non-Apple computers (apparently to support Apple's non-existing evil monopoly). In other words, Psystar itself _claims_ that Leopard contains effective copyright protection measures. All that Apple has to do is to agree with Psystar, and those "effective copyright protection measures" become reality, at least as far as the court is concerned. Anything that Psystar says in their court filings can be used against them, and that is exactly what Apple has done again.
But didn't the judge dismiss the countersuit? Or does that not matter?

[efixusa]

We will release a machine within two weeks.

4Ghz, 4 cores, 4GB of RAM, dual SuperDrive, 150GB Raptor boot drive, 1TB Samsung data drive, 8800GTS video card.

GeekBench scored the same as a dual 3.2 Mac Pro. All for $1899.99 with 1 year warranty. EFiX Card sold separately.
Able to run OS X, Windows and Linux on the same unit, not a hackintosh, runs standard Apple System Updates.

Mac OS X, NOT included or installed. The user would have to breach the EULA themselves to run the Mac OS.

[rhpenguin]

I bought an iBook G3. It had one replacement board. I bought a PowerMac G4. It still works great with original hardware (upgraded hard drives though.) I bought a PowerBook G4 12". It never needed any replacement parts. I bought a MacBook Pro and a MacBook. They've worked great with no replacement parts.

I'm moving away from Apple now (I prefer a more conventional *nix, like Slackware), but I like their OS.

What does this all mean? Absolutely nothing. I just figured I should add another anecdotal data point.

Everyone's mileage varies. You get good mileage, I got piss poor mileage. However, I can't say the same for my homebrew machine. What does this mean? It means my homebrew running OS X outlasted both of my Apple computers. Again, YMMV.

[Beric]

We will release a machine within two weeks.

4Ghz, 4 cores, 4GB of RAM, dual SuperDrive, 150GB Raptor boot drive, 1TB Samsung data drive, 8800GTS video card.

GeekBench scored the same as a dual 3.2 Mac Pro. All for $1899.99 with 1 year warranty. EFiX Card sold separately.
Able to run OS X, Windows and Linux on the same unit, not a hackintosh, runs standard Apple System Updates.

Mac OS X, NOT included or installed. The user would have to breach the EULA themselves to run the Mac OS.

Nice!

Out of curiosity, do you guys ever intend to make EFIX compatible with certain laptops? I'd like to buy a gaming laptop, but also be able to run OS X on it for work-related projects. Unfortunately, Apple does not make a gaming laptop, and yet I do not wish to have to buy two separate computers in order to run both OS's.

[Joe The Dragon]

We will release a machine within two weeks.

4Ghz, 4 cores, 4GB of RAM, dual SuperDrive, 150GB Raptor boot drive, 1TB Samsung data drive, 8800GTS video card.

GeekBench scored the same as a dual 3.2 Mac Pro. All for $1899.99 with 1 year warranty. EFiX Card sold separately.
Able to run OS X, Windows and Linux on the same unit, not a hackintosh, runs standard Apple System Updates.

Mac OS X, NOT included or installed. The user would have to breach the EULA themselves to run the Mac OS.
Price is higher then the mac pro after the cost of the efix and mac os x also and 8800gts is out place next to the other hardware the 9800 is the same card new name why not use a newer ati card or nvidia?

Drop the Raptor and put in a lower cost cpu also drop down to a 500gb hd.

[efixusa]

There will be no EFiX ExpressCard. It is certainly doable, but Apple's domain is the laptop market. There are plenty of desktops to conquer.

[efixusa]

Price is higher then the mac pro after the cost of the efix and mac os x also and 8800gts is out place next to the other hardware the 9800 is the same card new name why not use a newer ati card or nvidia?

Drop the Raptor and put in a lower cost cpu also drop down to a 500gb hd.

We can config it anyway you want. Take out the Raptor and go with a 750GB drive and a cheaper CPU, sure, that's easy. We believe we will have a $1299 config with a quad core 3.2.

[w0ngbr4d]

Concerning the DMCA claim...consider DVDs. You bought the DVD, you bought the right to watch it, fair use gives you the right for an archival copy, but it is still against the DMCA for you to make a copy of it because you have to break the CSS to do so.

Same with Leopard. You buy Leopard, you have the right to run it on an Apple branded machine based on the EULA you agreed to, but its against the DMCA to run on non Apple hardware because you are modifying the code to do so (not sure if this is the case for all OSx86 installs or not, I haven't built a hack.)

Will an individual be prosecuted for doing these things? Probably not. But a company profiting off of doing so, you bet they will.

Concerning the mid range tower. Look at Apple's sales. I don't think they are hurting. A very small portion of people are looking for this mid range tower. Apple is run by very talented and intelligent people. I'm sure their marketing department can tell if demand is high enough for them to produce a mid range tower. If they see a market, they'll produce the machine. (Sorry, saying that since everyone here on MacRumors wants a mid range tower is enough evidence to show demand won't work. They would need to sell quite a few of these to make it profitable.)

Its a simple choice. Vote with your wallet. If Apple doesn't offer the hardware you want, don't buy it. If you still want OS X, and your moral compass allows it, buy a copy and install it on your non Apple machine. But good luck convincing everyone else to do the same so you can get a mid range Apple tower.

[efixusa]

Price is higher then the mac pro after the cost of the efix and mac os x also and 8800gts is out place next to the other hardware the 9800 is the same card new name why not use a newer ati card or nvidia?

Drop the Raptor and put in a lower cost cpu also drop down to a 500gb hd.

I confirmed it, 3.2 Quad Core with 4GB of RAM and a 1TB hard drive for $1299.99 (Apple's $1999 Mac Pro is a 2.8 with 2GB and a 320GB)

Let me know if you are serious and I will get you the first one off the line. The video card in the $1299 version is an Nvidia 7300GT 512MB. EFiX sold separately.

[organerito]

Ditto here. The build quality of Macs is as best as ever...what a wonderful machine.

Wonderful screen and faster, more stable, more integrated, more silent, more beautiful and more compatible than any PC on Earth. Not to mention zero viruses and the most advanced OS ever.

There is simply no reason not to buy Macs nowadays...even if it's for running Crappindows.

Perhaps you should read this.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10110852-83.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0

[Joe The Dragon]

I confirmed it, 3.2 Quad Core with 4GB of RAM and a 1TB hard drive for $1299.99 (Apple's $1999 Mac Pro is a 2.8 with 2GB and a 320GB)

Let me know if you are serious and I will get you the first one off the line. The video card in the $1299 version is an Nvidia 7300GT 512MB. EFiX sold separately.

7300 is way to weak for a $1200 system when the 8500 / 8600 cost the same and ati 3650 / 2600 cards are $50.

a $1200 system with no os should have at least a $70 $100 card like the 4670 / 4650 or a 9800gt.

I Can build my own system as well so I don't need a per build system.

For $1200 you should be able to get a corei7 system or a Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 system. Drop the cpu speed a bit and bump up the video card.

[ProwlingTiger]

Honestly, I'm siding with Apple here. And I can see why Apple needs to win. Legally, I believe they have every right to tie their OS to their equipment.

WHO IS FUNDING PYSTAR'S LAWYER TEAM?! I mean, I dont know much about the company, but to stand up to Apple like this...and then spit in their face with a notebook. This company deserves a handshake for bravery and handcuffs for breaking the law.

[albusseverus]

Honestly, I'm siding with Apple here. And I can see why Apple needs to win. Legally, I believe they have every right to tie their OS to their equipment.

WHO IS FUNDING PYSTAR'S LAWYER TEAM?! I mean, I dont know much about the company, but to stand up to Apple like this...and then spit in their face with a notebook. This company deserves a handshake for bravery and handcuffs for breaking the law.

Top of the list - Psystar has never broken the law. Apple changes their entire product line to PC compatibles and sells OS X on them... it was only a matter of time.

There is no difference between DRM purveyors dictating what hardware the software you paid for can run on and Apple dictating what hardware you can run OS X on. Apple does it by EULA, not by copy protection (clearly). Everyone agrees DRM is 'wrong'... you figure out the rest.

Psystar has never defeated copy protection devices, the DMCA is completely irrelevant here. This late addition to the charge is an act of desperation, as Apple knows, they can't win and their EULA will be invalidated.

And only a complete Mapple fan-boy could believe that Apple would begin manufacturing cheap Macs, once Psystar was sent broke -which is the only way Apple could defeat Psystar, because Apple cannot "win" the case any other way.

[Trip.Tucker]

Top of the list - Psystar has never broken the law. Apple changes their entire product line to PC compatibles and sells OS X on them... it was only a matter of time.

There is no difference between DRM purveyors dictating what hardware the software you paid for can run on and Apple dictating what hardware you can run OS X on. Apple does it by EULA, not by copy protection (clearly). Everyone agrees DRM is 'wrong'... you figure out the rest.

Psystar has never defeated copy protection devices, the DMCA is completely irrelevant here. This late addition to the charge is an act of desperation, as Apple knows, they can't win and their EULA will be invalidated.

And only a complete Mapple fan-boy could believe that Apple would begin manufacturing cheap Macs, once Psystar was sent broke -which is the only way Apple could defeat Psystar, because Apple cannot "win" the case any other way.

Mapple? Are you confused?

[Sun Baked]

Mapple? Are you confused?

They will be really confused if Psystar cannot pull a head out of their ass, and get their counter claim fixed before it is tossed.

[fr33 loader]

So if tomorrow MS decides to enter the hardware business and changes its EULA saying Windows can now only run in their own hardware, will that constitute being a monopoly? Can we say its the same thing with Apple practice right now?

[Macmel]

You don't get support for your OS?
Honestly, how many of you have ever called an Apple representative over a software issue?. It's faster to do it yourself or even reformat and reinstall (which would be their only solution in most cases).
If updates is what you mean, I know people that are still running Panther and don't give a damn over it. It just works and that's what they want. I run panther without any problem ever, then I switched to Tiger and then I switched to Leopard. I could have done it without any update at all. No problem whatsoever and my computer works exactly the same. Time Machine?.
I had back-up utilities before that. Not so good-looking, but equally efective. If I were to buy a Psystar, software support would be the last thing to worry about. I think hardware support is more important (that's expensive). If OS stops working, (which I doubt because you can always go back to an early version that worked), put windows on it and still you have a computer after all.

[motulist]

Mapple? Are you confused?

No, he's not confused. I believe the confused one is you! :p ;) :)

http://www.hulu.com/watch/46753/the-simpsons-mapple-store#x-4,vclip,1

[Jig]

The DCMA has clear exemptions for interoperability. Even if it was possible to argue that Psystar are breaking copy protiection (really doubtful) then these exemptions would likely apply.

Just corporate bullying a big company of a small one, as usual. But on this site, people will defend *anything* that Apple does, so it doesn't matter. Seriously, Apple could announce a program where, if you copy one of their disks, then they have the right to come round to your house and sacrifice your first-born, and there would still be people here saying 'how good this will be for Apple', or 'I'm sure Apple doesn't like doing this, but it is necessary for Apple to make a profit' etc.

[Trip.Tucker]

No, he's not confused. I believe the confused one is you! :p ;) :)

http://www.hulu.com/watch/46753/the-simpsons-mapple-store#x-4,vclip,1

Ahhh. So the poster is confusing fiction with reality. Apple is Apple. Apple is NOT Mapple. Mapple, in the Simpsons episode, was used to avoid any lawsuits due to defamation.

Let me find the most obscure Apple reference, use it in a post on a forum and expect people to 1. accept it, and 2. immediately be familiar with it solely because I found it amusing.....no.

Silly.

[motulist]

Ahhh. So the poster is confusing fiction with reality. Apple is Apple. Apple is NOT Mapple.

I'm pretty sure you're confusing his joke with him being confused.

Let me find the most obscure Apple reference,use it in a post on a forum...

Dude, come on. Firstly, it's the simpsons, which is about as far from obscure as possible. Secondly, this clip is from the episode which just aired a couple of days ago, so it's fresh in everyone's mind. Thirdly, (as if that wasn't enough already) go look at the MacRumors front page sidebar and read the top headline in the Page 2 section. It's not at all an obscure reference, you just didn't happen to know of it yet. This type of thing happens to all of us every now and then, there's no need to act defensively and try to make the commenter of that reference look bad. Just make a quick self-effacing joke about how you can't believe you didn't know that was a reference and then move on.

Anyway, lets not get too far off topic.

[djgamble]

Fools. They're in court up against one of America's biggest companies; in my view they're not even out there to make a profit or a serious company, they're just out there to make a statement that they don't like Apple stopping people from making clones.

They'll go bust and they don't even care because their message is the important thing. Given their business model their overheads can't be big... they just grabbed a PC box, chucked some cheap cr@ppy bits in it and when somebody orders one (maybe 3 people max... seriously!) they can build a PC using the money from the order.

Same with a laptop, that's all they'd do... I could make one in less than an hour using standard PC laptop parts! It's not like they have engineers working day and night to produce an amazing and innovative Mac Clone, so it costs them nothing to have a web page! I'd guess that it's a 1 man company run by a lawyer who's representing himself... at the same time Apple's footing the legal costs (for decent lawyers) because they're bringing the case forward...

This would make it feasible to run a company and pay nothing for the court case. If they lose then they'll just shut down Pystar and continue their regular job as a lawyer (nothing lost).

If they win... well then they've made a remarkable statement that could shape Apple's future in a big way!

Either way I think they’re a toss...

[gnasher729]

The DCMA has clear exemptions for interoperability. Even if it was possible to argue that Psystar are breaking copy protiection (really doubtful) then these exemptions would likely apply.

They would of course only apply if the copy protection prevents interoperability for an otherwise legal use. You would be allowed to circumvent any copy protection measures that prevent you from running MacOS X on a G3 Macintosh or a G4 running at less than 867MHz (which is allowed by the license, but prevented by the Installer; methods to do that have even been published on MacRumors, completely legal). You are not allowed to circumvent any copy protection measures that prevent you from running MacOS X on a non Apple-labeled computer.

So if tomorrow MS decides to enter the hardware business and changes its EULA saying Windows can now only run in their own hardware, will that constitute being a monopoly? Can we say its the same thing with Apple practice right now?

What you are saying is a bit confused. First, Microsoft may or may not be in a monopoly position in the operating system market. Psystar claimed that Apple had a monopoly in the MacOS X market, but that turned out to be nonsense. It would be just as much nonsense to claim Microsoft had a monopoly in the Windows market. What matters is the operating system market. There Microsoft seems to have just under 90% market share, and Apple much less than 10%. Just under 90% is usually considered a monopoly, much less than 10% is not.

Since Microsoft has a monopoly in the operating system market, exactly the same anti-trust claims that Psystar made against Apple and that were thrown out would very likely be successful against Microsoft. If Apple increased the MacOS X market share to 50% or to 90%, then it might be possible for Dell to force Apple to license MacOS X. And if you haven't noticed, Microsoft has entered the hardware business a long time ago, just not the computer business.

Psystar has never defeated copy protection devices, the DMCA is completely irrelevant here. This late addition to the charge is an act of desperation, as Apple knows, they can't win and their EULA will be invalidated.

You may not have noticed, but it is Psystar itself who made that claim. Psystar stated in their counterclaims that Apple prevents MacOS X from running on non-Apple computers, and that Psystar added or changed code to make MacOS X work on their Psystar computers. Talk about digging your own grave.

We don't actually know whether there are any copy protection devices, but we know that Psystar itself made that claim. All that Apple has to do is to agree, and it becomes an "undisputed fact" that can be used against Psystar (so much for the quality of their lawyers).

Apple has a monopoly and that's not right. It seems a little hypocritical for Apple to sue someone for trying to make hardware that will run OSX (not making the OS itself) which Apple will get to sell when, at the same time, Apple is selling computers that will run Windows. I hate Windows, but I like having the option.

First, the court has decided just a few days ago that not only Apple doesn't have any monopoly, but Psystar did not even manage to produce any reasonable arguments for a claim that Apple might have a monopoly. Second, Microsoft _wants_ to sell Windows for every computer in the world. So here we have a copyright holder that fully agrees and encourages to run their operating system on an Apple computer. By allowing you to run Windows on a Macintosh, Apple only does what the copyright holder of that OS wants.

[arepadetrigo]

Being a Capitalist, I like competition in the marketplace. I think Apple could use some competition and I know it would only benefit the consumer. Apple is ripping us all off. Some of you seem to like it. I LOVE Apple computers, and I cannot imagine Psystar making a better one. If they don't, the marketplace will clear them out. If they manage to make a better product for an affordable price, Apple deserves to go down anyway. My guess is that Psystar's consumer base would be different from Apple's anyway, so it wouldn't effect Apple that much. Apple has a monopoly and that's not right. It seems a little hypocritical for Apple to sue someone for trying to make hardware that will run OSX (not making the OS itself) which Apple will get to sell when, at the same time, Apple is selling computers that will run Windows. I hate Windows, but I like having the option.

[DAAAAAAAVE]

Apple does not have a monopoly. They sell an OS in the OS market. They sell computers in the computer market. They have an extremely small market share compared to M$. I agree that Apple are in a class of their own but not a market of their own. It is like saying windows has a monopoly on selling the Vista OS

[gnasher729]

But didn't the judge dismiss the countersuit? Or does that not matter?

All their claims stand. Whatever claims Psystar made in their countersuit, Apple can hold them to those claims. It is an unusual thing to happen; I would only expect this if one side employs amateurs as lawyers.

[rhpenguin]

You don't get support for your OS?
Honestly, how many of you have ever called an Apple representative over a software issue?. It's faster to do it yourself or even reformat and reinstall (which would be their only solution in most cases).


In my dealing with Apple reps, chances are I'd be the more knowledgeable. If I have a problem and can't get to my desktop, I fix it from single user mode. No need for a reformat if you have backups of your kernel and kernel extensions.

[mcnallym]

Apple does not have a monopoly. They sell an OS in the OS market. They sell computers in the computer market. They have an extremely small market share compared to M$. I agree that Apple are in a class of their own but not a market of their own. It is like saying windows has a monopoly on selling the Vista OS

Psystar also claimed that no alternatives to Mac OSX which is how trying to show was a monopoly, Yet they also offer Linux and Windows as alternatives to OSX on the OpenComputers, again shooting themselves in the foot.

It has also in previous cases been decided that a sole supplier for a product does not constitute a monopoly, and the supplier cannot be forced to help a competitor, or be forced to license there product to a rival.

[gdzb]

one group of people is hung up on price
one group of people is hung on OS usability
one group of people is hung up on design and OS Usability
one group of people recognises that most companies aren't doing the above so the only way you can get option three is for paying a s*it load of money for it, if you don't like it wait a few years for the niche to be filled, in the meantime buy sony for a bit less and compromise or move on and think about more important things in your like (including changing your budget to accomodate apple)
the mac forum masses are group three, the mac masses are group four

(not all shops are H&M/Old Navy, or B&O)

[ddTaylor]

In the end, Psystar is pretty irrelevant compared to the osx86 project

Nonetheless, I really wish Apple would offer a lower cost desktop. I realize their business model is based on having ridiculously high margins that we all pay for, but I think Apple is really shooting themselves in the foot in terms of their potential market share

My point exactly...I have been touting a lower-cost Apple be it a desktop or a netbook for a long time. You should watch yourself here as a lower-cost Apple is sure to bring the ire of all the zealot Apple fans. Oh well...

We will never see a lower-cost Apple regardless of what people want as they may want it but they (myself included) still buy the egregiously over-priced MBP's MP's and MB's. We only have ourselves to blame.

D

[PDXoPDX]

It's amazing Psystar is even fighting this. I can't imagine a Windows OS cloner ever thinking that they could legally alter Windows, put it on their machines, and then market them for sale.

The big PC makers all have to negotiate w/ M$ for tweaks unique to the OS loaded on their systems.

I'm a big fan of creative freedom and consumer rights, but there ARE open source OS alternatives. Psystar either needs to pony up and license Apple tech or switch to open source alternatives. Jacking someone else's hard work seems like a great way to stifle innovation down the road for a quick buck today.

[Roderick Usher]

chucked some cheap cr@ppy bits in it
What evidence do you have that Psystar's machines are actually crappy? Are you just recycling what you've heard, or did you instantly reach this conclusion without any actual research? This is one step away from stereotyping all PC's as being made from bottom-barrel components, which has never been the case.

and when somebody orders one (maybe 3 people max... seriously!)
More than that, I think, since they're still in business.

The issue is one of legality, not quality. It's ridiculous to dismiss Psystar's products outright, based on flimsy, unsubstantiated claims. Apple is certainly taking them seriously enough, hmm?

[ddTaylor]

It seems to me there's at least two kinds of Mac user: one who appears attracted by the design factors, and another who's primarily motivated by OS X and perhaps internals value-for-money. I'm in the latter camp as it happens and so couldn't care less what the Psystars look like. I'm not alone in this attitude either I suspect. Laughing at a product simply on the basis of its looks seems a little silly then, but to each their own I guess.
Well said - my MBP and PB are GREAT and look and work flawlessly yet my Acer One with OS X runs just a nicely and was $348.88 with a 160GB HD and the extra memory I had from an upgrade increased the RAM to 1.5GB. Does it look as nice as any possible Apple NetBook? No. Does it run well and does it do what I need it to? Yes.

I know Apple makes huge margins based on a two-fold approach to computers - the design and the OS. I would be happy with a rock-solid OS and only tangentially interested in the aesthetics - but I guess I do not count - so long as you read these forums. OS X 10.5 was not nearly as stable of 10.4 right rom the box - at least for me. I think a lot had to do with the migration to x86 processors so I can understand the troubles although not ignore them completely.

D

[ddTaylor]

I completely agree. Psystar really didn't offer a performance benefit or substantial cost savings when compared to apple's current offerings. Citing the "need" for a mid-range tower really is a poor excuse for breaking the eulaand copy protection measures as many of the so named reasons for doing so can also be accomplished with upgrades to the hardware or peripherals. While video cards can't be upgraded in iMacs or macbooks, you do get what you pay for. If I pay for a ford, that doesn't give me the right to go steal a Ferrari engine no matter how overpriced I think the ford might have been.

That is a terrible analogy. I hate the fact that people throw out comparisons to other products. They are almost NEVER applicable. The car analogy is off the mark as you are assuming (yes - I KNOW what ASS U ME means) someone STOLE the other engine. If you BOUGHT the Ferrari engine and put it in your car, so what? You paid for it - just do not expect either Ford or Ferrari to service the hybrid car.

As for the EULA - most EULA's are not legally binding (please do a nexus-lexus search as well as you local law library) as the EULA is INSIDE the software and when you open the software to READ the EULA you can no longer RETURN the software - or the EULA is only visible AFTER the software is installed. Not to mention the fact that a EULA is a CIVIL contract and I use the word CONTRACT loosely as there are many questions as to its validity due to the way it is presented. The EULA simply states you are 'borrowing' the software - unless you break the EULA and then you no longer have the right to 'borrow' the software. That is the sticky point - as the software IS copy protected but once you pay for the right to USE the software - where does the company and its rules cross the line? The music industry tried to go after people who created re-mixes for PERSONAL use or to play at parties - that went nowhere. Provided you are NOT providing the software to others for free and you own a legitimate copy not previously installed - I see no reason Apple could go after the end user in any manor.

D

And, no - I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be...I simply read and research topics BEFORE I decide to post a reply lest I put my foot in my mouth - and yes, I have done that MANY times before. I learned from my mistakes - i really did. :)

[IJ Reilly]

I can tell you why. The DMCA act makes it illegal to circumvent effective copyright protection measures. I don't know about any effective copyright protection measures in Leopard, and it looks like Apple's lawyers didn't either, so they couldn't sue for DMCA violation.

In comes Psystar's counterclaims, claiming that Apple is a monopoly. Hidden in those counterclaims is the accusation that Apple added code to its operating system that makes it crash on non-Apple computers (apparently to support Apple's non-existing evil monopoly). In other words, Psystar itself _claims_ that Leopard contains effective copyright protection measures. All that Apple has to do is to agree with Psystar, and those "effective copyright protection measures" become reality, at least as far as the court is concerned. Anything that Psystar says in their court filings can be used against them, and that is exactly what Apple has done again.

Interesting point. I read your explanation for this in the other Psystar thread. It looks like Psystar shot itself in the foot and then reloaded.

[ddTaylor]

You bought a copy of the OS but you are still running it illegally. End of discussion.

Not true - and not exactly false, either. That has NOT been decided by the courts as of yet. You may be correct, although I doubt it.

D

[PDXoPDX]

As for the EULA - most EULA's are not legally binding (please do a nexus-lexus search as well as you local law library) as the EULA is INSIDE the software and when you open the software to READ the EULA you can no longer RETURN the software - or the EULA is only visible AFTER the software is installed. Not to mention the fact that a EULA is a CIVIL contract and I use the word CONTRACT loosely as there are many questions as to its validity due to the way it is presented. The EULA simply states you are 'borrowing' the software - unless you break the EULA and then you no longer have the right to 'borrow' the software. That is the sticky point - as the software IS copy protected but once you pay for the right to USE the software - where does the company and its rules cross the line? The music industry tried to go after people who created re-mixes for PERSONAL use or to play at parties - that went nowhere. Provided you are NOT providing the software to others for free and you own a legitimate copy not previously installed - I see no reason Apple could go after the end user in any manor.


Just to clarify, the way a lawsuit like this works is that many claims are brought in the initial stages of the dispute. Some are for posturing (scaring the sh#t out of the other side) and some are the heart of the dispute.

As far as I understand the suit filed against Psystar, the contract related EULA claim is in addition to DMCA and Copyright Act claims. The whole idea that EULAs are contracts of adhesion (the idea that you point out about not being able to agree until the software is installed) has been pretty much resolved in favor of their legality. I'm not at all trying to knock you. I'm just pointing out that there's a good deal of case law saying that for the time being EULAs won't be struck down as contracts of adhesion. Maybe that will change in the future, but courts aren't buying it due to the general idea that people are free to contract...even if they make a bad contract. I agree though that you can't say no to the EULA and go get an OS with a more agreeable EULA. This is a whole other issue though and why the courts won't touch it. It's like cell phone agreements. They're all pretty much coercive and bad for the consumer, but we agree because we have to to get a phone and courts don't want to poke the sleeping bear. Enough rambling.

Psystar is screwed on the Copyright Act claims since Apple's copyright on OSx is solid and Psystar is unquestionably infringing by selling the OS w/o a license from Apple.

Gnasher correctly points out that Windows is different b/c of their total OS marketshare and explicit desire to spread their OS as far as possible. That said Dell still needs to negotiate and license w/ Microsoft when it tweaks Windows to do things unique to its systems.

Like I said above it's not that I'm in the tank for corporations but it makes me worry that new solutions and software will be stifled in a marketplace where creators are forced to give up control against their will.

[motulist]

Psystar is unquestionably infringing by selling the OS w/o a license from Apple.

As I understand it, Psystar is buying a unique copy of OS X for every machine. If so, then you've got the heart of this issue completely wrong.

[rockosmodurnlif]

As for the EULA - most EULA's are not legally binding (please do a nexus-lexus search as well as you local law library) as the EULA is INSIDE the software and when you open the software to READ the EULA you can no longer RETURN the software - or the EULA is only visible AFTER the software is installed. Not to mention the fact that a EULA is a CIVIL contract and I use the word CONTRACT loosely as there are many questions as to its validity due to the way it is presented. The EULA simply states you are 'borrowing' the software - unless you break the EULA and then you no longer have the right to 'borrow' the software. That is the sticky point - as the software IS copy protected but once you pay for the right to USE the software - where does the company and its rules cross the line? The music industry tried to go after people who created re-mixes for PERSONAL use or to play at parties - that went nowhere. Provided you are NOT providing the software to others for free and you own a legitimate copy not previously installed - I see no reason Apple could go after the end user in any manor.

D

And, no - I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be...I simply read and research topics BEFORE I decide to post a reply lest I put my foot in my mouth - and yes, I have done that MANY times before. I learned from my mistakes - i really did. :)
So the EULA is useless? You can just click yes every time and not care what it says?

[pdjudd]

As I understand it, Psystar is buying a unique copy of OS X for every machine. If so, then you've got the heart of this issue completely wrong.

It doesn't matter - Apple does not sell full copies intended for non Apple Computers. All of their operating systems are sold as upgrades and are sold under terms that Apple can dictate to this regard. It doesn't matter what Psystar bought because they as a company cannot legally install the operating system - Apple doesn't allow it and systar has to modify Apple's IP to do that.

1) Psystar as a company cannot make money on trademark infringement - they have no rights to OSX unless Apple grants them rights - soemthing Apple has not done.

2) Try and scream about the EULA all you want but they are irrelivant - Pystar as a company has expectations to understand legal licensing of the product they wish to sell. Pstar tried to challenge the licensing under anti-trust (after violating them) and they failed miserably. The fact remains that Psystar, as a business, cannot redistribute IP without the owners permission. They are under the expectation as a business to know the copywrite of their product line.

The key thing to all of this is that Apple does not sell an OEM or a full unlimited licence of OSX to anybody. Period. OSX is sold in conjunction with an Apple branded computer (which Apple legally controls) and each iteration is sold as an upgrade to the previous one. These are the terms that Apple dictates and thats the way it is.

Microsoft actaully sells the same physical disc for its flavors of Vista or MS office. That doesn't mean that you can buy a basic upgrade, hack it, and sell it as a business with all the features of ultimate. You try and do that and MS will go after you for the exact same thing that Apple is doing. the only difference here is that MS offers OEM and full versions of Windows or Office. Apple does not nor are they under any obligation to do that.

[pdjudd]

As for the EULA - most EULA's are not legally binding (please do a nexus-lexus search as well as you local law library) as the EULA is INSIDE the software and when you open the software to READ the EULA you can no longer RETURN the software - or the EULA is only visible AFTER the software is installed.

This is irrelevant in this case since Apple's EULA for OSX is readily available on their website before purchase. Not to mention that Companies are not exempt from EULA's if they get in the business of reselling - they just cannot claim ignorance after the first violation - after that its willful neglect.

Individuals might get out of an EULA, but they have been found to be valid - and I would bet that they are considered contracts for businesses.

[NoSmokingBandit]

How does that work with updates?
This is from a few pages back, this thread moves fast, lol.
Actually, my machine works great with updates. I can update anything, no worries. The vanilla kernel doesn let me sleep (havent tried vanilla kernel since 9.2 though so new ones might, its kinda iffy). So all i do is install the updates, reboot, move old kernel back in, reboot. An extra 10 seconds to update my hac.
So the EULA is useless? You can just click yes every time and not care what it says?

The EULA is only a legal contract if it is legally enforceable. The issue here is the anti-trust action of "tying" or making the customer buy one product in order to use a completely separate product. As we've seen from the PsyStar ruling, Mac OS X is in the same market, and is competing against, Windows and other Os's. Mac hardware is also competing against other hardware like Dell, HP, Acer machines. Making the consumer buy one product (a mac) in order to use a completely separate product (OS X) is illegal due to anti-trust (or anti-competition) laws.
When a court decides whether or not the EULA is enforceable we will know whether or not osx86 is illegal. Until then it is "innocent until proven guilty."
Though, with the way the government has been acting, they will probably side with the corporation instead of on the side of logic and reasoning as we've seen from the bailout plans that the middle class must pay for. But alas, this is not the place to bitch about the government.

[IJ Reilly]

Making the consumer buy one product (a mac) in order to use a completely separate product (OS X) is illegal due to anti-trust (or anti-competition) laws.

No, it's not. Tying is only illegal when the company has proven market power in an appropriately-defined market, and is shown to be using that market power to restrain trade. Since in Apple's case neither is true, tying OSX to Apple hardware is perfectly legal, just as it is in the vast majority of instances where it happens.

[heisetax]

This is what I believe Apple will do:

Drain every last cent from Psystar with legal fees
Get them shut down
Get as many people responsible personally fined
Then release their own xMac that would have killed Psystar's offerings anyway, had they not been sued into oblivion. :p



I hate to see you go... but you will, if this is your ultimatum.

Apple under Steve Jobs is not about to change their business model in the way you would want. They made a MacMini, kept it from being very successful with its price. Now that they have not updated it in such a long time, they are making it even more overpriced. Add this to their reluctance to make a mid=ranged Intel Mac Tower & you have your answer to why there are so many people willing to come out & try their best to sell a computer that will run the Mac OS out of the box. I do not expect this to change until at least sometime after Steve Jobs retires.

Some people want to make their own Mac experience. The bigger Apple gets, the more they look like MicroSoft.

[Winni]

This is irrelevant in this case since Apple's EULA for OSX is readily available on their website before purchase. Not to mention that Companies are not exempt from EULA's if they get in the business of reselling - they just cannot claim ignorance after the first violation - after that its willful neglect.

Individuals might get out of an EULA, but they have been found to be valid - and I would bet that they are considered contracts for businesses.

Well, an EULA is what it says: An END USER license agreement. A reseller is not bound by the terms of any EULA, since a reseller does not use the software but only (re-)sells it, and Psystar is not the end user of the version of OS X that they (re-)sell to their customers.

Furthermore, OS X is available on the market in RETAIL boxes that can be purchased by anybody. Unlike some have stated here, it says NOWHERE on a retail box that it is an UPGRADE - which would imply that you --might-- need an older software version to be eligible to purchase the software. Apple does not sell upgrades or updates, they only sell full (retail) versions of their software.

And now Psystar is reselling retail versions of OS X and patches those versions to make them run on their own hardware. Which are two different legal actions, just to make this absolutely clear. One is reselling the software, the other one is installing and patching that software on the computers they sell to their customers.

They do not have an OEM contract with Apple, but neither has Amazon or Gravis, the biggest German Apple reseller, or anybody else who is selling Apple products. Still, Amazon and others are selling retail boxes of OS X anyway, because it can be traded freely. Without any doubt, it is absolutely legal that Psystar sells a retail box of OS X to their customers.

That only leaves the EULA situation and the patching of the software in question.

In some cases, certain EULAs might be valid. In other cases - and in other countries - certain EULAs have been found to be invalid and even illegal. Apple's EULA has not been challenged before, and currently it is only being challenged in the United States. Maybe Apple will win in the US, but that doesn't mean that there EULA will be found valid any other country of your choice as well.

The same goes for changing the code of some software to make it work. In many countries (including Germany) it is perfectly legal to patch a software to make it work without a hardware dongle (as for example a USB key) - provided (and that is important) that the dongle causes compatibility issues with other software or hardware on the system and, of course, that you own a legal license to the software (which Psystar customers do). And it seems that even the American DMCA has more holes than a swiss cheese, so it'll be interesting to see if Apple is only clutching at straws here or if the DMCA will actually back their claims. Furthermore, Apple is giving away major parts of OS X (namely the Darwin UNIX foundation) under an Open Source license, and it certainly is not illegal to modify open source software.

I think Apple is standing on very shaky ground here, and their best chance for winning this case is only the fact that US-American laws and the US-American jurisdiction are extremely corporate friendly, to put it mildly.

And to all the "Go, Apple, Go!" screamers: You really must enjoy living in a cage. And you even pay money for living there. You're cheerleading for a company that files lawsuits to take away or at the very least significantly restrict YOUR rights to use the stuff that you have bought with your good money. It's like buying a book for double the price, but you are only allowed to read it in a Starbuck's shop - and at the same time you hate the little company that wants to sell you the same book for half the price and you'd be allowed to read it anywhere you like. Why? Because it's no longer special when anybody can have it on any machine? Does that make -you- less special? It's in the best interest of everybody if Apple loses this lawsuit.

[IJ Reilly]

They do not have an OEM contract with Apple, but neither has Amazon or Gravis, the biggest German Apple reseller, or anybody else who is selling Apple products. Still, Amazon and others are selling retail boxes of OS X anyway, because it can be traded freely. Without any doubt, it is absolutely legal that Psystar sells a retail box of OS X to their customers.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but in reality nobody has an OEM contract with Apple because Apple has no OEMs. They have retail resellers of Apple products, but no OEMs. Those dealers are authorized Apple resellers; non-authorized resellers are in the grey market. So it is certainly in doubt whether Psystar can legally resell the retail version of OSX, because they are not authorized Apple dealers -- even if we wanted to imagine that this was all they were actually doing.

[ddTaylor]

So the EULA is useless? You can just click yes every time and not care what it says?

You can write anything you would like in a EULA - I did take college law and contract courses - that does NOT mean they are binding, legal or ethical (EULA). Just because it is written and you must agree to it before you use or even install the application does not make it binding or legal. That is up to the courts and if you search the law library and nexus you will see that EULA's have never been fully vetted in court - parts have and others have not. The idea behind a EULA is that the USER must agree. This is not about Pystar exactly - but weather the owner of a Pystar can install OS X on the system as Pystar NO LONGER OFFERS THE INSTALL AS AN OPTION FROM THE FACTORY.

D

[pdjudd]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but in reality nobody has an OEM contract with Apple because Apple has no OEMs. They have retail resellers of Apple products, but no OEMs. Those dealers are authorized Apple resellers; non-authorized resellers are in the grey market. So it is certainly in doubt whether Psystar can legally resell the retail version of OSX, because they are not authorized Apple dealers -- even if we wanted to imagine that this was all they were actually doing.

That's what I was getting at. Since Apple doesn't offer OEM licensing, the default license is the original EULA which Psystar is expected to abide by - its not an end use so it cannot abide by the licencing. It simply cannot accept the licence theselves or on somebody else behalf.

And even if we assume that Psystar was an authorized dealer (which we know they are not), that still doesn't enable them with any right to do anything to OSX without Apple's permission. They may be able to sell them by nature of first sale doctorine - but it would have to be the entire unaltered product being that they are a company and not an individual. But, as Gnasher, you, Matticus, myself, and a lot of others have been asserting that is not what Psystar is doing.

[ddTaylor]

This is irrelevant in this case since Apple's EULA for OSX is readily available on their website before purchase. Not to mention that Companies are not exempt from EULA's if they get in the business of reselling - they just cannot claim ignorance after the first violation - after that its willful neglect.

Individuals might get out of an EULA, but they have been found to be valid - and I would bet that they are considered contracts for businesses.

I was making a GENERAL statement. I was also referring to the EULA as it is intended - for the END USER, not Pystar. Just because Apple has the EULA on-line does not make it binding for ANYONE unless the courts rule in that fashion. If you check the legal papers you will see MANY contracts, even though there were signed - were not legal and did not hold up in court. I am a PRIME example of this. I work in radio - as a broadcaster. I worked for a syndicated radio program for several years and the job I left required that I sign a NO COMPETE contract. I did - as EVERY station at that time required one. I took the syndicated job in the same area - but if it were not for a Federal law that prohibits any employer keeping me from making a reasonable living in my chosen profession - I would have been held to an illegal clause in my contract and I would have been required to wait a year before I took the above mentioned job.

Just because the contract is written and singed does not make it legal, binding or ethical - and yes, I have said that before, but it is true. And yes, I had a choice to sign the contract or not - but at the expense of my career and ability to make money. I signed the contract under protest but did not complain loudly as I wanted the job and the exposure - but that does not make that clause in my contract right.

D

[pdjudd]

Just because Apple has the EULA on-line does not make it binding for ANYONE unless the courts rule in that fashion.

You missed my point. I was claiming that you cannot claim Apple's EULA is sealed in the box - it is not. I was not making any assertion that Apple's EULA is legally binding - Apple is not making that claim either no doubt.

[Mal]

Pystar NO LONGER OFFERS THE INSTALL AS AN OPTION FROM THE FACTORY.

Try being a little more informed next time.

Psystar's product description:

The highly extensible Open Computer is a configuration of PC hardware capable of running unmodified OS X Leopard kernels. All known Leopard software works flawlessly including the built-in Software Update utility. The price includes a retail copy of Leopard in its original package. We preinstall OS X on your machine so that you may be able to begin using your Open Computer right out of the box. Information about our restore disc is available on our website. Please note that Bootcamp is not supported by Open Computers because it is Apple-hardware specific.

They do indeed offer it preinstalled still, and have no plans of stopping until shut down by a judge, which will almost certainly happen and is a good thing, because these leeches have no place in the market. Of course, they could go on selling PC's with Windows or Linux (provided they're a Windows OEM, which may not be the case either), but c'mon, they've got nothing unless they rip off Apple's products.

jW

[BaldiMac]

Well, an EULA is what it says: An END USER license agreement. A reseller is not bound by the terms of any EULA, since a reseller does not use the software but only (re-)sells it, and Psystar is not the end user of the version of OS X that they (re-)sell to their customers.

:confused: You are missing the point. Psystar is required to have a license from Apple (the legal owner) to resell OS X. Basic copyright law. If the EULA does not apply to them (I don't know if it does or doesn't), what license are they distributing it under?

Furthermore, OS X is available on the market in RETAIL boxes that can be purchased by anybody. Unlike some have stated here, it says NOWHERE on a retail box that it is an UPGRADE - which would imply that you --might-- need an older software version to be eligible to purchase the software. Apple does not sell upgrades or updates, they only sell full (retail) versions of their software.

The judge is the Psystar case ruled that Apple made it clear to consumers that OS X was locked into Apple hardware.

And now Psystar is reselling retail versions of OS X and patches those versions to make them run on their own hardware. Which are two different legal actions, just to make this absolutely clear. One is reselling the software, the other one is installing and patching that software on the computers they sell to their customers.

Reselling OS X in violation of its license is currently illegal. "Patching" OS X may or may not be illegal depending on if the patch is found to have modified OS X.

They do not have an OEM contract with Apple, but neither has Amazon or Gravis, the biggest German Apple reseller, or anybody else who is selling Apple products. Still, Amazon and others are selling retail boxes of OS X anyway, because it can be traded freely. Without any doubt, it is absolutely legal that Psystar sells a retail box of OS X to their customers.

Of course all of the companies you listed has a contract with Apple. Where do you think the get the boxes? It may even be legal for Psystar to sell a retail box. I don't know. But it is illegal for them to supply software, "patches", that have little valid use other than contributing to copyright infringement.

That only leaves the EULA situation and the patching of the software in question.

In some cases, certain EULAs might be valid. In other cases - and in other countries - certain EULAs have been found to be invalid and even illegal. Apple's EULA has not been challenged before, and currently it is only being challenged in the United States. Maybe Apple will win in the US, but that doesn't mean that there EULA will be found valid any other country of your choice as well.

Apple and Psystar are both US companies. The validity of the EULA in other countries is not an issue.

The same goes for changing the code of some software to make it work. In many countries (including Germany) it is perfectly legal to patch a software to make it work without a hardware dongle (as for example a USB key) - provided (and that is important) that the dongle causes compatibility issues with other software or hardware on the system and, of course, that you own a legal license to the software (which Psystar customers do). And it seems that even the American DMCA has more holes than a swiss cheese, so it'll be interesting to see if Apple is only clutching at straws here or if the DMCA will actually back their claims. Furthermore, Apple is giving away major parts of OS X (namely the Darwin UNIX foundation) under an Open Source license, and it certainly is not illegal to modify open source software.


The whole key to what you are saying here is that Psystar customers would need a legal license. They do not have a legal license. If you violate the EULA, the license is invalid. If the EULA is invalid, you have no license.

I think Apple is standing on very shaky ground here, and their best chance for winning this case is only the fact that US-American laws and the US-American jurisdiction are extremely corporate friendly, to put it mildly.

This has nothing to do with big corporations versus the little guy. It has to do with basic copyright law that exists in most democratic countries. Only Apple, as the owner of OS X, has the right to license it's use. They have the right to sell a license to who they want under the terms that they want.

If you don't agree to those terms, you have the right not to buy it. You have the right to return it for a full refund in the US if you do not agree to the terms of the EULA.

And to all the "Go, Apple, Go!" screamers: You really must enjoy living in a cage. And you even pay money for living there. You're cheerleading for a company that files lawsuits to take away or at the very least significantly restrict YOUR rights to use the stuff that you have bought with your good money.

I'm not rooting for Apple. I'm rooting against Psystar for doing something illegal. Apple isn't taking anyone's rights away. How can you take away something that you never had?

I'm also rooting for the reinforcement of my rights to the things that I create. Apple will not license OS X to Psystar, so they just took it. Why would anyone think that is good?

It's like buying a book for double the price, but you are only allowed to read it in a Starbuck's shop - and at the same time you hate the little company that wants to sell you the same book for half the price and you'd be allowed to read it anywhere you like.


To use your analogy, it's like buying a book that is only available in hardcover at full price and at the same time hating the little company that is selling the unlicensed paperback at half price without the permission of the author.

Why? Because it's no longer special when anybody can have it on any machine? Does that make -you- less special? It's in the best interest of everybody if Apple loses this lawsuit.

Do you really think that the only impact on Apple will be that they have to offer lower priced machines to compete with all the clones? Lower margins will impact the stock price. Lower profits will affect R&D. I happen to like Apple products currently. It's not in my best interest.

[IJ Reilly]

That's what I was getting at. Since Apple doesn't offer OEM licensing, the default license is the original EULA which Psystar is expected to abide by - its not an end use so it cannot abide by the licencing. It simply cannot accept the licence theselves or on somebody else behalf.

And even if we assume that Psystar was an authorized dealer (which we know they are not), that still doesn't enable them with any right to do anything to OSX without Apple's permission. They may be able to sell them by nature of first sale doctorine - but it would have to be the entire unaltered product being that they are a company and not an individual. But, as Gnasher, you, Matticus, myself, and a lot of others have been asserting that is not what Psystar is doing.

I see. I believe too much emphasis is being placed on the EULA. Even if Apple had no license agreement attached to the use of OSX, they'd still have the right to define their patented, trademarked and copyrighted Macintosh product as the combination of hardware and the OS. The fact that one part of the Mac can be purchased separately does not confer on the purchaser the right to reconstruct the other parts, let alone, resell the combined product to someone else commercially.

[gnasher729]

As I understand it, Psystar is buying a unique copy of OS X for every machine. If so, then you've got the heart of this issue completely wrong.

Since Psystar has never, ever bought a single copy of MacOS X with a license that allows it to be installed on a Psystar computer, and since Psystar does indeed install MacOS X on Psystar computers, they commit copyright infringement every single time they do this.

You can write anything you would like in a EULA - I did take college law and contract courses - that does NOT mean they are binding, legal or ethical (EULA). Just because it is written and you must agree to it before you use or even install the application does not make it binding or legal. That is up to the courts and if you search the law library and nexus you will see that EULA's have never been fully vetted in court - parts have and others have not.

Of course you are hundred percent correct that just because it's written in a EULA doesn't mean it is legal. But apart from the hypothetical possibility, which parts of Apple's EULA do you think might be illegal? And in your answer you should take into account that the judge in this case already has decided that it is Apple's undeniable right to restrict the use of MacOS X to Apple-labeled computers.

I was making a GENERAL statement. I was also referring to the EULA as it is intended - for the END USER, not Pystar. Just because Apple has the EULA on-line does not make it binding for ANYONE unless the courts rule in that fashion.

If that license doesn't apply to Psystar, then what license does Psystar have? By Psystar's own admission, they never even _asked_ Apple for any other license.

[ProwlingTiger]

Mapple? Are you confused?

Sounds like we know someone who's ill-informed. Are you buy chance running a Hackintosh? OS X clearly states in the license agreement.....Oh...bleh everyone who has common sense knows this.

[pdjudd]

I see. I believe too much emphasis is being placed on the EULA. Even if Apple had no license agreement attached to the use of OSX, they'd still have the right to define their patented, trademarked and copyrighted Macintosh product as the combination of hardware and the OS. The fact that one part of the Mac can be purchased separately does not confer on the purchaser the right to reconstruct the other parts, let alone, resell the combined product to someone else commercially.

I agree 100%. We are arguing the same points here - we both know that the EULA doesn't apply in this case - I have no doubt that Apple wants to bring that up in court unless it has to. Unfortunately people still like to trout out the old "EULA's have like never been shown to be legal - go Psystar" claim that is totally besides the point. The problem is that Since there is no OEM licensing for OSX, the only one we got is the EULA.

[ProwlingTiger]

So if tomorrow MS decides to enter the hardware business and changes its EULA saying Windows can now only run in their own hardware, will that constitute being a monopoly? Can we say its the same thing with Apple practice right now?

No. Listen up to my short law lesson:

Microsoft LICENSES Dell, HP, etc to LEGALLY USE their OS. Apple DOESN'T!

See the difference? It's a difference in business model. Hence the reason Microsoft has greater market share in the OS market. And I'm fairly sure I have this right, but I'm sure some "I wanna cheap Mac!" person will butt in.

EDIT: People more knowledgeable than I on the topic:
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/19211/
http://theappleblog.com/2007/02/01/apple-is-not-going-to-license-the-mac-os-to-other-hardware-makers/

In short, Apple's survival may depend on this lawsuit. Like Mac OS? Like the iPhone? Root for Apple. According to one source I mentioned, as of 2007, 33% of Apple's market share was from hardware sales, and guess what's bundled with hardware? Yep, that'll be Mac OS for 200, Alex.

I think I read an article about some poor licensing scheme with Apple in the 80s-90s, lemme try and find it. Needless to say, Jobs turned that around, and surprise: Profit!


Er...wow I sound like a jerk. Sorry bad day at the office, I guess.

[IJ Reilly]

I think I read an article about some poor licensing scheme with Apple in the 80s-90s, lemme try and find it. Needless to say, Jobs turned that around, and surprise: Profit!

Apple licensed the MacOS for several years during the mid-1990s. During that period Apple's market share was cut in half, Apple stated bleeding cash, and we came pretty close to losing both Apple and the Mac. Other than that, it was a great success.

[ddTaylor]

You missed my point. I was claiming that you cannot claim Apple's EULA is sealed in the box - it is not. I was not making any assertion that Apple's EULA is legally binding - Apple is not making that claim either no doubt.

Again - I am not making a specific claim about Apple. I made a GENERAL statement about the EULA in most applications. It does not invalidate my point nor validate yours.

D

[ddTaylor]

Try being a little more informed next time.

Psystar's product description:

The highly extensible Open Computer is a configuration of PC hardware capable of running unmodified OS X Leopard kernels. All known Leopard software works flawlessly including the built-in Software Update utility. The price includes a retail copy of Leopard in its original package. We preinstall OS X on your machine so that you may be able to begin using your Open Computer right out of the box. Information about our restore disc is available on our website. Please note that Bootcamp is not supported by Open Computers because it is Apple-hardware specific.

They do indeed offer it preinstalled still, and have no plans of stopping until shut down by a judge, which will almost certainly happen and is a good thing, because these leeches have no place in the market. Of course, they could go on selling PC's with Windows or Linux (provided they're a Windows OEM, which may not be the case either), but c'mon, they've got nothing unless they rip off Apple's products.

jW

Thank you for pointing that out as when I last checked that was NOT an option. When did that change? I will have to go to the Internet way-back machine in order to find that out as it was - at one point, removed as an option.

D

[ddTaylor]

Of course you are hundred percent correct that just because it's written in a EULA doesn't mean it is legal. But apart from the hypothetical possibility, which parts of Apple's EULA do you think might be illegal? And in your answer you should take into account that the judge in this case already has decided that it is Apple's undeniable right to restrict the use of MacOS X to Apple-labeled computers.

That is why I have chosen NOT to comment on that as that is up to the courts - not me. If the courts deem the EULA is restrictive they can rule on limitations. I have specifically gone out of my way to keep my opinions in check and simply make points on the case devoid of my own personal opinion.

[ddTaylor]

The judge is the Psystar case ruled that Apple made it clear to consumers that OS X was locked into Apple hardware.

When did this go to trial? It is in court - but unless I am missing something, the case is still in the litigation stage and has yet to be decided or ruled on by a judge or jury.

The Judge rules on MOTIONS at this stage that can be used for defense and for the counter claim and those brought by Apple - but ruling against Pystar is not an endorsement of Apple. It was simply that Pystar did not meet the minimum burden for that motion or defense. The claims by Pystar could be brought again provided they meet the burden set forth by the law. I admit, I need to read up on the case a bit more but no official ruling has been handed down - and that I know.

Again - I am no lawyer but I am well read and versed on several things. I will contact my friend who is a contract lawyer and get his take on it. He would be the one to get a more informed answer.

[twoodcc]

looks like this lawsuit might take a while. i really wouldn't mind seeing a little competition. i mean, wouldn't it hurt microsoft more than apple anyways?

[pdjudd]

Again - I am not making a specific claim about Apple. I made a GENERAL statement about the EULA in most applications. It does not invalidate my point nor validate yours.

D

No - but the point is irrelevant. Its not valid or invalid simply because EULA's are not the point of the lawsuit. Psystar is not an end user. They cannot agree to it even if they wanted to - it does not apply to them and nothing Apple proves publicly would apply to them. Its a moot point to begin with. Te entire point of EULA's are a red herring in this discussion and I ain't following it anymore.

[macadmiral]

looks like this lawsuit might take a while. i really wouldn't mind seeing a little competition. i mean, wouldn't it hurt microsoft more than apple anyways?

haha sweet! down with the apple's closed practices! maybe they will be forced to go back to the amazing company they were back in the early 2000's???

[ProwlingTiger]

Apple licensed the MacOS for several years during the mid-1990s. During that period Apple's market share was cut in half, Apple stated bleeding cash, and we came pretty close to losing both Apple and the Mac. Other than that, it was a great success.

Exactly, my fellow MR friend. Its good someone here realizes why we need Apple to win. I have almost NO doubt that they will lose. But...and I don't like to be conspiracist (sp), but what if Microsoft is funding Pystar? I'd question their money flow if they're standing up to Apple, a company with billions in excess cash lying around. They're a brave bunch and if I were Apple, I'd countersue after its ruled that Mac OS is tied to hardware. Countersue for all the sale money for each copy of Mac OS software they used.

[Wie Gehts]

Hey great! Maybe I can get a reasonably priced laptop WITH FIREWIRE!

Screw you Apple.

[ProwlingTiger]

Hey great! Maybe I can get a reasonably priced laptop WITH FIREWIRE!

Screw you Apple.

Again, if you don't buy a real Mac, Apple will go belly up and you will no longer have MAC OS.

[NoSmokingBandit]

If apple doesnt give the consumers what they want then they will eventually realize that we want competitively priced laptops. If circumstances get dire for apple and they are too stupid to realize that then they deserve to go under. Yeah, it will suck not having osx, but when a company refuses to give enough people what they want, it fails.

[PVguy]

"OS X is copyrighted by Apple. No one has a right to it except Apple. The EULA is a license to use Apple's software: without it, you have zero right."

Maybe, maybe not. What makes a sale a sale vs a license? In Vernor Vs Autodesk, the court ruled the software in question was sold, not licensed. If sold, it's like a book, the vendor's rights and obligations end at the sale.

Now most true licenses have an expiration date. Something like an annual renewal. If they are perpetual, they say so. Is there a promise by apple that they will support software X for some time after you buy it? So If I bought 10.3 now from some computer store that found a copy on their back shelf and tossed it in the discount bin, is Apple required to update all the security patches for one year after the purchase date? If it's a sale, no. If it's a license, then where is the support I just paid for?

But whatever makes it so, various courts have ruled in various ways about what sets a license off from a sale.

The Groklaw discussion points out that may be the real issue here. How much can a vendor limit your use of a product after selling it? Imagine if Sears licensed their tablesaw, and the condition was you could not use that saw to build any furniture that was in their catalog. In other words, the Tablesaw can only be used to build furniture not available in the current Sears catalog. A judge would laugh that one right out of the courtroom.

The line has gotten vague; The judge in Vernor pointed that out specifically. So perhaps it is time to hammer it out.

[motulist]

Again, if you don't buy a real Mac, Apple will go belly up and you will no longer have MAC OS.

Nope, sorry that's not how it works. If everyone starts buying non-Apple hardware to run OS X then Apple will change its hardware to better supply the needs that people are seeking elsewhere, and/or they will also start charging more for OS X and make their profit on the OS license sale rather than on the hardware. OS X is way way WAY too valuable an asset to Apple for them to just stop making it.

[powers74]

A couple months ago we were putting down new floors and my office was all over the house. We were finishing up for the day, and I was late for teaching at an after school program. I needed to print out a pile of stuff and my system was completely disassembled. In under 10 minutes I had slapped together my 10 yo tower, an even older 19in monitor, an external HDD, a printer (via network no less, so that included the router), printed out my documents and was out the door. Now this was not a million dollar appointment, but there is no way. No Way. I would trust anything other than a product off an apple shelf to perform like that. Every day I wake up knowing that I'm not going to have to see "The System does not recognize this monitor!", "New hardware found! Would you like to install drivers?" "Network printer not found!"

Hell yeah, I'll pay a premium for that! Yes. I like living in this cage, it's pretty effing nice.

To me it's not really about the legal stuff at all, I think someone would have to be nuts to buy something from Pyster in the first place. To me the problem with these guys is that their whole philosophy is cheaper is better, and while I don't claim to be the smartest guy, let alone a contract lawyer, I have been around long enough to know that usually you get what you pay for. I always do my research when buying, I know what I am getting and what I am getting into and I am rarely disappointed. That includes not letting some mildly retarded Apple employee push HP-POS1100 printers on me.

Oh, right, and damn, they look great on my desk.

[cheesymogul]

I have absolutely no problem with Psystar, Efix, OSX86 project et al. Come on, give it to them!

Any competition that will push Apple back on the right track is very welcome. I even hope that Windows 7 will be good enough to light a firewire under their lazy asses, so they have to produce real professional hardware again (like they still do with the MacPro).

I'm so sick and tired of these overpriced switcher toys with their crappy displays and crippled amateur ports, which deliver style only but not enough functionality!

[BaldiMac]

The judge is the Psystar case ruled that Apple made it clear to consumers that OS X was locked into Apple hardware. When did this go to trial? It is in court - but unless I am missing something, the case is still in the litigation stage and has yet to be decided or ruled on by a judge or jury.

The Judge rules on MOTIONS at this stage that can be used for defense and for the counter claim and those brought by Apple - but ruling against Pystar is not an endorsement of Apple. It was simply that Pystar did not meet the minimum burden for that motion or defense. The claims by Pystar could be brought again provided they meet the burden set forth by the law. I admit, I need to read up on the case a bit more but no official ruling has been handed down - and that I know.

Again - I am no lawyer but I am well read and versed on several things. I will contact my friend who is a contract lawyer and get his take on it. He would be the one to get a more informed answer.

Maybe I phrased that incorrectly. In his ruling to dismiss Psystar's counterclaims, the judge stated that Apple made it clear to consumers that OS X was locked into Apple hardware.

[BaldiMac]

I have absolutely no problem with Psystar, Efix, OSX86 project et al. Come on, give it to them!

Any competition that will push Apple back on the right track is very welcome. I even hope that Windows 7 will be good enough to light a firewire under their lazy asses, so they have to produce real professional hardware again (like they still do with the MacPro).

I'm so sick and tired of these overpriced switcher toys with their crappy displays and crippled amateur ports, which deliver style only but not enough functionality!

What "crippled amateur ports" are in Apple's professional hardware?

[Wie Gehts]

What "crippled amateur ports" are in Apple's professional hardware?

LOL....

Hey check out my new car. It did cost more than most and looks great, but it didn't come with a set of wheels and a transmission. For that, I'd have to pay alot more.

[ogbuke]

Systar is going down. :D

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac View Post
What "crippled amateur ports" are in Apple's professional hardware?LOL....

Hey check out my new car. It did cost more than most and looks great, but it didn't come with a set of wheels and a transmission. For that, I'd have to pay alot more.

Huh? What does that have to do with my question?

[Wie Gehts]

Huh? What does that have to do with my question?

It has to do with Apple range of options, as I assumed you were implying.

Overpriced, somewhat outdated hardware to begin with, then charging outrageous prices on top of that in order to even get something as ubiquitous and inexpensive as a bloody simple firewire port.

[ogbuke]

It has to do with Apple range of options, as I assumed you were implying.

Overpriced, somewhat outdated hardware to begin with, then charging outrageous prices on top of that in order to even get something as ubiquitous and inexpensive as a bloody simple firewire port.

No one is forcing you to buy their "overpriced outdated" hardware.

[synth3tik]

Again, if you don't buy a real Mac, Apple will go belly up and you will no longer have MAC OS.


Your correct. Apple has no cash on hand, and has set themselves up so that even the loss of 1 or 2 laptops could mean the end of Apple.:eek:

[Wie Gehts]

No one is forcing you to buy their "overpriced outdated" hardware.

Oh that's a fine solution. Go into your garage, shut the door, start your car and sit in it. No one is forcing you to breathe either!

[NoSmokingBandit]

No one is forcing you to buy their "overpriced outdated" hardware.

Which is why the osx86 project exists: To give people what they want since apple obviously isnt.

[Hugh]

Exactly, my fellow MR friend. Its good someone here realizes why we need Apple to win. I have almost NO doubt that they will lose. But...and I don't like to be conspiracist (sp), but what if Microsoft is funding Pystar? I'd question their money flow if they're standing up to Apple, a company with billions in excess cash lying around. They're a brave bunch and if I were Apple, I'd countersue after its ruled that Mac OS is tied to hardware. Countersue for all the sale money for each copy of Mac OS software they used.

They already doing that. They are countersuing Pystar to buy back all Open Computer they have sold.

Hugh

[BaldiMac]

It has to do with Apple range of options, as I assumed you were implying.

Overpriced, somewhat outdated hardware to begin with, then charging outrageous prices on top of that in order to even get something as ubiquitous and inexpensive as a bloody simple firewire port.

cheesymogul stated that Apple's pro machines contain "crippled amateur ports." I just asked what ports on Apple's pro hardware are crippled and/or amateur. I have no idea what your comments have to do with my question.

[greenmeanie]

After losing 250.00 in restocking fee's because I didn't want to live with a Yellow screen and keyboard skipping problem in my new MBP all I can say is put me down for a apple lappy clone too psystar!!

[Beric]

I would snap up a Psystar laptop. Apple support is useless to me when I have MR. All Apple support will do for me is repair problems that shouldn't exist in the first place.

I'd like to see both the 12-incher (think PB G4 12") and and full-sized truly performance-oriented machine. Two big whole in Apple's lineup. And, of course, a consumer laptop that is actually reasonable priced, like around $700.

[IJ Reilly]

Which is why Apple exists: To give people what they want since Microsoft obviously isnt.

Fixed that for you.

[Wie Gehts]

Apple, just stick with you iphone nonsense and sell off the OS and computer hardware to a company that'll supply the rest of us with a wide range of FULLY FUNCTIONAL computer systems.

[cheesymogul]

cheesymogul stated that Apple's pro machines contain "crippled amateur ports." I just asked what ports on Apple's pro hardware are crippled and/or amateur. I have no idea what your comments have to do with my question.

That's what I said:


I'm so sick and tired of these overpriced switcher toys with their crappy displays and crippled amateur ports, which deliver style only but not enough functionality!

I meant the new Macbook of course: Crappy display with a restricted vertical viewing angle like 10 years ago. No FW, only slomo USB 2.0.
From a 1300 $ notebook I would expect at least a mediocre display and FW400 (FW800 would be perfect), or PC express to fix the problem with a card.
Without these features the damn thing is worth $800 max.

When Lenovo (ex IBM) is able to cram a PC express slot into their $400 S10 netbook, this should be a piece of cake to add into a frickin' $1300 13incher for Christ's sake!
We certainly get amateur hardware for pro prices!

The "Pro" line starts at 15" and might have useable connections, but the display is still far from ideal. No matte options for creative professionals who depend on this feature. Ergo for some people even Macbook Pros are only semi-pro.
The only model that still deserves the Pro label would be the 17". But not for long, in January 09 we'll get the glossy disaster too...

And for those who need a small footprint (12/13") pro notebook, there is absolutely nothing in sight.

[NoSmokingBandit]

Fixed that for you.

MS gives me what i want. An OS that works on whatever hardware i feel like buying that day. Apple wouldnt have a problem if their hardware were competitive with the rest of the market. I know the fanboys practically worship apple's exorbitantly prices laptops, but the truth is that pretty much every other hardware manufacturer has lower prices and better performance. Therefore we have osx86, so we arent stuck using overpriced computers.

[IJ Reilly]

MS gives me what i want. An OS that works on whatever hardware i feel like buying that day. Apple wouldnt have a problem if their hardware were competitive with the rest of the market. I know the fanboys practically worship apple's exorbitantly prices laptops, but the truth is that pretty much every other hardware manufacturer has lower prices and better performance. Therefore we have osx86, so we arent stuck using overpriced computers.

Apple gives me what I want. Funny how that works.

[NoSmokingBandit]

Then you can be happy buying overpriced hardware while those who dont can use osx86. I guess after you spend so much time on a mac you get used to Apple making all the choices for you.

[BaldiMac]

MS gives me what i want. An OS that works on whatever hardware i feel like buying that day. Apple wouldnt have a problem if their hardware were competitive with the rest of the market. I know the fanboys practically worship apple's exorbitantly prices laptops,

If Microsoft gives you what you want, why use OS X at all?

but the truth is that pretty much every other hardware manufacturer has lower prices and better performance.

But they don't have OS X, which you obviously value.

Therefore we have osx86, so we arent stuck using overpriced computers.

What a wonderful justification to take what does not belong to you. :rolleyes: What gives you the right to use an unlicensed version of OS X, just because you think it is too expensive to obtain it legally? We're not talking about food here!

[TechHistorian]

Then you can be happy buying overpriced hardware while those who dont can use osx86. I guess after you spend so much time on a mac you get used to Apple making all the choices for you.

And why should that be different from any other mass consumer market? Ford doesn't offer a wide variety of choices for its cars (most models offer a choice between, at most, two engines). Nor does Honda. Yes, there are enthusiasts who want to tinker with what comes stock and get more HP out of their ride. Same with computers. But most consumers are content to simply buy and then use what they bought. There's not a large aftermarket for refrigerator accessories, after all. This was Jobs' vision of the Mac twenty-five years ago, and it has not changed all that much since then. And Apple really seems to have captured the "appliance" market what with its visual style and its ease of use. There's a reason Linux is used mostly by enthusiasts and Windows and OS X are used by the masses ... most people just want to use their machine, not tinker with it.

[ogbuke]

MS gives me what i want. An OS that works on whatever hardware i feel like buying that day. Apple wouldnt have a problem if their hardware were competitive with the rest of the market. I know the fanboys practically worship apple's exorbitantly prices laptops, but the truth is that pretty much every other hardware manufacturer has lower prices and better performance. Therefore we have osx86, so we arent stuck using overpriced computers.
If Microsoft gives you what you want, what are you doing on a board about Apple and OSX? :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

Then you can be happy buying overpriced hardware while those who dont can use osx86. I guess after you spend so much time on a mac you get used to Apple making all the choices for you.

Only in your opinion. If a company sells a product you like at a price you are willing to pay, it is not overpriced, by definition. If you dislike either the product or the price, or both, your option it to not buy it.

If Microsoft gives you what you want, what are you doing on a board about Apple and OSX? :rolleyes:

Now, isn't that the real question?

[NoSmokingBandit]

If Microsoft gives you what you want, why use OS X at all?



But they don't have OS X, which you obviously value.



What a wonderful justification to take what does not belong to you. :rolleyes: What gives you the right to use an unlicensed version of OS X, just because you think it is too expensive to obtain it legally? We're not talking about food here!
Who says i didnt pay for a license of osx? Thats a bit presumptuous of you now isnt it?

If Microsoft gives you what you want, what are you doing on a board about Apple and OSX? :rolleyes:
You guys are funny. Well, all fanboys are, but im bored so ill entertain your questions.

There are several reasons i use osx (or more specifically osx86):
• It is always a good idea to familiarize oneself with various operating systems. I am by no means a guru, but i can confidently operate in windows, os x, and various popular linux distros.
• Im kind of a nerd, so when i heard that i could get osx running on a pc i joined the party.
• Im a musician and nothing is as easy as Garageband at arranging pieces. Honestly, GB is the only mac-specific program i use. Everything else has a windows version.
• Theres a certain 'cool-factor' about running osx on a pc. Granted, its equally a 'nerd-factor' but its better than the stigma of arrogance mac users get stamped on their forehead due to idiot college kids who buy a mac because it looks cool or all their friends have one or 'it leik has no virusezzzz!!!!11337"

On another note, im glad to see how kind the 'apple community' is when someone criticizes their precious gifts from the god that is Steve Jobs. I guess you have to defend spending 2x as much on a mac as you would on a pc somehow, right?

[IJ Reilly]

One thing I've learned from forums like this, is when someone uses the term "fanboy" it means they really haven't got any argument at all.

[NoSmokingBandit]

Or it means that one is arguing with fanboys. Funny how that works, eh?

[BaldiMac]

Who says i didnt pay for a license of osx? Thats a bit presumptuous of you now isnt it?

Apple doesn't sell a license that is valid on non-Apple hardware.

[IJ Reilly]

Or it means that one is arguing with fanboys. Funny how that works, eh?

Nope, the use of insults means you have no argument. Always has.

[czachorski]

Im a musician and nothing is as easy as Garageband at arranging pieces. Honestly, GB is the only mac-specific program i use. Everything else has a windows version.

Does everything else have a Windows version that comes with the computer? That 2x price advantage evaporates quickly when you account for the"everything else" costs.

[VoR]

To join in on this page of mostly useless comments, I'd like to add and say that I think it's a fair bit easier to get the best written apps for free on the windows platform.

[Sun Baked]

Well, the leave to amend the complaint has been granted yesterday, with what looks like an extension for Psystar to respond.

The judge signed Apple's Proposed Order Granting Apple the leave to make the changes and vacated the Jan 8th court date for the hearing about Apple's proposal.

---

Should be interesting to see what Psystar's response will be to the changed complaint. http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6694&stc=1