Apple Suggests Possible Conspiracy Behind Psystar [Archive]

MacRumors

Dec 3, 2008, 07:19 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/03/apple-suggests-possible-conspiracy-behind-psystar/)

Groklaw.net reports (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081202230318899) on the most recent legal filings from the Apple vs Psystar lawsuit which suggests that there may be unnamed individuals or corporations behind Psystar:But here's the big news. Apple alleges that it believes there are corporations and/or individuals behind Psystar, who may be added as defendants once Apple in discovery finds out who they are. Woah.
....
So, Apple apparently believes that somebody else is behind Psystar, which might help to explain why a major law firm would take on what seems like a fly-by-night's case; also why Psystar has been so bold in continuing to sell its products. I knew this thing felt funny. As Alice in Wonderland might put it, "It gets interestinger and interestinger.” The author suggests that Psystar's bold defense and ongoing sale of their Mac clones seems out of line with the small company's stature. Apple is reserving the right to add additional defendants to the case should their identities be discovered.

Psystar made headlines earlier this year when they began selling Mac OS X compatible PCs. Apple has since filed a lawsuit accusing them of copyright infringement and DMCA violations.

Article Link: Apple Suggests Possible Conspiracy Behind Psystar (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/03/apple-suggests-possible-conspiracy-behind-psystar/)

xDYLANx

Dec 3, 2008, 07:22 PM

i dont understand why this is an issue. OS X is a registered trademark of Apple. Psystar should get shut down. Simple as that...

11800506

Dec 3, 2008, 07:23 PM

Strangely enough, that actually might be possible. Any regular startup would have gone under ages ago, so the fact that Apple is suggesting this actually makes more sense of Psystar.

PlaceofDis

Dec 3, 2008, 07:24 PM

interesting development and almost makes sense. still wondering how all of this will pan out in the end.

majidf

Dec 3, 2008, 07:24 PM

Oh my, oh my what does'nt a healthy dose a day of paranoia do for you =)

Anyway, who would want to buy unsupported hardware anyway?

EricNau

Dec 3, 2008, 07:25 PM

I'm never a fan of conspiracy theories, but this is interesting nonetheless.

Axemantitan

Dec 3, 2008, 07:25 PM

I think that this guy looks awfully suspicious:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Bill_Gates_mugshot.png

Do you think that he might have had something to do with it? :D

LloydBraun89

Dec 3, 2008, 07:26 PM

isn't everything a conspiracy...

Kilamite

Dec 3, 2008, 07:26 PM

Interesting.

Might make me take more interest in this case than I have been..

Sirobin

Dec 3, 2008, 07:27 PM

I've always thought there was something suspicious about Psystar...this is really interesting if true.

SydneyDev

Dec 3, 2008, 07:28 PM

I think Alice said "curiouser and curiouser," not "interestinger and interestinger." Lol.

jbernie

Dec 3, 2008, 07:29 PM

macadmiral

Dec 3, 2008, 07:29 PM

I think that this guy looks awfully suspicious:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Bill_Gates_mugshot.png

Do you think that he might have had something to do with it? :D

yes! psystar directly funded by el gates!!! I love it. I hope they win

plumbingandtech

Dec 3, 2008, 07:30 PM

Very strange and out there...

but who knows?

Stranger things have happened.

My money is on a Dell / Taiwan Manufactor / Reverse Vampires / RAND Consortium

Chaszmyr

Dec 3, 2008, 07:32 PM

ezekielrage_99

Dec 3, 2008, 07:32 PM

I think Alice said "curiouser and curiouser," not "interestinger and interestinger." Lol.

It was... Kind of funny when people misquote books.

My money is on the RAND Corporation in conjunction with the saucer people and reverse vampire... It make perfect sense.

Frisco

Dec 3, 2008, 07:32 PM

jbernie

Dec 3, 2008, 07:32 PM

The author suggests that Psystar's bold defense and ongoing sale of their Mac clones seems out of line with the small company's stature. Apple is reserving the right to add additional defendants to the case should their identities be discovered.

Take off the shelf cheap freely available pc parts
Add an Operating System
Have a smart person figure out how to do the updates
Pay a hosting company a small amount of money for updates
Sell said system
Hopefully profit.

That was difficult now wasn't it. Given the volume of sales it isn't like they need a massive amount of bandwidth etc for hosting their updates.

Harpo

Dec 3, 2008, 07:33 PM

I think Alice said "curiouser and curiouser," not "interestinger and interestinger." Lol.

YES, she did.

rdowns

Dec 3, 2008, 07:33 PM

I buy the fact that someone is behind this. Who it is, I have no idea.

LagunaSol

Dec 3, 2008, 07:35 PM

...I smell Ballmer.

137489

Dec 3, 2008, 07:35 PM

Well, kinda figured there was more to the story. A no name company from out of nowhere suddenly has the guts to stand up to a multi-billion dollar corporation and its team of lawyers. and you know Apple has there lawyers on retainer, so they can drag Psyster through the mud and take as long as they want - otherwise Psyster would have given up, due to cost a long time ago (I mean they cannot be selling that many machines to be making money - any sales figures anyone?).

I would laugh if it was some big name company like Dell, IBM, etc. After all, IBM was looking at Apples, and Dell really wanted to sell OS X machines bad *and last look Dell's stock was not going that great.

Dell Inc. Dell Inc. NASDAQ DELL 10.55

Of course Apple is not so great right now with the market issues, but I saw Dell drop below $10 recently.

xDYLANx

Dec 3, 2008, 07:35 PM

Makes a lot of sense to me. The profits Psystar (as an independent small company) stands to make if it wins the lawsuits probably aren't all that huge, compared to the hassle of a legal battle with Apple. However, other companies could benefit hugely if Psystar won, like Dell who could start selling OSX PCs, for example.

That would be a disaster. There's no way they can win. Mac users like us will still stick with Apple obviously. This will hurt Apple's market share and credibility. The more people than use the OS X platform, the more idiots are gonna want to program viruses.

plumbingandtech

Dec 3, 2008, 07:35 PM

Common Apple just license your OS already. I know so many people that want OS X, but just can't afford/justify the Apple tax.

Yeah Yeah I remember the Apple clones of the 90s, but this is a different age and time.

Please provide them with a business plan that supports your theory AND shows they would make MORE money then they do today.

Wait. Never mind, years of postings on this forum have shown why this would not work.

rpaloalto

Dec 3, 2008, 07:35 PM

I'll bet its monkey boy Steve Ballmer, who has is fat paw in this. I knew this smelled funny:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc

alphaod

Dec 3, 2008, 07:35 PM

Everything is a conspiracy. :p

Kilamite

Dec 3, 2008, 07:36 PM

It could be that darn company Mapple.

I'm sure Pystar and Mapple are relatable somehow :eek:

mkelly

Dec 3, 2008, 07:37 PM

Common Apple just license your OS already. I know so many people that want OS X, but just can't afford/justify the Apple tax.

And I want the guts of a Ferrari in my Toyota. It certainly doesn't cost the premium that Ferrari charges to actually make those engines and components ... why won't Ferrari just open up and license their technology?

It's just not fair! ;)

Airforcekid

Dec 3, 2008, 07:37 PM

:apple:I doubt they would do something this stupid because they know they would be caught but it would be sweet!:apple:

SydneyDev

Dec 3, 2008, 07:40 PM

Not Microsoft - a hardware company that wants a choice other than Windows. Dell maybe.

I just don't know - I am very weary of conspiracy theories without proof.

MrCrowbar

Dec 3, 2008, 07:41 PM

Interesting.

Might make me take more interest in this case than I have been..

Agreed. This is better than TV! Conspiracies are fun. I'd love to see Steve Jobs at the end of the keynote, at the "one more thing" going "What the hell, Psystar? Seriously?" showing screenshots of their web store.

Maybe this whole thing will lead to more upgradable Macs. I mean, you can easily swap out the hard drive and RAM on all the laptops, but god forbid if you want to exchange the dead hard drive on your iMac or Mac Mini. I'd love to be able to loosen a few screws to swap out the hard drive and RAM on my Mac Mini. I'd feel bad tossing away (selling on eBay) a perfectly fine computer, just because the hard drive wore off.

zap2

Dec 3, 2008, 07:42 PM

haha, wow!!!

but this might explain why Psystar had like 3 different "locations" on their web site when they first "started up"

For who could be hide it, I'd guess not MS, why would MS want Dell, HP being about to get OS X to pre installed?, but I can certainly see why Dell, HP, etc would want it

theheyes

Dec 3, 2008, 07:42 PM

Since day one I've always thought the people behind Psystar must have balls like baked potatoes to do what they're doing.

Like someone else commented, it kind of makes more sense in this light.

Mitch1984

Dec 3, 2008, 07:43 PM

I did wonder this, I also thought that Amazons cheap UK music store launch might have been funded by records labels wishing for someone to put and end to Apple's control on the legit download market.

fleshman03

Dec 3, 2008, 07:43 PM

I think Alice said "curiouser and curiouser," not "interestinger and interestinger." Lol.

I was wondering about that. Read it like three times and didn't think it sounded quite right.

Very strange and out there...

but who knows?

My money is on a Dell / Taiwan Manufactor / Reverse Vampires / RAND Consortium

HP/Dell/Acer. All of them would love to run OSX on their hardware.

MrCrowbar

Dec 3, 2008, 07:45 PM

It could be that darn company Mapple.

I'm sure Pystar and Mapple are relatable somehow :eek:

I heard about that company, it was even on TV!
(This week's Simpson's Episode was hilarious :D )

ezekielrage_99

Dec 3, 2008, 07:45 PM

...I smell Ballmer.

A pig? bacon? pork?

ChrisA

Dec 3, 2008, 07:46 PM

i dont understand why this is an issue. OS X is a registered trademark of Apple. Psystar should get shut down. Simple as that...

I don't think Psystar is mis-using Apple's tradmark. Apple is not claiming they are.

I have written here many times that I'm absolutely sure it was Psystar's intent from day one to let Apple sue them. They were just baiting Apple. Why? It's a gamble. and a not so good gamble for Apple. Apple is the only one who has anything to loose. Psystar has nothing to loose, no assets. But if they win they win big. Why not take a gamble if there is nothing to loose?

Psystar's goal is NOT to make money by selling cheap PCs at near cost. No what they want is a win in court that would alow them to sell clones. Owning that would make the company very valuable and they could then sell the company (with it's judgment) to Dell, Compaq or whoever.

Rorikynn

Dec 3, 2008, 07:47 PM

pastry is an anagram of pystar...and steve ballmer likes pastries. Coincidence? I think not.

jahsavi

Dec 3, 2008, 07:48 PM

Makes a lot of sense to me. The profits Psystar (as an independent small company) stands to make if it wins the lawsuits probably aren't all that huge, compared to the hassle of a legal battle with Apple. However, other companies could benefit hugely if Psystar won, like Dell who could start selling OSX PCs, for example.

I could care less about PC's that run OSX..

..but I think your right about other companies backing Psystar and using them as the "meat shield" lol.

NiroNavro

Dec 3, 2008, 07:49 PM

Tehe, oh Apple you slay me.

150hp

Dec 3, 2008, 07:49 PM

Maybe its Woz?:D

Tosser

Dec 3, 2008, 07:49 PM

I am not taking this at face value. On the contrary, I think this is pure rhetorical persuasion of the "masses". It's sounds more like a tactical game played by Apple.
Yes, of course, it's tough luck for Apple that Psystar didn't crumble at the mere mention of Apple's lawyer team, and obviously psystar have ressources, but from a communications point-of-view, this is exactly what I would do to try to make Apple look LESS like the huge corporation they are, trying to bully the little upstart. By saying Psystar is back by some other corporation - no, perhaps by multiple corporations - they seem to be trying to put themselves in the position of the "little computer company" they used to be in the public eye.

In other words: This seems more like damage control (i.e. regarding their image).

Chaszmyr

Dec 3, 2008, 07:50 PM

For all of you saying not Microsoft, consider this:

Maybe Microsoft thinks that other companies selling OSX will take money out of Apple's pocket, ultimately weakening Apple and undermining the platform.

Di9it8

Dec 3, 2008, 07:51 PM

A pig? bacon? pork?
I think that Pastry has got something to do with it.
The whole thing is an apple pie;)

drakeshipway

Dec 3, 2008, 07:52 PM

obviously the 300M ad campaign didn't work out,
so this is plan b) sell mac os x illegally :) well done boys.

dohardthings

Dec 3, 2008, 07:52 PM

even if Psystar won apple could go around it because they would have to sell their OS (they would never be forced to give it away) therefore they could sell their OS for say $1000 and then do complimentary knock say 900 dollars off of the hardware price for purchasing the OS so apple wins regardless they will win the actual legal battle however so if they play dirty we play dirty

itcheroni

Dec 3, 2008, 07:53 PM

Maybe the lawyers think they can get lots of $$$ from Apple somehow, with $25 billion or so in the bank they are an attractive target, even if the lawyers only get 10% of a few hundred million it is an attractive settlement opportunity.

Not saying Apple/Psystar are right/wrong, but gees, lawyers don't need much encouragement if $$$ are in the offing.

No sane lawyer would take this case on contingency. They're getting paid per hour.

And isn't it normal for large corporations to set up lawsuits through puppet entities? I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, just how things work in corporate law.

pmoeser

Dec 3, 2008, 07:54 PM

...I smell Ballmer.

I'm backing Michael "sell it off and give the money back" Dell

zap2

Dec 3, 2008, 07:54 PM

Owning that would make the company very valuable and they could then sell the company (with it's judgment) to Dell, Compaq or whoever.

But if a company from basically no where can sell OS X on machines, then so could Dell, HP, etc...so if this theory that Apple seems to have is true, it makes sense for a big name to challenge Apple through a start up vs through a company that has stuff to loose

itcheroni

Dec 3, 2008, 07:55 PM

SwiftLives

Dec 3, 2008, 07:55 PM

I suspect Microsoft doesn't fear Apple as much as it fears Google.

My money is on a Chinese corporation. Just because they're fun to blame things on. And they like to put melamine in things.

albusseverus

Dec 3, 2008, 07:56 PM

grue

Dec 3, 2008, 07:57 PM

Common Apple just license your OS already. I know so many people that want OS X, but just can't afford/justify the Apple tax.

Yeah Yeah I remember the Apple clones of the 90s, but this is a different age and time.

Apple is a HARDWARE company. OS X exists to sell Macs. If Apple licenses OS X, the price of the OS will go up EXPONENTIALLY.

grue

Dec 3, 2008, 07:59 PM

That would be a disaster. There's no way they can win. Mac users like us will still stick with Apple obviously. This will hurt Apple's market share and credibility. The more people than use the OS X platform, the more idiots are gonna want to program viruses.

Don't count on it. I've been a Mac user for over 2 decades and I'm completely disgusted with them of late. There is ONE machine in the lineup that I think is anywhere worth buying, and that's the Mac Pro. If someone else offered an OS X-running midtower or a portable that doesn't suck (seeing as Apple doesn't make any, in my opinion), I'd be all over it.

xDYLANx

Dec 3, 2008, 07:59 PM

Don't count on it. I've been a Mac user for over 2 decades and I'm completely disgusted with them of late. There is ONE machine in the lineup that I think is anywhere worth buying, and that's the Mac Pro. If someone else offered an OS X-running midtower or a portable that doesn't suck (seeing as Apple doesn't make any, in my opinion), I'd be all over it.

whats so bad about macs these days?

termite

Dec 3, 2008, 08:01 PM

I have written here many times that I'm absolutely sure it was Psystar's intent from day one to let Apple sue them. They were just baiting Apple. Why? It's a gamble. and a not so good gamble for Apple. Apple is the only one who has anything to loose. Psystar has nothing to loose, no assets. But if they win they win big. Why not take a gamble if there is nothing to loose?

First, DMCA is now in play. Psystar are now looking jail time in the face. No way is this risk worth it.

Second, Psystar's lawyers are big time. There is no way a puny startup can afford them. And why is Psystar continuing to provoke Apple with new products while this remains unresolved?

Third, Psystar's absurd arguments about monopoly and constitutionality are very familiar to people who read Groklaw. There are a suspicious number of people buzzing around Linux who espouse the same ridiculous arguments and seem to me motivated beyond what their visible funding should allow.

A conspiracy seems very likely to me. I expect this to lead to Microsoft before we're done.

dohardthings

Dec 3, 2008, 08:01 PM

Then no one could afford to upgrade. And by "we" do you consider yourself part of Apple?

"if you are upgrading from a previous version the upgrade is only "$99" we=apple community but my dad does work at an apple retail store

grue

Dec 3, 2008, 08:02 PM

whats so bad about macs these days?

They're great if you want something shiny.

Personally, I want a small notebook: Apple doesn't make any.

I'd also like to complement my Mac Pro with a midtower: Apple doesn't make any.

jbernie

Dec 3, 2008, 08:03 PM

pastry is an anagram of pystar...and steve ballmer likes pastries. Coincidence? I think not.

Close... so close.... but unfortunately it is pSystar and not pystar, but you could go with pastrys even if it is bad spelling.

No sane lawyer would take this case on contingency. They're getting paid per hour.

And isn't it normal for large corporations to set up lawsuits through puppet entities? I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, just how things work in corporate law.

No sane large company (in this case Microsoft, Dell, IBM, Acer etc) would want to get caught with their fingers in the pie as once that link is made they expose themselves to lawsuit(s) that could be quite costly.

termite

Dec 3, 2008, 08:03 PM

The EULA is going to be declared invalid in court, and everyone is going to get their Mac netbook !

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.

So the end of the EULA does not mean Apple's OS suddenly becomes available. Quite the opposite.

rented mule

Dec 3, 2008, 08:03 PM

Someone at AppleInsider called it. I don't remember who it was but someone had a hunch some bigger companies were behind this to test the waters.

guitarman777

Dec 3, 2008, 08:04 PM

xDYLANx

Dec 3, 2008, 08:05 PM

They're great if you want something shiny.

Personally, I want a small notebook: Apple doesn't make any.

I'd also like to complement my Mac Pro with a midtower: Apple doesn't make any.

okay, i'll give you those points. i really do miss the 12" powerbook, and i wish i could just cut off the ends of my MB. And the midtower thing isnt too much of a concern to me, the iMac seems suitable for that. Although i do understand where you are coming from.

grue

Dec 3, 2008, 08:07 PM

okay, i'll give you those points. i really do miss the 12" powerbook, and i wish i could just cut off the ends of my MB. And the midtower thing isnt too much of a concern to me, the iMac seems suitable for that. Although i do understand where you are coming from.

Yeah, I'm still using a 12" 1.33Ghz PowerBook because I refuse to buy any of the current stuff. Anything bigger than the absolute minimum size that'll accommodate a full-sized keyboard is too big.

I don't -need- the midtower, seeing as I have the Mac Pro, but I just loathe the iMac because of the glossy display and utter lack of real-world upgrade options.

dohardthings

Dec 3, 2008, 08:07 PM

SPUY767

Dec 3, 2008, 08:07 PM

Think about it, a company like Dell sets up this little puppet outfit Psystar in order to try and bring up a court case in which a ruling forcing Apple to license its OS to run on non Apple hardware. Dell can't bring up this lawsuit itself, no sympathy for an ******* like Michael Dell who once said that Apple should be sold and the money given to the shareholders, but you set up a fallacious David vs. Goliath story, and you've certainly got more of a chance.

xDYLANx

Dec 3, 2008, 08:10 PM

Yeah, I'm still using a 12" 1.33Ghz PowerBook because I refuse to buy any of the current stuff. Anything bigger than the absolute minimum size that'll accommodate a full-sized keyboard is too big.

I don't -need- the midtower, seeing as I have the Mac Pro, but I just loathe the iMac because of the glossy display and utter lack of real-world upgrade options.

i assume you do a lot of editing because of your distaste for glossy. i myself have no problem with glossy, my display is glossy so...

grue

Dec 3, 2008, 08:10 PM

i thought we liked apple because they didn't waste their time with 88 designs

Speak for yourself.

I can understand them not making a midtower, it's really not right for Apple's general target market.

However, their portable line is a joke. There is nothing small in the lineup. I'm not saying they need to make everything for everyone, but they don't offer a single small portable. They offer a bunch of medium sized ones, a couple of large ones, and a huge one.

Dejavu

Dec 3, 2008, 08:10 PM

Wow. This is bigger than I thought. :eek: :eek:

It will be a clustercluck of a story if true. In this case, I really hope Apple wins!

grue

Dec 3, 2008, 08:11 PM

i assume you do a lot of editing because of your distaste for glossy. i myself have no problem with glossy, my display is glossy so...

Both true and false.

True, because I do a lot of editing.

False, because I just hate glossy displays. The only place I want mirrors are in my bathroom and on my car.

SnowLeopard2008

Dec 3, 2008, 08:11 PM

Common Apple just license your OS already. I know so many people that want OS X, but just can't afford/justify the Apple tax.

Yeah Yeah I remember the Apple clones of the 90s, but this is a different age and time.

There is less and less "apple tax" as of today. Go look at Dell's and HP's and probably even Sony's AIOs (we'll get to desktop towers in a moment). Unless you spend about $1,700, you will not even get a dedicated graphics chip. Doesn't matter how powerful Intel's GMA 4500 series are, they will never rival a dedicated ATI or nVidia chip, not even ones that are a few years old. Again, this is for the same price point... not a explanation of a price gap.

Laptops are pretty much the same. Dell's Studio line of notebooks used Intel chips. MacBooks use the nVidia (still integrate I know,) but much more powerful than the latest Intel chips. Same stuff with HP and Sony. Lenovo is no different, most of their computers these days use whimpy Intel graphics vs. the same price point on the MacBook and a better chip.

Towers are were Apple needs a little explaining to do. But still, the same hardware on the Mac Pro is nearly that much money for a PC spec'd alike.

Again, this is only from the graphics chip point of view, I know Dell has a XPS line with dedicated graphics, but the price point... I know HP has lightscribe (who uses it?!?) and Sony has blu-ray (I know other companies have blu-ray but Sony is the most prominent). I haven't mentioned the corner to corner glass bevel of the MacBook vs. some cheapo and last generation plastic housing. Macs are also much more aesthetically pleasing and made of aluminum, which helps vent heat and is much stronger than any plastic out there. The ability to run multiple OS together (Fusion and Parallels) as well as Boot Camp make Macs a much better competition against PCs as of today. I didn't even go on about the iLife suite you get with a Mac, and no need for AV software. That alone would cover an "apple tax". BSoDs make it worth more..

xDYLANx

Dec 3, 2008, 08:12 PM

Both true and false.

True, because I do a lot of editing.

False, because I just hate glossy displays. The only place I want mirrors are in my bathroom and on my car.

lol, fair enough. i agree with you that anything bigger than 12" (or 13" IMO) is unnecessary.

SnowLeopard2008

Dec 3, 2008, 08:14 PM

grue

Dec 3, 2008, 08:15 PM

lol, fair enough. i agree with you that anything bigger than 12" (or 13" IMO) is unnecessary.

Realistically, with a widescreen display, I'd only need 10 or 11 inches diagonally to get a full sized keyboard. Actually, I'm going to do the math and figure it out now :D

SPUY767

Dec 3, 2008, 08:15 PM

There is less and less "apple tax" as of today. Go look at Dell's and HP's and probably even Sony's AIOs (we'll get to desktop towers in a moment). Unless you spend about $1,700, you will not even get a dedicated graphics chip. Doesn't matter how powerful Intel's GMA 4500 series are, they will never rival a dedicated ATI or nVidia chip, not even ones that are a few years old. Again, this is for the same price point... not a explanation of a price gap.

Laptops are pretty much the same. Dell's Studio line of notebooks used Intel chips. MacBooks use the nVidia (still integrate I know,) but much more powerful than the latest Intel chips. Same stuff with HP and Sony. Lenovo is no different, most of their computers these days use whimpy Intel graphics vs. the same price point on the MacBook and a better chip.

Towers are were Apple needs a little explaining to do. But still, the same hardware on the Mac Pro is nearly that much money for a PC spec'd alike.

Again, this is only from the graphics chip point of view, I know Dell has a XPS line with dedicated graphics, but the price point... I know HP has lightscribe (who uses it?!?) and Sony has blu-ray (I know other companies have blu-ray but Sony is the most prominent). I haven't mentioned the corner to corner glass bevel of the MacBook vs. some cheapo and last generation plastic housing. Macs are also much more aesthetically pleasing and made of aluminum, which helps vent heat and is much stronger than any plastic out there. The ability to run multiple OS together (Fusion and Parallels) as well as Boot Camp make Macs a much better competition against PCs as of today.

Do a feature comparable match up of any Apple to any Dell/HP/Sony/Lenovo, and the price difference is a total fabrication. (Excluding the Mac Mini) Dell will charge you almost four grand for a Server grade chassis which is scarcely more powerful than the first Mac Pro I bought for $3200.00. . . in 2006.

Last time I checked, Dell makes great looking computers with last generation ideas for hardware type. In other words, crap hardware.

It's a hypopthetical.

funnyent

Dec 3, 2008, 08:15 PM

so thats why bill gates retired from microsoft... ;)

dohardthings

Dec 3, 2008, 08:15 PM

There is less and less "apple tax" as of today. Go look at Dell's and HP's and probably even Sony's AIOs (we'll get to desktop towers in a moment). Unless you spend about $1,700, you will not even get a dedicated graphics chip. Doesn't matter how powerful Intel's GMA 4500 series are, they will never rival a dedicated ATI or nVidia chip, not even ones that are a few years old. Again, this is for the same price point... not a explanation of a price gap.

Laptops are pretty much the same. Dell's Studio line of notebooks used Intel chips. MacBooks use the nVidia (still integrate I know,) but much more powerful than the latest Intel chips. Same stuff with HP and Sony. Lenovo is no different, most of their computers these days use whimpy Intel graphics vs. the same price point on the MacBook and a better chip.

Towers are were Apple needs a little explaining to do. But still, the same hardware on the Mac Pro is nearly that much money for a PC spec'd alike.

Again, this is only from the graphics chip point of view, I know Dell has a XPS line with dedicated graphics, but the price point... I know HP has lightscribe (who uses it?!?) and Sony has blu-ray (I know other companies have blu-ray but Sony is the most prominent). I haven't mentioned the corner to corner glass bevel of the MacBook vs. some cheapo and last generation plastic housing. Macs are also much more aesthetically pleasing and made of aluminum, which helps vent heat and is much stronger than any plastic out there. The ability to run multiple OS together (Fusion and Parallels) as well as Boot Camp make Macs a much better competition against PCs as of today.

agree with you wouldn't mind a smaller brother to the mac pro to replace the mini that way you don't have to start at i think it is 2800 to buy a computer that you can have grow with you and the computer world

dohardthings

Dec 3, 2008, 08:17 PM

"Last time I checked, Dell makes great looking computers with last generation ideas for hardware type. In other words, crap hardware."

dell's are UGLY:D

reevans

Dec 3, 2008, 08:18 PM

As a person who is setting up a new business, I know that unless you have very deep pockets and an IQ of room temperature, you could never start up a company and sustain it like Psystar has. That is, unless you have some backers who have very deep pockets and something else to gain.

At first, I thought it might be Apple who was behind it and was part of their skunk works to test the market for cheaper clones. That doesn't seem to be the case now and I think that it could well be another Steve (or Bill) who is behind it by funding this unbelievable company.

macall75

Dec 3, 2008, 08:19 PM

so how come microsoft dont sue apple for using windows on there machines???

grue

Dec 3, 2008, 08:21 PM

An 11.3" widescreen display could make a notebook the same width as the 12.1" PowerBook, if my math is right

Mousse

Dec 3, 2008, 08:21 PM

So when will Michael Moore make a movie about this?:p Unlike his other movie, this one at least seems like a plausible conspiracy theory.

koobcamuk

Dec 3, 2008, 08:23 PM

This is interesting. I wonder where this case will go...

bdkennedy1

Dec 3, 2008, 08:23 PM

Michael Dell

grue

Dec 3, 2008, 08:23 PM

so how come microsoft dont sue apple for using windows on there machines???
Because Microsoft's license allows you to install on any damned thing you please.

termite

Dec 3, 2008, 08:25 PM

so how come microsoft dont sue apple for using windows on there machines???

Because Microsoft's license does not specify what type of computer must be used. So no license issue arises.

Also, Microsoft IS a monopoly in the Operating System industry (as determined by the Federal Courts) and could get in big trouble if they tried to ban use on Apple's machines.

dohardthings

Dec 3, 2008, 08:27 PM

So when will Michael Moore make a movie about this?:p Unlike his other movie, this one at least seems like a plausible conspiracy theory.

if he made a movie about it he would go and have the owners of Psystar sit down and act like nobody's whining that they couldn't afford to buy real macs and buy their food so they have to have Psysar or starve till they save money for macs cause their boss won't let the use a pc:)

swingerofbirch

Dec 3, 2008, 08:28 PM

I don't mind seeing Apple squirm a bit. I've begun to feel resentful of their increasing complacency as their popularity grows. Feels like the 90s all over again.

What was the last innovative product Apple came out with? I would argue the iPod touch.

They haven't done anything interesting with Macs for years. The first iBook was interesting in that it had WiFi. Apple made things like WiFi and Ethernet and FireWire standard on all their products. Now they're taking away FireWire, and not adding anything interesting like built in 3G or GPS to their computers. I have personally found Leopard to be buggy (not as much as when it came out, but still.....), and Snow Leopard promises to be a fix for what ails Leopard which is nice but that's a ways off.....

Remember the days of the gorgeous Indigo iMacs? Comes in colors everywhere, she's like a rainbow! Think Different! Now Apple is painfully minimalist, austere and mass market.

Maybe I'm just a sucker for an underdog and need a new one to root for.

OK, I know I'm being a bit pissy, I have other reasons I am upset with Apple right now I can't discuss....yet.

miiles

Dec 3, 2008, 08:29 PM

This totally makes sense.

Tymmz

Dec 3, 2008, 08:30 PM

this is more interesting than any upcoming hardware rumours.

alexbates

Dec 3, 2008, 08:30 PM

...I smell Ballmer.

Ballmer!!!

He has to be a part of Pystar in some way. I'm sure he's been trying everything he can in the last couple of years to run Mac on Windows. Now that Pystar has come into play, I'm sure he has some ideas.

If Pystar wins this, Apple is doomed. Since Apple has succeeded because of Mac OS X and not hardware, Microsoft could get OSX running on a Dell. That would for sure be the end of Apple.

Come on Apple! The only computer that has the right to run OSX is a Mac. You should keep it that way!

pimentoLoaf

Dec 3, 2008, 08:31 PM

You people are all wrong.

It's Nigerian scammers who cannot get Mac users to fall for their spiels, as Mac Mail has a bounce function. If they gained control of the clone market, they would no doubt have a patch that would prevent mail from bouncing anything.

:eek:

NT1440

Dec 3, 2008, 08:32 PM

I always wondered how a "startup" company managed to afford the building they later tried to sell for 3 million....

jbernie

Dec 3, 2008, 08:33 PM

Last time I checked, Dell makes great looking computers with last generation ideas for hardware type. In other words, crap hardware.

I bought an HP laptop recently, I checked Dell and couldn't get anything close to the HP for the same money.

i thought we liked apple because they didn't waste their time with 88 designs

Why do you need 88 designs?

MacBook - consumer laptop, would also include something in the 10-12" screen
MacBookAir - regular laptop screen without all the weight
MacBookPro - for ahem "Profesionals" (somewhat debatable these days)
Mac(insert name) - mid tower (no 8 cores here) for the user who is comfortable adding/replacing parts, has a need to upgrade graphics cards etc, ie gamers
MacPro - Professional tower, for all the super duper audio/video work
iMac - all in one for light to moderate performance, great for limited spaces, people who dont like the clutter of a tower
MacMini - compact design but use existing accessories, portable, flexability in use, hook many up to a kvm for dev work, put in cars, etc

4.5 different formats, 7 designs total, would expect at most 4 different sub levels based on processor speed, screen size on laptops and superdrives etc which is nothing different that what you get now.

Given Apple used to have the mid tower offerings and from what I saw of them (my ex's family had a G3 based mid tower) they were impressive from the tech side of things it is disappointing that they feel the way too expensive MacPro, the way underpowered MacMini or the all in one can't change a thing iMac are suitable replacements.

joeblough

Dec 3, 2008, 08:33 PM

this speculation is kind of out of hand... groklaw, engaget, etc. are all off-base IMHO: i think apple's 10 john does are whoever the people are that reverse engineered the kernel decryption. those people are not part of psystar - they are probably in eastern europe - and thats why apple is talking about unnamed individuals.

it doesnt take a mystery tech company behind the scenes to bankroll the lawsuits. Psystar's lawyers probably think they can get damages out of apple for restraint of trade or something like that. or perhaps they have told psystar that if they prevail, then psystar owes them royalties on the sale of their computers. either way, like many trial laywers, they are working for a potential payoff if their lawsuit is successful.

Riemann Zeta

Dec 3, 2008, 08:37 PM

Someone at Apple legal threw on the tinfoil hat.

My money's on the reverse vampires as well...in conjunction with the saucer people, of course.

lamadude

Dec 3, 2008, 08:43 PM

Ballmer!!!

He has to be a part of Pystar in some way. I'm sure he's been trying everything he can in the last couple of years to run Mac on Windows.

That statement makes no sense. You mean run OSX on a PC.

kresh

Dec 3, 2008, 08:44 PM

I think Apple is on a wild goose chase with these jane doe fillings. I would be seriously surprised if another company like Dell were materialy participating in PsyStar.

Remember the box PsyStar started with? The one that was louder than a transcontinental Concord? It also took forever for them to start shipping machines. They were clearly having to wait for customer's funds to become available before ordering the parts and building the customer's box, all which indicates a shoestring budget.

I would not be surprised to find out that someone like Dell was financing PsyStar's legal defense, but Apple could not do anything about that :-)

jbernie

Dec 3, 2008, 08:45 PM

Because Microsoft's license does not specify what type of computer must be used. So no license issue arises.

Also, Microsoft IS a monopoly in the Operating System industry (as determined by the Federal Courts) and could get in big trouble if they tried to ban use on Apple's machines.

BS. Microsoft can modify its EULA to state that you can only install it on a machine that currently has Windows installed, ie you would have to buy a PC with windows preinstalled (sound familiar?), but they choose not to.

That is in part why one company has a larger market share than the other. That is also why one company has a lot more issues as they try and support just about every conceivable hardware configuration in existance.

Microsoft allows you to install it on anything, just they want you to purchase/install a legal product and not a pirated copy. This freedom allows the PC industry to be as vibrant as it is and why Apple is 2nd fiddle and maybe you might get the Apple version of a software product a few months later.

termite

Dec 3, 2008, 08:46 PM

it doesnt take a mystery tech company behind the scenes to bankroll the lawsuits. Psystar's lawyers probably think they can get damages out of apple for restraint of trade or something like that. or perhaps they have told psystar that if they prevail, then psystar owes them royalties on the sale of their computers. either way, like many trial laywers, they are working for a potential payoff if their lawsuit is successful.

Except... if lawyers got involved, the first thing they would have done is see if they have a case BEFORE selling the first machine. When you examine the issues, it becomes obvious to all but the most deluded that there is no case here. And BTW.... the Judge agrees and has already thrown out Psystar's counterclaims.

And if lawyers were involved, they would have given up as soon as their counterclaims were thrown out. The fact that this is being pursued in defiance of good legal sense suggests that the people behind this are not lawyers and are not even listening to their own lawyers.

termite

Dec 3, 2008, 08:50 PM

BS. Microsoft can modify its EULA to state that you can only install it on a machine that currently has Windows installed, ie you would have to buy a PC with windows preinstalled (sound familiar?), but they choose not to.

You are incorrect. It is illegal for a monopoly to use their own monopoly to kill competitors or further their own monopoly. Because Microsoft has already been found to have an OS monopoly, they are skating on thin ice if they try to mess with the EULA to do anything that could cause the remotest harm to any competitor.

When you are not a monopoly, you have a lot of freedom in how you target your product. Monopolies like Microsoft have no such rights under the law.

Microsoft wouldn't even think about being so stupid.

atropos

Dec 3, 2008, 08:50 PM

It might turn out be a most interesting drama in 2009 :cool:

Sun Baked

Dec 3, 2008, 08:50 PM

Everything is a conspiracy. :p

Then we'd have people blaming Bush for this also, instead of it being purely something out of Austin.

puffnstuff

Dec 3, 2008, 08:51 PM

Micheal Dell : points finger:

Bokito

Dec 3, 2008, 08:53 PM

Most conspiracies turn out to be false, but Apple might be right here though. Psystar is hiding something and they are not giving all the details. Apple will try go get all those details and this "conspiracy" comes with it. If Psystar doesn't want to get conspiracies to take the upper-hand they quickly give all the information Apple wants to have.

It is plausible, but certainly not very likely that a larde PC-vendor is behind Psystar. I rather think it is a dissatisfied Apple customer who is financing and operating Psystar.

DaBrain

Dec 3, 2008, 08:57 PM

...I smell Ballmer.

All they have to do is " Follow Da Money!" If Apple finds the source of funds financing Psystar's lawyers then I think they will have something--)))

Very very Interesting!!! ;)

IJ Reilly

Dec 3, 2008, 08:57 PM

samh004

Dec 3, 2008, 09:01 PM

My money is on a Dell / Taiwan Manufactor / Reverse Vampires / RAND Consortium

...I smell Ballmer.

I immediately thought of Dell, seeing as Michael Dell once suggested closing Apple and boy was he wrong about that, and just look where he is now. There's got to be some hard feelings there.

Bill Gates doesn't seem like he really cares, but Ballmer is certainly a possibility. Though I don't see how he'd eventually make a profit. He could just be in it to screw things up.

I'll be very interested in finding out if there is someone behind the scenes now. I'm sure Apple already has a better idea, but can't say because it'd be slander?

JP M.

Dec 3, 2008, 09:04 PM

I think Alice said "curiouser and curiouser," not "interestinger and interestinger." Lol.

Well, the article reads, "As Alice [...] might put it [...]" (emphasis added). Alice wasn't directly quoted; her playfulness with words was just invoked.

Interesting thing, this conspiracy. So if Psystar wins, I wonder what every other computer manufacturer stands to gain...

Sun Baked

Dec 3, 2008, 09:07 PM

They took a left turn around the way the previous cases were argued, even though they referenced them in their counterclaims.

Would have been much better if we could have seen inside the judges chambers as he passed out from nonstop laughing at the corporate version of the OJ defense.

jbernie

Dec 3, 2008, 09:07 PM

You are incorrect. It is illegal for a monopoly to use their own monopoly to kill competitors or further their own monopoly. Because Microsoft has already been found to have an OS monopoly, they are skating on thin ice if they try to mess with the EULA to do anything that could cause the remotest harm to any competitor.

When you are not a monopoly, you have a lot of freedom in how you target your product. Monopolies like Microsoft have no such rights under the law.

Microsoft wouldn't even think about being so stupid.

Microsoft is fully within their rights to have the same basic EULA as Apple, doing so does in no way prevent Apple from selling its own hardware with its own operating system installed. Microsoft would in no way be anticompetitive.

Microsoft will not do it because if they did they would be giving the Unix variants a great boost in the make your own PC market as those people are not allowed to install OSX as it violates Apple's EULA and likewise they could not install Windows as it would violate (the alternate) Microsoft EULA and that pretty much leaves the Unix variants to install.

So many people on here fail to comprehend is that if you think Psystar is wrong, then you agree 100% that every person who makes their own Hackintosh is wrong and also breaking the law and should be taken through the courts like Psystar. It doesn't matter if money is being made or not, installing OSX on anything other than an Apple sanctioned product is breaking the law. Killing Psystar is in effect killing off everything but Apple sanctioned systems. People on here go on and on about Psystar is the most evil of evil corporations yet in the same breath say it is A OK for a home user to do exactly the same thing. The only thing saving the home user from Apple legal is that they generally cannot be bothered with chasing one person.

Beta

Dec 3, 2008, 09:08 PM

Or any other software company for that matter.

Allowing an EULA to be defeated in court, for any reason, will set an extremely bad precedent. No software company wants that. Especially not Microsoft.

- now hardware manufacturers, thats a different story.

miketcool

Dec 3, 2008, 09:10 PM

No, you are all wrong. Do you want to know who the real backers of Psystar are? Go on, ask!

It is really simple. By tearing down Apple's ability to sell hardware and software together, they won't be able to continue to make a profit. They'll be ruined.

Who would want to destroy Apple, and why? It's really very simple. Al Gore. No, he's not responsible, but he is why Apple will be destroyed. You see, when he goes to give his climate change lectures, he won't be able to. He's too loyal to Apple. Plus, he would never run a Keynote on an energy wasting, non-recyclable Dell. Without Al Gore, the world will get hot, too hot. And the oceans will rise to unprecedented levels. And viruses will plague the world and weaken all of humanity.

So who is responsible? I'll tell you who would want to ruin mankind. G*dd**n Crap People.

http://daapspace4.daap.uc.edu/~wiglemd/CrabPeople.png

kresh

Dec 3, 2008, 09:10 PM

I am very skeptical about any other corporation being involved in Psystar's defense, for two reasons. First, they hired lawyers with apparently little to no knowledge in antitrust law, which is evidenced by their craptastic legal argument, which has already been substantially gutted. Second, any involved company with actual assets risks becoming a deep pocket in any damage claim settlement. Doesn't add up.

Helping to finance PsyStar's legal defense would not make another company a material participant in PsyStar's business and their assets would not be at risk in any way if PsyStar loses.

A company that would want to sell PC's with OS X, like Dell, could spend millions helping PsyStar pay their legal defense bills with no other risk than losing the cash spent on the lawyers or expert witnesses.

I don't think PsyStar's lawyers are inept, or unknowledgable in antitrust law, but I do think they were slinging mud and seeing what would stick!

blairwillis

Dec 3, 2008, 09:12 PM

It's the Illuminati. :cool:

MacLogically

Dec 3, 2008, 09:12 PM

I love that there is an alternative to apple but would suck if it paved the way for Dell etc. to make OSX machines.

termite

Dec 3, 2008, 09:14 PM

So many people on here fail to comprehend is that if you think Psystar is wrong, then you agree 100% that every person who makes their own Hackintosh is wrong and also breaking the law and should be taken through the courts like Psystar.

Nope. Wrong and illegal are different words.

Look at it from the blind self-interested point of view: Suppose I'm blindly self-interested. I therefore find it useful to me that I can make a Hackintosh -- for example, I can pay less for a midtower. But it is also useful for me to have a strong healthy Apple that continues to innovate my operating system. If Psystar were legal, that would be a severe blow to Apple's ability to spend tons of money innovating stuff that is useful to me. So it is in my self-interest to want Psystar dead.

But more import to me is that I believe whoever is behind Psystar is also behind SCO's bogus attacks on Linux. It's in all our interests that these bozos be held accountable asap.

Denarius

Dec 3, 2008, 09:14 PM

If Pystar wins this, Apple is doomed. Since Apple has succeeded because of Mac OS X and not hardware, Microsoft could get OSX running on a Dell. That would for sure be the end of Apple.

Hmmm, not sure I entirely agree there. I agree that the operating system is the main attraction, so if Apple are forced into a corner where they have to open up the hardware side to cloners then all they have to do is up the sale price of the OS to compensate for the loss of profit on the hardware and incorporate some sort of windows style activation in the installation process.

If the 'startup' is trying to get a chunk of the Apple hardware market by getting the courts on their side from the competition angle, then I would suggest that what I suggest above is Apple's best course of action, but I'd also suggest not to go down the compatible with any hardware route like Windows: if the cloners are forced to conform the hardware to the software then I think that's the best way of maintaining the stability advantage of OS X against Windows.

Based on that argument, I'd be offering to pay Apple's court costs if I was in Microsofts shoes. ;)

Trip.Tucker

Dec 3, 2008, 09:15 PM

Common Apple just license your OS already. <snip>

....no. Don't apply Microsoft strategies to a differently focused company.

steve jr.

Dec 3, 2008, 09:15 PM

It might turn out be a most interesting drama in 2009 :cool:

This is going to go on for a couple years.

mobi

Dec 3, 2008, 09:16 PM

That's enough! I am suing Apple for the right to put OS X on my Blackberry Storm and turn it into an iPhone.

MacLogically

Dec 3, 2008, 09:16 PM

BTW I would not consider any of the current psystar line-up. But if they did they right thing and released a stinking fast laptop then ****** the apple formline and design give me a beast of a brick running OSX anyday!

From,
A dedicated mobile computing power junkie

itcheroni

Dec 3, 2008, 09:17 PM

No sane large company (in this case Microsoft, Dell, IBM, Acer etc) would want to get caught with their fingers in the pie as once that link is made they expose themselves to lawsuit(s) that could be quite costly.

Maybe it's just me but I don't see how much money Apple can get from, let's say, Dell. On what basis would Dell have to fork over a lot of money? Punitive damages? Judges don't just randomly award money because they see the defendant can afford it.

termite

Dec 3, 2008, 09:17 PM

Allowing an EULA to be defeated in court, for any reason, will set an extremely bad precedent. No software company wants that. Especially not Microsoft.

Psystar was not trying to defeat the EULA. They were trying to make it mean "this software can be used on any machine."

That would not hurt Microsoft in the slightest.

arjaosx

Dec 3, 2008, 09:23 PM

Maybe the lawyers think they can get lots of $$$ from Apple somehow, with $25 billion or so in the bank they are an attractive target, even if the lawyers only get 10% of a few hundred million it is an attractive settlement opportunity.

Not saying Apple/Psystar are right/wrong, but gees, lawyers don't need much encouragement if $$$ are in the offing.

I agree with your observation. The lawyers have a history of success with Apple and since Apple, despite the downtrend is gaining profit makes for an attractive target thus the motivation.

But this is an interesting angle to look at. A tip of the iceberg sort of thingy.

ProwlingTiger

Dec 3, 2008, 09:24 PM

Um, can I get a bit of credit here?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6703210&postcount=96

WHO IS FUNDING PYSTAR'S LAWYER TEAM?!

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6707576&postcount=150
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.

Well, technically, I didn't call it exactly, yet. And I'm sure we were all thinking it. But, I mean it makes sense don't it? I put that much together fairly quickly after barely reading the thread title. Read the other posts in the original thread for more inspiring posts regarding the issue by other members.

itcheroni

Dec 3, 2008, 09:25 PM

Except... if lawyers got involved, the first thing they would have done is see if they have a case BEFORE selling the first machine. When you examine the issues, it becomes obvious to all but the most deluded that there is no case here. And BTW.... the Judge agrees and has already thrown out Psystar's counterclaims.

And if lawyers were involved, they would have given up as soon as their counterclaims were thrown out. The fact that this is being pursued in defiance of good legal sense suggests that the people behind this are not lawyers and are not even listening to their own lawyers.

The first thing they'd do is asked how they would be paid. As long as they're getting paid, they'll do (almost) anything you want them to.

Tosser

Dec 3, 2008, 09:26 PM

ProwlingTiger

Dec 3, 2008, 09:26 PM

Um, can I get a bit of credit here?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6703210&postcount=96

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6707576&postcount=150

Well, technically, I didn't call it exactly, yet. And I'm sure we were all thinking it. But, I mean it makes sense don't it? I put that much together fairly quickly after barely reading the thread title. Read the other posts in the original thread for more inspiring posts regarding the issue by other members.

As I believe I stated earlier, or meant to state in another thread, can we get a data analysis of Pystar's income?

itcheroni

Dec 3, 2008, 09:32 PM

I agree with your observation. The lawyers have a history of success with Apple and since Apple, despite the downtrend is gaining profit makes for an attractive target thus the motivation.

But this is an interesting angle to look at. A tip of the iceberg sort of thingy.

This isn't a class action suit. So, again, how will Psystar's lawyer's get damages from Apple?

kas23

Dec 3, 2008, 09:33 PM

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.

So the end of the EULA does not mean Apple's OS suddenly becomes available. Quite the opposite.

So is Pystar selling a computer with OS X already installed on it? Or, are they just selling a computer that can run OS X and OS X along with it, but you need to install it? Now, with the later option you wouldn't be able to fault Pystar for breaking the EULA, but the end user would be violating it.

ivladster

Dec 3, 2008, 09:33 PM

LOL its prolly Steve Ballmer himself wants a bite of :apple:

Denarius

Dec 3, 2008, 09:36 PM

In a way though, sooner or later Apple's Hardware/Software bundling issue is going to become an anti-competitive issue. Lets face it, a modern Mac is effectively an Intel PC with a little hardware tweak that enables them to lock the OS to the hardware. If Microsoft announced tomorrow that they wanted to make computers and were going to be locking Windows to their own hardware they'd be in court before you could say 'competition commission'.

I'm not so sure that Apple isn't possibly on a bit of a sticky wicket.

rumplestiltskin

Dec 3, 2008, 09:36 PM

Nope, wouldn't be Monkey-Boy. M$ stands to lose if Mac clones running OSX can be made legally.

Who stands to gain if Psystar prevails? Lots of hardware folks. Look to them.

twoodcc

Dec 3, 2008, 09:37 PM

well, looks like this lawsuit will just keep going and going

freebooter

Dec 3, 2008, 09:43 PM

i dont understand why this is an issue. OS X is a registered trademark of Apple. Psystar should get shut down. Simple as that...

Why can't a company (or individual) challenge claims by another company that restrict the use of legitimately purchased products? Psystar doesn't pirate OSX--it buys the OS and puts it to a use that Apple doesn't like because that threatens their hardware monopoly. If I want to use OSX (and I do because it's the best), I am currently forced to use Apple computers, semi-functional Hack-intoshs aside. Apple can't stand free market competition, and their over-priced, increasingly limited product line reflects it. Can you imagine if, say, Sony declared that to use their copyrighted movies, music and games one had to use Sony hardware, only. It's ridiculous.

The people behind Psystar see the opportunity to make some cash offering consumers additional hardware choices. Go Psystar!

ProwlingTiger

Dec 3, 2008, 09:47 PM

Um, I wonder why I can no longer view the amended document...odd.

jschmit

Dec 3, 2008, 09:48 PM

Has anyone pointed out how the letters of "Psystar" can spell out "Rats Spy"? Funny. It can also be "Star Spy" etc...

Denarius

Dec 3, 2008, 09:49 PM

Why can't a company (or individual) challenge claims by another company that restrict the use of legitimately purchased products? Psystar doesn't pirate OSX--it buys the OS and puts it to a use that Apple doesn't like because that threatens their hardware monopoly. If I want to use OSX (and I do because it's the best), I am currently forced to use Apple computers, semi-functional Hack-intoshs aside. Apple can't stand free market competition, and their over-priced, increasingly limited product line reflects it. Can you imagine if, say, Sony declared that to use their copyrighted movies, music and games one had to use Sony hardware, only. It's ridiculous.

The people behind Psystar see the opportunity to make some cash offering consumers additional hardware choices. Go Psystar!

I think Apple could still carry on selling hardware at a slightly higher price than the rest just for the funky case designs.

NT1440

Dec 3, 2008, 09:50 PM

@ freebooter

While i certainly dont have near a full understanding of the law, its because upon purchasing/using OSX u have to agree to the EULA, which states OSX can only be used on apple hardware

r.j.s

Dec 3, 2008, 09:51 PM

So is Pystar selling a computer with OS X already installed on it? Or, are they just selling a computer that can run OS X and OS X along with it, but you need to install it? Now, with the later option you wouldn't be able to fault Pystar for breaking the EULA, but the end user would be violating it.

They sell a computer with OS X preinstalled, you cannot install the retail DVD on it. You must get it preinstalled and to reinstall, you must use their restore DVD.

Can I load my own operating system?

Yes, you can order your Open Computer with whichever operating system you like and install your choice of operating systems afterwards. We do not provide support or assistance for the installation of OS X Leopard outside of our facilities at this point in time. Psystar also specifically supports the operating system that was ordered with your Open Computing product. We will be unable to support any OS X installations that did not originate from Psystar. If you would like to have OS X, or any other OS offered by Psystar, installed by Psystar on a later date you can do so by purchasing a hard drive and operating system from our online store.

Will you provide instructions on loading the Leopard operating system?

If you purchase Leopard with your Open Computer you will be able to receive a restore disc which will allow you to reinstall your Leopard OS X operating system directly from the original retail-packaged DVD which is included in your computer.

Source http://store.psystar.com/faqs/?frontend=5096c59b7efc731396641b4689fad98a#faq8

Digitalclips

Dec 3, 2008, 09:52 PM

...I smell Ballmer.

He does sweat a lot.

NT1440

Dec 3, 2008, 09:53 PM

They sell a computer with OS X preinstalled, you cannot install the retail DVD on it. You must get it preinstalled and to reinstall, you must use their restore DVD.

meaning most likely something is changed right?

r.j.s

Dec 3, 2008, 09:54 PM

meaning most likely something is changed right?

Most likely.

goodcow

Dec 3, 2008, 09:56 PM

Common Apple just license your OS already. I know so many people that want OS X, but just can't afford/justify the Apple tax.

Yeah Yeah I remember the Apple clones of the 90s, but this is a different age and time.

Apple can barely keep Leopard stable on under 100 fixed devices and you want them to open it up to the world? Yeah, I went there, I only use Macs personally and I find Windows abhorrent from a user experience point of view, but Vista IS stable. Leopard kernel panics on a wide variety of machines at work while the Vista machines are rock solid, and Leopard's networking is abysmal compared to Windows. Not to mention Finder is garbage compared to Explorer.

SPUY767

Dec 3, 2008, 09:58 PM

Why can't a company (or individual) challenge claims by another company that restrict the use of legitimately purchased products? Psystar doesn't pirate OSX--it buys the OS and puts it to a use that Apple doesn't like because that threatens their hardware monopoly. If I want to use OSX (and I do because it's the best), I am currently forced to use Apple computers, semi-functional Hack-intoshs aside. Apple can't stand free market competition, and their over-priced, increasingly limited product line reflects it. Can you imagine if, say, Sony declared that to use their copyrighted movies, music and games one had to use Sony hardware, only. It's ridiculous.

The people behind Psystar see the opportunity to make some cash offering consumers additional hardware choices. Go Psystar!

I don't think monopoly means what you think it means.

robbyx

Dec 3, 2008, 09:58 PM

Dell, for example, can't just come right out and put OS X on its computers. But, anonymously get behind a little "start-up" that ultimately wins a legal challenge...and you're free of the Microsoft monopoly.

If Psystar were to win, it would essentially render Apple a software company. Would Apple keep making hardware if, suddenly, Dell made OS X boxes? Could it?

Psystar is the bait. I don't doubt for a moment that third parties might be involved. After all, every PC manufacturer would benefit BIG TIME from a Psystar win. The real losers would be Apple - and Microsoft. Not only could PC manufacturers use the threat of offering OS X as leverage, but many would no doubt offer it regardless of how Microsoft felt. Watch those Windows numbers fall off a cliff...

Interesting indeed!

hajime

Dec 3, 2008, 10:00 PM

Common Apple just license your OS already. I know so many people that want OS X, but just can't afford/justify the Apple tax... .

Some of us also do not like the poor quality control of Apple hardware in recent years.

SPUY767

Dec 3, 2008, 10:00 PM

ProwlingTiger

Dec 3, 2008, 10:02 PM

My prediction: Imagine the legal implications if Microsoft is behind Pystar, which all of will remember me suggesting and everyone thinking.

Back when Apple did licensing, they nearly went belly up. They SUCCESSFULLY shut down that deal, and survived. Guess who spearheaded that operation.

Now, Microsoft is suffering. Not bad yet, but with their marketshare tanking, and AAPL on the rise, their latest OS was all but a success....The time was right for this. Microsoft is going in for the kill. The realize that Apple's OS sells their hardware. Apple's hardware sell account for 30~% of their profit. No exclusive Apple OS, stock WILL fall. Pystar will cut Microsoft a kickback if this happens.

If Apple wins however, Apple could hit MSFT where it hurts.

Moderator, please bookmark this post in case of it's startling accuracy. I could be wrong, but who would be surprised if it is Microsoft?

tonyl

Dec 3, 2008, 10:07 PM

This is more and more interesting, looking forward to seeing the final results.

SydneyDev

Dec 3, 2008, 10:08 PM

pastry is an anagram of pystar...and steve ballmer likes pastries. Coincidence? I think not.

Psystar also = "r patssy" ("are patsy")

A patsy is "a person upon whom the blame for something falls; scapegoat; fall guy."

robbyx

Dec 3, 2008, 10:08 PM

My prediction: Imagine the legal implications if Microsoft is behind Pystar, which all of will remember me suggesting and everyone thinking.

Quite the opposite! If Microsoft is behind Psystar, it's suicide. If Psystar wins, that means every PC manufacturer can offer OS X the next day. Microsoft loses big-time. Suddenly Dell asks each new customer, "Do you want Snow Leopard or Windows Vista pre-installed?" Think about it.

The only way the PC companies break free of the Microsoft monopoly is to release OS X from her gilded, er, aluminum, cage. Microsoft definitely does not want to see that happen!

Moderator, please bookmark this post in case of it's startling accuracy. I could be wrong, but who would be surprised if it is Microsoft?

I'd be shocked.

MacFly123

Dec 3, 2008, 10:09 PM

I think that this guy looks awfully suspicious:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Bill_Gates_mugshot.png

Do you think that he might have had something to do with it? :D

Haha, I seriously would NOT be surprised. That was the first thing that came to my mind.

I think the new "Windows" Mojave project is a little more sneaky than we thought :D

Sun Baked

Dec 3, 2008, 10:10 PM

My prediction: Imagine the legal implications if Microsoft is behind Pystar, which all of will remember me suggesting and everyone thinking.

---

Moderator, please bookmark this post in case of it's startling accuracy. I could be wrong, but who would be surprised if it is Microsoft?

MSFT needs a viable competitor as defined by the feds in order to have the antitrust handcuffs lifted.

If they shoot the one competitor on the way to moving towards the marketshare they need to get MSFT out of the antitrust straightjacket, that would be rather stupid. And likely to get them immediately in trouble with the DOJ.

cameronjpu

Dec 3, 2008, 10:14 PM

I don't think monopoly means what you think it means.

So what else is new ;)

tonyl

Dec 3, 2008, 10:15 PM

Apple can barely keep Leopard stable on under 100 fixed devices and you want them to open it up to the world? Yeah, I went there, I only use Macs personally and I find Windows abhorrent from a user experience point of view, but Vista IS stable. Leopard kernel panics on a wide variety of machines at work while the Vista machines are rock solid, and Leopard's networking is abysmal compared to Windows. Not to mention Finder is garbage compared to Explorer.

For stability, XP is slightly better from my experience. Vista is slower than XP. another thing is about the hunger for memory, 512MB is terrible for 10.4 and 10.5, while XP is quite happy on it.

rstansby

Dec 3, 2008, 10:16 PM

i assume you do a lot of editing because of your distaste for glossy. i myself have no problem with glossy, my display is glossy so...

I don't do much (graphics) editing, but I prefer a matte display so I don't have to look at reflections all day.

That doesn't mean Apple has to make matte displays, but I am still allowed to have my preference. Aren't I?

9Z Electronics

Dec 3, 2008, 10:17 PM

so how come microsoft dont sue apple for using windows on there machines???

You cannot be serious, right?

I am sorry for the educational system of this country.

D

Michael CM1

Dec 3, 2008, 10:20 PM

Quite the opposite! If Microsoft is behind Psystar, it's suicide. If Psystar wins, that means every PC manufacturer can offer OS X the next day. Microsoft loses big-time. Suddenly Dell asks each new customer, "Do you want Snow Leopard or Windows Vista pre-installed?" Think about it.

The only way the PC companies break free of the Microsoft monopoly is to release OS X from her gilded, er, aluminum, cage. Microsoft definitely does not want to see that happen!

I'd be shocked.

That's a neat theory until you take a look at the gobs of applications that only run on Windows. That's the opiate that Microsoft has fed to the masses, and people with specialized software (businesses) have a hard time even upgrading, let alone totally changing systems. If the computer world was nothing but home users, Apple would probably have a much bigger market share. But when you're talking about companies that use software for a decade or longer, it takes time to prove you're worth a huge switch.

Mjmar

Dec 3, 2008, 10:22 PM

If it is Dell and they somehow manage to sell their hardware with Mac OSX then people will be forced to use iPods :)

goodcow

Dec 3, 2008, 10:24 PM

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p222/the_x-phile/ObviousTroll.jpg

:rolleyes:

Yes, I'm a troll, with my MacBook Pro, Time Capsule, Apple TV, iPhone and iPod Touch. :rolleyes:

ProwlingTiger

Dec 3, 2008, 10:27 PM

Quite the opposite! If Microsoft is behind Psystar, it's suicide. If Psystar wins, that means every PC manufacturer can offer OS X the next day. Microsoft loses big-time. Suddenly Dell asks each new customer, "Do you want Snow Leopard or Windows Vista pre-installed?" Think about it.

The only way the PC companies break free of the Microsoft monopoly is to release OS X from her gilded, er, aluminum, cage. Microsoft definitely does not want to see that happen!

I'd be shocked.
NO, with no MAC sells, just how do you think Apple will fund MAC OS development. Sure, Microsoft would take a brief hit. And even though Apple is stronger than in the early 90's, what with the iPod/iPhone and all, they still need MAC sells.

Once Apple is weak, Microsoft will release their new "cloud" operating system and a variety of other Ace's in the hole, and they WILL slaughter Apple.

Apple MUST win. Oh, if I'm right, yall, I've had a great many predictions digitally signed, and mail certified, etc. I'm the modern day Demetrius lol.

That's how confident I am.

I truly hope it isn't Microsoft, as it will get ugly fast. But who else would have ulterior motives? And the dinero to back it up?

NT1440

Dec 3, 2008, 10:27 PM

:rolleyes:

Yes, I'm a troll, with my MacBook Pro, Time Capsule, Apple TV, iPhone and iPod Touch. :rolleyes:

Well when you claim leopard is somehow hugely unstable and EXPLORER of all things on windows is good (mine crashes, i kid you not because I had a tally going for a while, an average of 8 or so times a day, on vista) it does seem kinda trollish.

zap2

Dec 3, 2008, 10:30 PM

Apple can barely keep Leopard stable on under 100 fixed devices and you want them to open it up to the world? Yeah, I went there, I only use Macs personally and I find Windows abhorrent from a user experience point of view, but Vista IS stable. Leopard kernel panics on a wide variety of machines at work while the Vista machines are rock solid, and Leopard's networking is abysmal compared to Windows. Not to mention Finder is garbage compared to Explorer.

10.5 is also stable, clearly you've had some issue, but the majority have not. Your personally story's are 1 out of billions of computers, it doesn't prove a large point.

Finder is garbage compared to Explorer? Thats a personal call, but I happen to be on the other side, I can't stand Explorer(has such an IE7 feeling to it!)

SPUY767

Dec 3, 2008, 10:32 PM

10.5 is also stable, clearly you've had some issue, but the majority have not. Your personally story's are 1 out of billions of computers, it doesn't prove a large point.

Finder is garbage compared to Explorer? Thats a personal call, but I happen to be on the other side, I can't stand Explorer(has such an IE7 feeling to it!)

I can get things down a hundred times faster in finder than I can in explorer, and I use windows all day long at work.

LeoNobilis

Dec 3, 2008, 10:34 PM

Oh my, oh my what does'nt a healthy dose a day of paranoia do for you =)

Anyway, who would want to buy unsupported hardware anyway?

Come on, don't you know that the average Windoze user has little concern for what is supported and what is not?
PsyStar, or whatever they call themselves, may more than likely be the first so-called "company" to infringe upon OS X's/Apple's rights, and sure as day many would follow! Every single one of them, as a matter of fact!
Think about it: Micro¢oft and quite a number of its affiliated hardware manufacturers (OEMs, etc.), copycats or not, are undergoing hell as OS X and Apple gain popularity day after day (whereof as an OS X/Apple Elitist and a true Fan I'm in no measure a proponent - quite the contrary - but I'll keep it out of my argumentation as it's irrelevant).
Of course, OS X is too good, too beautiful to run in an ugly, cheap-quality-plastic-monitor/box combination, and lack support, too, but herds of Windoze boys with no sense of aesthetic propriety or care for support or lack thereof would go for it like maggots for a rotten flesh!
I hope Apple manages to resolve the issue becomingly: they know better, and have the soundest reasons to reserve OS X's use/OS implementation to themselves and defend it fiercely...

How else do you explain Apple's failure up till now to win so evident a case!

robbyx

Dec 3, 2008, 10:35 PM

That's a neat theory until you take a look at the gobs of applications that only run on Windows. That's the opiate that Microsoft has fed to the masses, and people with specialized software (businesses) have a hard time even upgrading, let alone totally changing systems. If the computer world was nothing but home users, Apple would probably have a much bigger market share. But when you're talking about companies that use software for a decade or longer, it takes time to prove you're worth a huge switch.

Michael Dell has said he'd offer OS X the day it was available.

I'm not suggesting that suddenly no one would use Windows. BUT, if all of Dell's customers had a CHOICE, don't you think a measurable number would choose OS X? And don't you think that people who can't afford Macs - but want them - would go for OS X? Finally, shocking as it may seem to us Macheads, but I'm sure Dell has plenty of brand loyal customers too. They might be interested in OS X, but they want to stick with Dell.

Bottom line, if Psystar wins, Microsoft is a loser too. PC companies can start offering OS X and that means fewer Windows licenses.

macsimcon

Dec 3, 2008, 10:36 PM

First, when you file a lawsuit against a corporation, you typically name the defendants as "XYZ Corporation, and Does 1-100" so that you can easily add other defendants in the future as you discover them. It does NOT mean that you suspect some nefarious shadow organization is behind the Defendant, it just makes it easier to expand the lawsuit as needed.

Second, the DMCA is not going to send anyone to jail at Psystar; companies don't get put in jail for criminal violations, they get fined. It's terribly unfair that individuals go to jail for criminal convictions, and not companies, but that's the way it goes.

Lastly, like all software EULAs, there's no way to agree to Apple's EULA before you buy the software, because you're only exposed to the EULA once you purchase it. Have you ever tried opening software, and then returning it? They'll never give you your money back, only store credit, even if you claim that you didn't agree to the EULA.

As far as I know, this policy has never been tested in court, and it should be. No one should be forced to enter into a contract (the purchase of the software) without knowing and agreeing to the terms and conditions BEFORE the purchase is made, not after.

If a court invalidates Apple's EULA on these grounds, it would invalidate Microsoft's and everyone else's, because they all do it the same way.

robbyx

Dec 3, 2008, 10:37 PM

NO, with no MAC sells, just how do you think Apple will fund MAC OS development. Sure, Microsoft would take a brief hit. And even though Apple is stronger than in the early 90's, what with the iPod/iPhone and all, they still need MAC sells.

Once Apple is weak, Microsoft will release their new "cloud" operating system and a variety of other Ace's in the hole, and they WILL slaughter Apple.

Apple MUST win. Oh, if I'm right, yall, I've had a great many predictions digitally signed, and mail certified, etc. I'm the modern day Demetrius lol.

That's how confident I am.

I truly hope it isn't Microsoft, as it will get ugly fast. But who else would have ulterior motives? And the dinero to back it up?

How old are you?

goodcow

Dec 3, 2008, 10:38 PM

Well when you claim leopard is somehow hugely unstable and EXPLORER of all things on windows is good (mine crashes, i kid you not because I had a tally going for a while, an average of 8 or so times a day, on vista) it does seem kinda trollish.

And I'll easily back those claims up then, but don't go and call me a troll just because somebody doesn't think Leopard and Finder are these amazing gifts Apple has bestowed upon us that are perfect from Lord Steve.

I work on at a college as a "digital content manager," meaning myself and a team of student interns whom I supervise go around campus archiving events in HDV and editing in Final Cut Pro, converting for the web, making promotional videos, etc.

We have two quad core G5s and I have an octo-core (2x4) MacPro. The G5s kernel panic about once every two weeks or so, and I'm almost positive it has to do with networking issues (all our servers are Windows and Linux NAS devices), but the point is, Leopard's networking stack is buggy. My MacPro has two, 2TB GRAID units connected via FireWire 800, and a lot of the time, the other systems can't see them, because Leopard has issues sharing external drives over a network. I don't know if this is because they've basically given up on the PPC code or not, but there are serious work related stability problems I deal with in regards to Leopard.

In regards to Finder, here's a list of flaws compared to Explorer just off the top of my head:

- no way to quickly "get to" a deep down folder structure, because there's no path bar to copy/paste the location to/from. I know you can drag the little folder from one Finder window into another to "jump" to that path, but it's a pain, and half the time you can't grab it properly
- no cut and paste
- when Finder is generating thumbnails for media files (which it doesn't even cache, so it has to do this EVERY FRICKIN TIME) if you want to rename a file, it'll stop the rename process while you're typing once it gets to the next file in the window it needs to generate a thumbnail for. So if you have hundreds of files in there that need thumbnails generated for, you essentially can't rename things until it's done. WHY ISN'T THIS FIXED?
- anytime I want to save something and it defaults to column view, there's no way to make it auto-expand the column length for the necessary width required to show the longest file name
- search is totally busted. Why does it always default to showing the results of the entire system? If I'm typing specifically in a Finder window to search for something and not universally using Spotlight it should default results to just that damn folder (or window) and its sub-folders
- you can't even sort search results by size
- in Vista you can set literally HUNDREDS of different columns to sort things by. Megapixel, sure? You can do it. Give us the option.
- give Finder a small to large view slider like iPhoto for window management

Again, that's just off the top of my head.

LeoNobilis

Dec 3, 2008, 10:39 PM

I can get things down a hundred times faster in finder than I can in explorer, and I use windows all day long at work.

Concur, absolutely!
Lack of tabbed browsing aside, Finder does not deserve the criticisms of many a nagger! Of course, there's no contest between the Finder and the Windoze Explorer!

huntercr

Dec 3, 2008, 10:40 PM

Hope the Groklaw guys are better in making legal references than references to literature.... Alice said "Curiouser and curiouser".

So even if you assume the Groklaw author knew this and was adapting it, that should be "interester and interester", which is equally silly.

If one must try to link "interesting", go for a "Laugh in" reference; you'll sound more worldly ( and by worldly I mean "old" ;) )

/ or you'll sound... stupid

robbyx

Dec 3, 2008, 10:42 PM

And I'll easily back those claims up then, but don't go and call me a troll just because somebody doesn't think Leopard and Finder are these amazing gifts Apple has bestowed upon us that are perfect from Lord Steve.

:D

I agree with you and I'm a 25 year Apple customer. I have TONS of networking issues with Leopard in my home (iMac, NAS, Airport Extreme, and iDisk). And Finder is weak, very weak. I'd rather have NEXTSTEP's old Workspace Manager back any day! The Cocoa Finder...15 years ago. At least it didn't hold my entire machine hostage when something network-related happens.

MacsBestFriend

Dec 3, 2008, 10:44 PM

*enter apple ninjas!!!* "hooahyyyyyyyAH!" *drop kicks bill gates* "ayayyayayayayayaya!" *microsoft nerds throw themselves on ninjas, ninjas shoot them with the new app, iLaser* *nerds fall to the ground* *random kung fu moves and apple ninjas grab the pystar computers, lawyers and bill gates away for questioning* :D:eek::rolleyes::p:o;)....

uh... ya. this is the making for a superb kung fu movie!:p

mcarnes

Dec 3, 2008, 10:49 PM

rockosmodurnlif

Dec 3, 2008, 10:51 PM

Conspiracy? Or maybe the guys need to sell computers to pay off the lawyers.

Tosser

Dec 3, 2008, 10:52 PM

Hope the Groklaw guys are better in making legal references than references to literature.... Alice said "Curiouser and curiouser".

I'm pretty sure they're better when it comes to reading comprehension:
The author said "as Alice in Wonderland MIGHT say", meaning he didn't actually quote AiW, but played with words in a SIMILAR manner.

When you try to take things as verbatim as you guys do, perhaps you should at least READ the WHOLE.

So even if you assume the Groklaw author knew this and was adapting it, that should be "interester and interester", which is equally silly.

See above.

If one must try to link "interesting", go for a "Laugh in" reference; you'll sound more worldly ( and by worldly I mean "old" ;) )

Ah, you mean someone with a slightly more developed humour than "oh, it's snappier, lol, rotfllaasdjskj"?

/ or you'll sound... stupid
Well, I really can't see how you can conclude that based on your premises.

cameronjpu

Dec 3, 2008, 10:52 PM

How old are you?

Dunno, but his caps lock key keeps breaking and fixing itself, and the apostrophe key appears to spontaneously push itself...

aaarrrgggh

Dec 3, 2008, 10:56 PM

They're great if you want something shiny.

Personally, I want a small notebook: Apple doesn't make any.

I'd also like to complement my Mac Pro with a midtower: Apple doesn't make any.

I felt the same way... so I bought an Acer Aspire One, hoping to install OSX on it. After a few weeks of using it, I long for Apple hardware again. The track pad is awful, the trackpad buttons are terrible, and there is only so much that OSX could do, even if working perfectly, could do to improve the picture.

I'll have to go into the Apple store soon and compare the One with the new Macbooks. I love the size of the One, and the battery life. The power adapter is a perfect size (if badly designed).

I miss the MagSafe, logical port arrangement, responsive keyboards, etc. Hopefully Apple saves me in January.

domain

Dec 3, 2008, 10:58 PM

I certainly hope Apple keeps pushing this line in court. They'll look a right bunch of chumps. The DMCA addition was desperation. It just doesn't apply.

This is beyond desperation.

If only Apple hadn't changed to making PC clones and trying to limit OS X to their machines, by EULA... talk about dumb.

And now they're going to pay. The EULA is going to be declared invalid in court, and everyone is going to get their Mac netbook ! It just won't be made by Apple... because they're too up themselves to serve their customers needs. (We make a netbook, it's called the MacBook Air... right...)

IANAL but it looks pretty straight forward to me, and has absolutely nothing to do with the EULA... they are invoking the DMCA in regards to "circumvention" of the "protection" included in OSX that prevents installation on non-Apple hardware. As this is exactly what Pystar has done, the only hope they have would be to argue some semantics of the OSX installation mechanism, which I believe will ultimately fail. Apple need not even mention EULA here to have a valid argument...

Outside of the DMCA claim however, it appears they have also added "distribution" to their claims... as Pystar is not only violating DMCA, but then distributing their circumvention of said software (for profit even) after-the-fact... this is a big big no-no.

The interesting thing here is the claim for John Doe 1 - 10... i'm not sure this is a big conspiracy as it were... I wonder if some of these unnamed parties might be involved with the OSx86 community.

xVeinx

Dec 3, 2008, 10:59 PM

A little quip: IBM is not involved. They have bigger fish to fry and their business model wouldn't permit them to take any significant advantage of this (Think servers and enterprise-level software. Not OS X's strong point ;) ). They do have their fingers in the linux pie, but that is for entirely different reasons.

Microsoft has no involvement in this. They make poor decisions at many levels, but they aren't dumb. They would have nothing to gain at all from this, and the risk of getting hit back is far too great. If history tells them anything, it's that they have a giant "anti-trust giant with money" target on their back. EU anyone?

The only possible people involved would be OEMs like Dell, HP, or even others like Samsung, etc. Whoever it is, has these 2, maybe 3 qualities: cash to burn, belief that big money can be made in the future whether through selling computers with OS X and by getting Apple's marketshare, and, quite possibly, desperation. This is a gamble with low odds. Big risks. They're betting big on the river card, and they better hope they have a straight flush waiting...

itcheroni

Dec 3, 2008, 11:02 PM

alexbates

Dec 3, 2008, 11:02 PM

I felt the same way... so I bought an Acer Aspire One, hoping to install OSX on it. After a few weeks of using it, I long for Apple hardware again. The track pad is awful, the trackpad buttons are terrible, and there is only so much that OSX could do, even if working perfectly, could do to improve the picture.

I'll have to go into the Apple store soon and compare the One with the new Macbooks. I love the size of the One, and the battery life. The power adapter is a perfect size (if badly designed).

I miss the MagSafe, logical port arrangement, responsive keyboards, etc. Hopefully Apple saves me in January.

I would not suggest trying to install OSX on one of those. I have heard that on some netbooks, to run OSX, you have to replace the WiFi card because it is not compatible. It is also a complicated process where you have to boot an .iso file from a disk.

fleshman03

Dec 3, 2008, 11:03 PM

Maybe its Woz?:D

http://www.cornstalker.com/cartoons/media/crapple/frame7.gif

grue

Dec 3, 2008, 11:04 PM

I felt the same way... so I bought an Acer Aspire One, hoping to install OSX on it. After a few weeks of using it, I long for Apple hardware again. The track pad is awful, the trackpad buttons are terrible, and there is only so much that OSX could do, even if working perfectly, could do to improve the picture.

I'll have to go into the Apple store soon and compare the One with the new Macbooks. I love the size of the One, and the battery life. The power adapter is a perfect size (if badly designed).

I miss the MagSafe, logical port arrangement, responsive keyboards, etc. Hopefully Apple saves me in January.

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to buy Apple hardware. However, if Apple's going to continue pandering to idiots and trendtards, I'm not going to have any choice other than to go to a different vendor for my laptops. I'm not going to lug around the boat anchors they're offering now.

I'm not asking for anything crazy. I don't need hybrid SLI and quad core processors in a portable. I'm asking for a small machine that isn't horrifyingly compromised. I'll even settle for the godforsaken trash that is a glossy screen. Just give me something the size of a 12" PowerBook, no larger.

jbernie

Dec 3, 2008, 11:05 PM

Maybe it's just me but I don't see how much money Apple can get from, let's say, Dell. On what basis would Dell have to fork over a lot of money? Punitive damages? Judges don't just randomly award money because they see the defendant can afford it.

If Dell is assisting with funding the law suit there is nothing that can be done by Apple, however if they were to find the Dell was funding Psystar as a whole then Apple would then go on to sue Dell itself and cash in.

Apple has nothing to gain financially by suing Psystar, it is doing it out necessity to protect its market. However, on the other hand Apple has lots to loose in the case. If (a very BIG if) Apple were to lose the case outright it potentially loses the ability to sell the OSX on "premium" priced hardware, the moment Apple loses that it needs to survive on selling iPods, iPhones, OSX & software applications.

People might still buy Apple systems but the likes of Dell, Acer etc will be selling their much lower priced systems with OSX for the same price they sell their Windows systems for.

On one hand I would love to see OSX more available but on the other hand, I realize what the cost might end up being. Hopefully we end up somewhere in the middle, Apple expands its product line a bit and possibly doesnt quite charge the full premium.

Keep in mind Psystar's only product filled the biggest gap in Apple's product line, a reasonably priced midtower/desktop system that the owner can update/expand easily over the life of the machine. No doubt it selected this segment deliberately as Apple has zero offerings in this segment.

itcheroni

Dec 3, 2008, 11:12 PM

If Dell is assisting with funding the law suit there is nothing that can be done by Apple, however if they were to find the Dell was funding Psystar as a whole then Apple would then go on to sue Dell itself and cash in.

People might still buy Apple systems but the likes of Dell, Acer etc will be selling their much lower priced systems with OSX for the same price they sell their Windows systems for.

I still don't see how Apple could cash in. What are the damages?

And if Apple loses, they still set their own price on the licenses, don't they? If they lose the lawsuit, which they won't, they will adjust their business model accordingly.

Digitalclips

Dec 3, 2008, 11:12 PM

:D

I agree with you and I'm a 25 year Apple customer. I have TONS of networking issues with Leopard in my home (iMac, NAS, Airport Extreme, and iDisk). And Finder is weak, very weak. I'd rather have NEXTSTEP's old Workspace Manager back any day! The Cocoa Finder...15 years ago. At least it didn't hold my entire machine hostage when something network-related happens.

Thirty years using Apple gear here :)

BTW, I have a reasonably complex network at home using FiOS 25/5 (with its .11g w-ifi turned off). I have a hodge podge of Macs including iMac DV, two MacBooks, iBook G4, 8 Core MacPro, Dual G5 and two G4 towers (used to play with OS X Server and FMPro mainly). ATV running round the clock now as it connects the Mac Pro's iTunes to main Hi Fi system and HD TV as well as being used for HD movie rentals from Apple. An Airport Extreme with networked Canon printer and Time Machine attached. Plus iPhones and use of 'family pack' Mobile Me syncing with Macs and PCs at remote office as well as locally with Vista on Parallels 4 and XP Pro on VMware 2 (both using Bonjour for printing to Canon on AE). I have even messed with port forwarding on the Verizon Router so my wife can host networked bridge games and I can play with QTSS. Everything works really well these days ... Really it just all works! No issues at all! I wonder what I am doing differently to you?

jbernie

Dec 3, 2008, 11:16 PM

IANAL but it looks pretty straight forward to me, and has absolutely nothing to do with the EULA... they are invoking the DMCA in regards to "circumvention" of the "protection" included in OSX that prevents installation on non-Apple hardware. As this is exactly what Pystar has done, the only hope they have would be to argue some semantics of the OSX installation mechanism, which I believe will ultimately fail. Apple need not even mention EULA here to have a valid argument...

The only "protection" to stop you installing OSX on a non Apple system is the words of the EULA itself.

If Apple was still using the powerpc processors then they wouldn't be having this issue, the hardware was not easy to obtain etc etc, now they are using what amounts to off the shelf parts that anyone can assemble words are pointless, you may as well leave the code to the safe on a sticky note next to the safe and tell the burglars to not look at the note.

jbernie

Dec 3, 2008, 11:19 PM

I still don't see how Apple could cash in. What are the damages?

And if Apple loses, they still set their own price on the licenses, don't they? If they lose the lawsuit, which they won't, they will adjust their business model accordingly.

Apple would go after Dell for intentional violation of the EULA with intent to profit from such acts knowing that selling pc systems loaded with OSX undercuts the prices offered by Apple and depriving Apple of that revenue.

domain

Dec 3, 2008, 11:24 PM

The only "protection" to stop you installing OSX on a non Apple system is the words of the EULA itself.

If Apple was still using the powerpc processors then they wouldn't be having this issue, the hardware was not easy to obtain etc etc, now they are using what amounts to off the shelf parts that anyone can assemble words are pointless, you may as well leave the code to the safe on a sticky note next to the safe and tell the burglars to not look at the note.

So you can go down to your local store, buy a off the shelf system, insert the OS 10.5 Retail DVD, and it will install without any further user intervention? I was not aware that the installation media was now accepting standard IBM/PC BIOS as a substitute for EFI.

joeblough

Dec 3, 2008, 11:25 PM

Except... if lawyers got involved, the first thing they would have done is see if they have a case BEFORE selling the first machine. When you examine the issues, it becomes obvious to all but the most deluded that there is no case here. And BTW.... the Judge agrees and has already thrown out Psystar's counterclaims.

And if lawyers were involved, they would have given up as soon as their counterclaims were thrown out. The fact that this is being pursued in defiance of good legal sense suggests that the people behind this are not lawyers and are not even listening to their own lawyers.

i think they truly thought they had a shot at the monopoly thing.

apple has very deep pockets and it would be a hell of a case to win in open court. again i have to reiterate that this is inducement enough for any lawyers to get involved in this.

they may have already given up, as i'm sure you read they still have a week or so to file amended claims.

itcheroni

Dec 3, 2008, 11:27 PM

Apple would go after Dell for intentional violation of the EULA with intent to profit from such acts knowing that selling pc systems loaded with OSX undercuts the prices offered by Apple and depriving Apple of that revenue.

And that would come out to a negligible amount.

NT1440

Dec 3, 2008, 11:28 PM

So you can go down to your local store, buy a off the shelf system, insert the OS 10.5 Retail DVD, and it will install without any further user intervention? I was not aware that the installation media was now accepting standard IBM/PC BIOS as a substitute for EFI.

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

they like to think that just because theirs common hardware that they are 100% the same, dont ruin it ;)

truettzemac

Dec 3, 2008, 11:29 PM

It was... Kind of funny when people misquote books.

My money is on the RAND Corporation in conjunction with the saucer people and reverse vampire... It make perfect sense.

BOOKS? Silly Goose, Alice in Wonderland is a disney movie...

Digitalclips

Dec 3, 2008, 11:29 PM

Who has the money to be behind this? I think it is that guy that runs the ads in the US that start "Hi, I'm the video professor, I am the one that gives away ..."

His ads outnumbered the presidential candidate's ads by far. His bloody ads are on every channel every five minutes ... they must cost him billions so he could afford it. He is either fronting for Microsoft or the Saudis. Actually now I say that ... perhaps he is fronting for MS?:eek:

Tosser

Dec 3, 2008, 11:33 PM

BOOKS? Silly Goose, Alice in Wonderland is a disney movie...

True, but that movie is based on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice's_Adventures_in_Wonderland

(1865).

pdjudd

Dec 3, 2008, 11:36 PM

Lastly, like all software EULAs, there's no way to agree to Apple's EULA before you buy the software, because you're only exposed to the EULA once you purchase it.

False. All of Apples Licensing agreements are readilly available on their website (http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/). Here is one for Leopard (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf)(Note PDF attachment) - plain old english on page one. And I found that out in 10 seconds of google search - it was the first link.

I got that without purchasing anything.

macthetiger85

Dec 3, 2008, 11:40 PM

I agree - whoever thinks its Balmer or Gates is a complete idiot - why would Microsoft want Mac OS X on more machines? They are in competition with Mac OS X not Macs (they don't make computers - just software)
Now I'm thinking random companie would hugely benefit from this but the biggest one would be Dell. These companies want a cheapo Dell mini system to put at 10,000 desks in an office building with a better operating system especiall since the only other choice (viable choice) is Vista so there you have it - if Psystar wins - Dell can sell their machines to all of these businesses with Mac OS X installed on it and these companies will get a good operating system on a crappy machine.

However - if Psystar wins I can see Apple charging a premium for non Mac machines or bringing the price up while offering some incentive for owning a Mac as legally as they can.

Well, kinda figured there was more to the story. A no name company from out of nowhere suddenly has the guts to stand up to a multi-billion dollar corporation and its team of lawyers. and you know Apple has there lawyers on retainer, so they can drag Psyster through the mud and take as long as they want - otherwise Psyster would have given up, due to cost a long time ago (I mean they cannot be selling that many machines to be making money - any sales figures anyone?).

I would laugh if it was some big name company like Dell, IBM, etc. After all, IBM was looking at Apples, and Dell really wanted to sell OS X machines bad *and last look Dell's stock was not going that great.

Dell Inc. Dell Inc. NASDAQ DELL 10.55

Of course Apple is not so great right now with the market issues, but I saw Dell drop below $10 recently.

matticus008

Dec 3, 2008, 11:42 PM

First, when you file a lawsuit against a corporation, you typically name the defendants as "XYZ Corporation, and Does 1-100"
No you don't. You sue the corporation. Fictitious defendants only have a place where you have reason to believe that there are other parties you can't explicitly identify, as where you might be suing a company and its suppliers, but can't name the suppliers without the defendant's internal documents to identify them. You can't just add extra parties without claims, in case you might need to add parties. There are other mechanisms for adding parties once you discover the need.
companies don't get put in jail for criminal violations, they get fined.
Hogwash. Part of being on the board of a corporation or a partner at a firm is being on the hook for the company's behavior. Plenty of executives have been sent to jail for corporate criminal acts. That's partly why their salaries are so high; the risk is high. Generally, though, it's more effective to punish the corporation's finances.
Lastly, like all software EULAs, there's no way to agree to Apple's EULA before you buy the software
There's no need to agree before you buy it.
Have you ever tried opening software, and then returning it?
One has nothing to do with the other. You are entitled to a refund for unused software, but the more chances you ignore the opportunity to review the terms, the more work it is to get that refund.
As far as I know, this policy has never been tested in court
Wishing and repeating does not make it so. There are literally hundreds of software licensing cases on the books.
No one should be forced to enter into a contract (the purchase of the software) without knowing and agreeing to the terms and conditions BEFORE the purchase is made, not after.
Buying the box doesn't trigger the license agreement, and the contract of purchase is between you and the retailer; the retailer does not have the authority to grant or deny your access to that which they do not own (i.e. the software in the box). Using what's in the box triggers the license agreement, and no one is required to agree blindly. If you want to know the terms in advance, you have many opportunities to find out easily. It's your responsibility to know the terms; the offeror need only make them available to you.

You know two things: (1) software comes with specific terms for its use from the owner, whether it's free, open source, or for-purchase proprietary and (2) breaking the closest disc seal makes it difficult to return (by store, not publisher, policy). The obvious solution is to take one of the several opportunities to review the terms in advance to avoid the hassle.
it would invalidate Microsoft's and everyone else's, because they all do it the same way.
It would also invalidate all open source licenses, and everyone doing it the same way for 20 years is a big clue about what's going to happen. SLAs are simply not going to be categorically rejected by any court.

There is plenty of room for streamlining the rejection and return procedures and for additional consumer protections regarding certain suspect license provisions, but the fundamental right of a person to sell and license portions of his property is not going anywhere.

PVguy

Dec 3, 2008, 11:45 PM

"Psystar was not trying to defeat the EULA. They were trying to make it mean "this software can be used on any machine."

That would not hurt Microsoft in the slightest."

Wrong. Most Windows PCs are sold with OEM install, which has a EULA clause that prevents it being installed in any other computer. So you can't take the XP copy from the old P4 dell and put it on your new homebuilt superbox.

If the EULA goes down then first sale doctrine applies and you can take your copy of XP and put it on any computer that will have it. This will cost Microsoft a lot.

So, the other posters are right, MS is not the power behind Psystar.

mhnajjar

Dec 3, 2008, 11:49 PM

It does not make sense that MS would fight itself by distributing Mac OS. Therefore, Dick C. might be behind this operation since he is out of his chair soon :D

IJ Reilly

Dec 3, 2008, 11:59 PM

Helping to finance PsyStar's legal defense would not make another company a material participant in PsyStar's business and their assets would not be at risk in any way if PsyStar loses.

A company that would want to sell PC's with OS X, like Dell, could spend millions helping PsyStar pay their legal defense bills with no other risk than losing the cash spent on the lawyers or expert witnesses.

I don't think PsyStar's lawyers are inept, or unknowledgable in antitrust law, but I do think they were slinging mud and seeing what would stick!

The argument they made was ludicrous and not based in the law, hence inept.

And I don't think Apple would buy your legal theory that funding Psystar's lawsuit would not constitute a material involvement with their business. If that were true, then Apple would not be interested to discover their names.

matticus008

Dec 4, 2008, 12:06 AM

Wrong. Most Windows PCs are sold with OEM install, which has a EULA clause that prevents it being installed in any other computer.
OEM license terms vary greatly from manufacturer to manufacturer and even year to year at the same manufacturer. It really depends on what came packaged with your computer. However, I don't believe any restrict a copy to a particular, singular machine, though I haven't dealt with Windows OEM consumer licenses in a while.
If the EULA goes down then first sale doctrine applies and you can take your copy of XP and put it on any computer that will have it.
DFS always applies, even with a license agreement. People seem to have this mistaken belief that first sale rights exhaustion is some sort of nullification scheme. It's not. It bars only such provisions that state you cannot transfer your interest, and only in transactions of pure goods (e.g. your MMO game and/or its online account doesn't quite work the same way).

You can always sell or transfer your OEM install discs. It's guaranteed by law. This does not remove or alter the special limitations of that copy--a Dell OEM CD for Dell computers only must still be installed on a Dell computer. But you can sell it or move it to another computer if you like.

JAT

Dec 4, 2008, 12:10 AM

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to buy Apple hardware. However, if Apple's going to continue pandering to idiots and trendtards, I'm not going to have any choice other than to go to a different vendor for my laptops. I'm not going to lug around the boat anchors they're offering now.

I'm not asking for anything crazy. I don't need hybrid SLI and quad core processors in a portable. I'm asking for a small machine that isn't horrifyingly compromised. I'll even settle for the godforsaken trash that is a glossy screen. Just give me something the size of a 12" PowerBook, no larger.

So, the latest MB is 8mm deeper, about 1.5 oz lighter, 5mm thinner and less than 2" wider than the old 12" G4. Considering it is widescreen instead of square, the 2" is hardly noticeable. It's basically the 12" transformed to widescreen. I don't feel like calc-ing the actual screen dimensions, I'm guessing height is nearly identical.

And the Air is, of course, even smaller. But still that 2". Ooohh, how horrific.

You could always fetch a TT.
(that's a Sony in this thread, not Audi)

grue

Dec 4, 2008, 12:13 AM

So, the latest MB is 8mm deeper, about 1.5 oz lighter, 5mm thinner and less than 2" wider than the old 12" G4. Considering it is widescreen instead of square, the 2" is hardly noticeable. It's basically the 12" transformed to widescreen. I don't feel like calc-ing the actual screen dimensions, I'm guessing height is nearly identical.

And the Air is, of course, even smaller. But still that 2". Ooohh, how horrific.

You could always fetch a TT.
(that's a Sony in this thread, not Audi)

It's a huge difference when you're actually used to a small machine. I bought a MacBook and sold it 3 months later because it was substantially larger and I wasn't happy about it.

http://spiceweasel.net/macbookvspowerbook.jpg

The MacBook is full of wasted space and fail. I want nothing to do with it. If it was a "12 inch transformed to widescreen", it'd be 11.3" and the exact same width as the 12" PowerBook.

As for the Air? It's not smaller, it's thinner. I don't give a damn about thickness (within reason…) or weight. I care about how much space it takes up on my work area.

Joe The Dragon

Dec 4, 2008, 12:15 AM

"Psystar was not trying to defeat the EULA. They were trying to make it mean "this software can be used on any machine."

Wrong. Most Windows PCs are sold with OEM install, which has a EULA clause that prevents it being installed in any other computer. So you can't take the XP copy from the old P4 dell and put it on your new homebuilt superbox.

If the EULA goes down then first sale doctrine applies and you can take your copy of XP and put it on any computer that will have it. This will cost Microsoft a lot.

So, the other posters are right, MS is not the power behind Psystar.
Psystar is not going that far and the right of first sale gives you the right to resell that system as well. Also psystar is not takeing a copy of os x off of a system and moving it to a new one they are giving a boxed copy.

JAT

Dec 4, 2008, 12:21 AM

It was... Kind of funny when people misquote books.

But not nearly as funny as when someone tries to make fun of someone else for "quoting" when he doesn't know what the word "quote" means.

JAT

Dec 4, 2008, 12:27 AM

The MacBook is full of wasted space and fail. I want nothing to do with it. If it was a "12 inch transformed to widescreen", it'd be 11.3" and the exact same width as the 12" PowerBook.

That doesn't even make sense. You must be one of those people who thinks letterboxing takes AWAY from the picture.

You have ridiculously stringent needs according to that post. Seriously, what could possibly be your workspace? Do you sit right behind Milton in his cube? Why don't you take that picture and put the 12" in the middle of the MB, see what it looks like to your space then.

BenRoethig

Dec 4, 2008, 12:42 AM

Common Apple just license your OS already. I know so many people that want OS X, but just can't afford/justify the Apple tax.

Yeah Yeah I remember the Apple clones of the 90s, but this is a different age and time.

I don't think its as much the apple tax anymore as much the Apple design penalty. Apple seems to be targeting less demanding, but more fashionable users instead of the usual base. Yes, money is a factor but more in the sense that I don't want to have to buy either a $2000 15" notebook that's bigger and heaver than I want to have a firewire port or a $2300 pro workstation just to get a full size optical drive and more than a single hard drive and have access to without completely dismantling my computer.

For all of you saying not Microsoft, consider this:

Maybe Microsoft thinks that other companies selling OSX will take money out of Apple's pocket, ultimately weakening Apple and undermining the platform.

If OSX were available on other computers, it would be taking money out of Redmond's pockets as well and strengthening the platform. Microsoft would be making less, Apple may or may not be depending on license revenue and increased software sales and how its own hardware sales are effected and the other hardware manufacturers would probably make about the same. Users who would not consider Apple because of their hardware choices might consider OSX over windows. It might seem strange to some of you, but what is good for Apple the corporation company and what is good for the Mac OS X platform are not always the same thing. Mac OS X would benefit from a more varied list of form factors for different types of form factors. On the other hand, those disenchanted with Apple's increasingly narrow hardware choices may take another computer company up on their offer if they had a choice.

:rolleyes:

Yes, I'm a troll, with my MacBook Pro, Time Capsule, Apple TV, iPhone and iPod Touch. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately the Mac community has become so radicalized that anyone who doesn't follow the company line without question is considered a troll. If Apple is infallible, then it is impossible to make a rational argument against their decisions.

grue

Dec 4, 2008, 12:42 AM

That doesn't even make sense. You must be one of those people who thinks letterboxing takes AWAY from the picture.

You have ridiculously stringent needs according to that post. Seriously, what could possibly be your workspace? Do you sit right behind Milton in his cube? Why don't you take that picture and put the 12" in the middle of the MB, see what it looks like to your space then.

Brilliant argument on the letterboxing point, considering my occupation…

I do have ridiculously stringent needs: Small. Apple's not capable of doing it any more.

My workspace varies when I use the laptop, hence my need for a small size. I need to be able to use it from everywhere from the floor of a cargo aircraft to a commercial airliner to a proper desk.

As for taking the photo again? Sure. In fact, you'll like this:

http://spiceweasel.net/lolbooks.jpg

BenRoethig

Dec 4, 2008, 12:46 AM

Actually it should say, my intel friends are all anorexic. Shedding features and size for vanity's sake.

grue

Dec 4, 2008, 12:49 AM

Actually it should say, my intel friends are all anorexic. Shedding features and size for vanity's sake.

Oooh. Well done.

robbyx

Dec 4, 2008, 01:00 AM

It's a huge difference when you're actually used to a small machine. I bought a MacBook and sold it 3 months later because it was substantially larger and I wasn't happy about it.

As for the Air? It's not smaller, it's thinner. I don't give a damn about thickness (within reason…) or weight. I care about how much space it takes up on my work area.

I think you're in a small minority of users who want this feature. Apple has made it clear many times that they don't serve all markets - by choice. I personally don't give a damn about how much space it takes up on my work area so long as it's lightweight and easy to pack.

I agree with the earlier poster about the new MacBook. I'm very impressed by its size. I don't think Apple is going to go smaller in a notebook. Maybe a touch tablet someday, but not a laptop.

robbyx

Dec 4, 2008, 01:02 AM

As for taking the photo again? Sure. In fact, you'll like this:

http://spiceweasel.net/lolbooks.jpg

OMG. That 3/4" or so on either side is a total deal-breaker!

BenRoethig

Dec 4, 2008, 01:08 AM

I think you're in a small minority of users who want this feature. Apple has made it clear many times that they don't serve all markets - by choice. I personally don't give a damn about how much space it takes up on my work area so long as it's lightweight and easy to pack.

I agree with the earlier poster about the new MacBook. I'm very impressed by its size. I don't think Apple is going to go smaller in a notebook. Maybe a touch tablet someday, but not a laptop.

And those markets seem to keep getting smaller and smaller and progressively geared towards the lower end mainstream user.

robbyx

Dec 4, 2008, 01:15 AM

Unfortunately the Mac community has become so radicalized that anyone who doesn't follow the company line without question is considered a troll. If Apple is infallible, then it is impossible to make a rational argument against their decisions.

Not sure how long you've been a Mac user, but trust me, the cult of Jobs has been very very strong since day one. I see nothing more "radical" about Mac users today than twenty years ago. Nothing's changed! ;)

grue

Dec 4, 2008, 01:15 AM

OMG. That 3/4" or so on either side is a total deal-breaker!

My gripe is no less legitimate than those who don't want to go to a MacBook Pro for size reasons.

grue

Dec 4, 2008, 01:17 AM

I think you're in a small minority of users who want this feature. Apple has made it clear many times that they don't serve all markets - by choice. I personally don't give a damn about how much space it takes up on my work area so long as it's lightweight and easy to pack.

I agree with the earlier poster about the new MacBook. I'm very impressed by its size. I don't think Apple is going to go smaller in a notebook. Maybe a touch tablet someday, but not a laptop.

And that's fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. I personally just don't see any products I'd buy under any realistic circumstances in Apple's line, and that wasn't always the case. Thus, I'm disappointed.

But I've come to the conclusion that I'll likely to have to buy a Vaio and hack OS X on to it, and I'm ok with that.

grue

Dec 4, 2008, 01:18 AM

robbyx

Dec 4, 2008, 01:18 AM

My gripe is no less legitimate than those who don't want to go to a MacBook Pro for size reasons.

I'm not suggesting that the gripe isn't legitimate, but is that 1.5" THAT big a deal? To some, obviously yes. I just don't think Apple cares, nor do I think they're going to one day care. Their laptop line is complete. You either get on board...or you don't. One of the perils of being an Apple customer!

powers74

Dec 4, 2008, 01:22 AM

WOW. Who... How many machines is Pystar..... Is.... ???? Time will tell I guess.

However, other companies could benefit hugely if Psystar won, like Dell who could start selling OSX PCs, for example.

GROSS! That comment conjures up the vomiting scene from Team America

robbyx

Dec 4, 2008, 01:23 AM

And that's fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. I personally just don't see any products I'd buy under any realistic circumstances in Apple's line, and that wasn't always the case. Thus, I'm disappointed.

Interesting, because I find their product line more compelling than ever. I love good design. I'm thrilled with the overall design of the iMac. I really don't see how anyone is going to improve upon the concept and form factor. It's absolutely beautiful.

I've been holding out for a 15" Air. I love the idea of a lightweight laptop. I have no need for a DVD drive when I travel, for example. But I want a bigger screen. Although my resolve is crumbling and I have a feeling an Air is in my near future. :)

grue

Dec 4, 2008, 01:25 AM

I'm not suggesting that the gripe isn't legitimate, but is that 1.5" THAT big a deal? To some, obviously yes. I just don't think Apple cares, nor do I think they're going to one day care. Their laptop line is complete. You either get on board...or you don't. One of the perils of being an Apple customer!

Yeah, I've accepted it, I just figure having spent such hideous amounts of money on their products over the last couple decades, I get to bitch a little :D

robbyx

Dec 4, 2008, 01:28 AM

Yeah, I've accepted it, I just figure having spent such hideous amounts of money on their products over the last couple decades, I get to bitch a little :D

I can live with that. :cool:

kjs862

Dec 4, 2008, 01:29 AM

This is so funny...

The people behind this... Gates, Ballmer, IBM, Motorola, Xerox Parc, that uhh that guy who invented the ipod and didn't get any royalties? I'm sure I forget some but those are the people that come to mind this moment.

grue

Dec 4, 2008, 01:29 AM

Interesting, because I find their product line more compelling than ever. I love good design. I'm thrilled with the overall design of the iMac. I really don't see how anyone is going to improve upon the concept and form factor. It's absolutely beautiful.

I've been holding out for a 15" Air. I love the idea of a lightweight laptop. I have no need for a DVD drive when I travel, for example. But I want a bigger screen. Although my resolve is crumbling and I have a feeling an Air is in my near future. :)

I'd pay $2,000US without blinking I could get an Air with the footprint of a 12" PowerBook, in black, with a matte screen. Maybe even more if it had a version of OS X without all the bloat :P

ryanwarsaw

Dec 4, 2008, 01:37 AM

And I want the guts of a Ferrari in my Toyota. It certainly doesn't cost the premium that Ferrari charges to actually make those engines and components ... why won't Ferrari just open up and license their technology?

It's just not fair! ;)

If you somehow came across a Ferrari engine and it fit in your Toyota there would be nothing stopping you from doing it as far as I know.

sighlent

Dec 4, 2008, 01:50 AM

Watch out OSX86 and EFI-X communities.

pavelbure

Dec 4, 2008, 02:05 AM

why would ms or gates be behind this ? they have almost 100% of the market on pc's shipped. allowing mac os x on there would hurt them.

my guess is that it is dell or hp.

leehericks

Dec 4, 2008, 02:07 AM

I certainly hope Apple keeps pushing this line in court. They'll look a right bunch of chumps. The DMCA addition was desperation. It just doesn't apply.

This is beyond desperation.

If only Apple hadn't changed to making PC clones and trying to limit OS X to their machines, by EULA... talk about dumb.

And now they're going to pay. The EULA is going to be declared invalid in court, and everyone is going to get their Mac netbook ! It just won't be made by Apple... because they're too up themselves to serve their customers needs. (We make a netbook, it's called the MacBook Air... right...)

If people want to buy a leaf-blower and run OS X, that's a sale of OS X for Apple that THEY were never going to get anyway. Somebody wants a quiet, quality machine that won't let them down... they'll buy Apple.

Apple is under no obligation to support crap PC hardware, but if manufacturers make something to Apple's standard, let them sell OS X. Might even improve the general standard of PC's too.

Now that's a legacy worth having, Apple.

Bullsh**, just look at microsoft. People make crappy PC hardware that can't run Vista well and everyone bitches (granted I can't say much for Vista in general). I'm sure there are some high-end, expensive machines that run vista swell, but the masses don't see that. Apple opens Mac OS X to everyone, and then suddenly someone is bitching about something and that will fall on Apple. Open your eyes. Apple makes their hardware and develops their software to compliment the hardware and make a PRODUCT. A product is the sum of it's components and only companies that work hard to differentiate their components can get ahead of the others. Apple's intellectual property is hard-earned and paid for in R&D and programmers' mental abuse (haha). Machining unibody laptop parts from solid aluminum? Yeah, that costs more. But the results are really darn impressive and hence a small price increase on the new MacBooks. But man, talk about improving their product. Adding all the little pieces that make people want Mac. And you want them to rip out one of those star components that they worked hard on and hand it out to everyone else. Get real.

itcheroni

Dec 4, 2008, 02:18 AM

I'd pay $2,000US without blinking I could get an Air with the footprint of a 12" PowerBook, in black, with a matte screen. Maybe even more if it had a version of OS X without all the bloat :P

Just a tad specific, ne? :rolleyes:

But I do think Apple is planning a netbook, so you might get something close.

koobcamuk

Dec 4, 2008, 02:19 AM

I reckon Jonny Ive has been trying to make a little something on the side. :)

Tosser

Dec 4, 2008, 02:25 AM

Just a tad specific, ne? :rolleyes:

Only wants and wishes tend to be unspecified. Needs as in "tools" on the other hand, tend be rather specific.

But I do think Apple is planning a netbook, so you might get something close.
Yes, and if they ever came out with one, it would most likely be glass over glossy, no ports, duo-coloured and with a huge, huge bezel (as in: an 6 inch screen where a 10 inch screen would fit.

BenRoethig

Dec 4, 2008, 02:35 AM

Not sure how long you've been a Mac user, but trust me, the cult of Jobs has been very very strong since day one. I see nothing more "radical" about Mac users today than twenty years ago. Nothing's changed! ;)

1992 or so. The cult of Jobs didn't reach this level of insanity until 2003 or so. There's a difference in being confident in the superiority of your machine and rubber stamping any and all decisions Apple made. I could give you a rational reason why my PMG3 was a much better than my neighbors Compaq or Dell. These days its so because Steve says its so whether it actually true or not. The rationalism is almost completely gone.

dr Dunkel

Dec 4, 2008, 02:36 AM

What is the problem?

itcheroni

Dec 4, 2008, 02:36 AM

Yes, and if they ever came out with one, it would most likely be glass over glossy, no ports, duo-coloured and with a huge, huge bezel (as in: an 6 inch screen where a 10 inch screen would fit.

That's pretty much what I'm picturing, except with the same ports as the Air. You'd be disappointed, but you have to admit it would still sell. :o

28monkeys

Dec 4, 2008, 02:54 AM

Alqueda is behind this conspiracy

Tosser

Dec 4, 2008, 02:54 AM

That's pretty much what I'm picturing, except with the same ports as the Air. You'd be disappointed, but you have to admit it would still sell. :o

Yup, but so does McDonald's eat, baggy pants, hoodies, Windows, Sony "stereos", Bose, and iPhones :eek:

xbjllb

Dec 4, 2008, 02:55 AM

Wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out US Gov intel phony front firms are behind Psystar... their love of cutsie names they think no one will ever figure out... anyone ever hear of psyops?

They want backdoor hooks in Mac OS that Jobs has so far refused to provide... took a monopoly lawsuit against Microsoft to get Bill Gates to cave, and part of the reason Vista was such crap and Windows in general so vulnerable to attack.

Couldn't attack directly this time because Apple operates differently, so they tried a different tact.

Good luck and Godspeed to Apple AND Jobs; even the new US Admin is apparently Firm-owned and operated according to much on the net.

:apple:

Tosser

Dec 4, 2008, 02:57 AM

xbjllb

Dec 4, 2008, 03:19 AM

I think he has something to do with all this...

http://pressbanner.com/images/stories/071108wozniak1.jpg

:apple:

PCMacUser

Dec 4, 2008, 03:33 AM

Aliens did it.

Mac Kiwi

Dec 4, 2008, 03:57 AM

MS has to much to lose over being caught,just imagine the new I am a PC ads which would follow that outcome.

The best candidate would be Dell I think,mind you it could also be some company some of us have never even heard of....time will tell,or Apple could also just be bluffing.

Blue Buddha

Dec 4, 2008, 03:59 AM

...I smell Ballmer.

Yeeeeeeeeeuchhhhh! Go wash!

Banjhiyi

Dec 4, 2008, 04:08 AM

Who stands to gain if OSX moves to Windows style pricing and validation?

Go figure.

matticus008

Dec 4, 2008, 04:28 AM

There's a difference in being confident in the superiority of your machine and rubber stamping any and all decisions Apple made.
At the same time, there's a difference between critical analysis and being disappointed that a product didn't shape up the way one hoped and the hand-wringing and histrionics of the equally powerful cult of Apple Personally Wronged Me.

As much as it might shock both sides, Apple is a corporation, and neither the answer to all life's problems nor the personal destroyer of electronic paradise. They make products and money and have a demonstrated talent for doing both. They can't serve everyone, and they don't try. If they don't have something suitable, get yourself something that is. You can't always get what you want no matter how entitled to it you might feel.

Some people can't seem to get over it and feel so personally victimized by a simple business that they have to stomp around complaining about minitowers, or Apple's thin and style obsession, or the unholy evils of a deviant port connector, or Apple "monopolies" on their own products instead of just buying something that suits their needs and moving on with their lives. Life is about making choices from less-than-perfect options.
The rationalism is almost completely gone.
What little of it there was to begin with. People have never been rational about their attachments or their need to complain.

kockgunner

Dec 4, 2008, 05:20 AM

If you somehow came across a Ferrari engine and it fit in your Toyota there would be nothing stopping you from doing it as far as I know.

Except I think Ferrari builds their own engines in-house. Someone correct me if I am wrong. And they are not obligated to sell their engines to wanna-be companies.

I always thought there was something weird with a small company having the guts to hire a big lawyer agency. To just think there are companies like Microsoft or Dell behind all this just makes me mad. They think they have the right to steal someone else's work because they are finally realising that Apple is a big player and a real threat. Apple better win or I will have no faith in our court system.