PDA

View Full Version : Pystar vs Apple Inc


MacBytes
Feb 21, 2009, 10:22 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Mac OS X
Link: Pystar vs Apple Inc (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20090221112201)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

rfruth
Feb 21, 2009, 11:34 AM
If Macs are so great Apple should welcome this - go Pystar :D

ipoppy
Feb 21, 2009, 11:37 AM
All of the lawyers agree that the case probably isn't going away anytime soon. The trial is set for November 9, 2009. Strand expects the trial could take about a month to complete, with a decision coming in late December. Typically, the parties will have 12 to 18 months to appeal the decision and then we are in for another round of legal wrangling.

I think Psystar know that they loose. They probably hoping sell as much their products as possible during that time and they won't have to recall every machine after. Unless its true that someone else is behind that case.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/2184/austinpowersmikemyersas.jpg
:cool::cool::cool:

EmperorDarius
Feb 21, 2009, 11:39 AM
Apple makes the OS. Apple decides how the OS can be used. It's very simple.

NiroNavro
Feb 21, 2009, 11:56 AM
How many times are you people going to misspell Psystar? I swear you spell it differently for every story that you post on this topic.

Peace
Feb 21, 2009, 11:59 AM
I want to know where this company is getting all this money for all the lawyers.

alexbates
Feb 21, 2009, 12:17 PM
Apple makes the OS. Apple decides how the OS can be used. It's very simple.

Agreed. Apple needs to and should have full control of their OS.

If there is trouble going on that involves how it can be used, Apple should work on getting their copyright updated.

wizard
Feb 21, 2009, 01:14 PM
Apple makes the OS. Apple decides how the OS can be used. It's very simple.

Unfortunately it really isn't that simple, if it was the issue would not have made it to court. The biggest problem for Apple that I can see is that Mac OS is a product in it's own right, freely sold in Apple stores even, thus people have the right to make hardware that is interoperable with it.

As to all the wonder about who is behind Psystar, last I knew the law firm took the case for free. Probably because they believe there is a very high probability of winning on enough points to get sizeable legal fees from Apple. While I've actually have forgotten the firms name they do have a history that indicates that they know what they are doing here and have potential for success.

One big issue in my mind is this does Apple have rights beyond first sale. Recent rulings against record companies would say they don't. That is one thing, another would be blatant anti-competitive practices if their installer specifically craps out because it thinks a piece of hardware is not Apple hardware.

Obviously Psystar winning will not be good for Apple. Honestly I'm wondering if they think they will loose and thus need to implement different technology to control where the OS can run. I'm actually wondering if the hold up on the Mini, iMac and other Apple computers is due to the law suit. One way Apple could deal with this is to implement a complex non trivial ROM like in the old days of the MAC. Another would be to introduce custom execution units that the likes of Psystar could not reproduce.

One approach here would be a fully custom vector unit designed by Apple to use in conjunction with OpenCL. Now many here think that Apple will focus on the use of the GPU for acceleration, but having their own vector hardware does have significant advantages one being uniqueness. Another would be uniformity from machine to machine without consideration of the GPU. Finally a well designed vector unit could end up being an even better platform for scientific computing when up against a processor that still has a primary goal of accelerating video.

Ok so maybe the above is wishful thinking but it is one way for Apple to solve the clone issue. What I'm imagining here is an extension in the North bridge that looks like a cross between an old Alt-Vec processor and the vector units in the Cell processor. Ideally full floating point support for both short (Alt-Vec) and much longer vectors similar to a Cray. If Apple could do vectors that are say 64, 64 bit floats at a time, per computation unit, people would take notice Crazy you might say! Not really as it would certainly produce the machines that nobody else can touch that has been alluded to. It would also be a much better use of the enginnering talents at PA Semi. OpenCL would also make this facility transparent to the user and would not exclude GPU acceleration too.

OK so I just woke up and this might be a dream. What I do know is that we have been lead to believe that Apple is coming out with machines that others can not compete against. To me this implies hardware others can't get. Combine those statements with the new threat from Psystar and custom hardware becomes even more inviting. Of course that custom hardware could simply be something to lock Psystsr out of the game and offer the user nothing. Frankly if Apple goes that route it will be a very sad reflection on the state of American business. It would also be a sad reflection upon Apple ability to protect itself through innovation.


Dave

rfruth
Feb 21, 2009, 02:35 PM
its simple = Mac good everyone else bad. George W took that approach (your either for us or against us) and we all know how that worked out... please Apple don't use your know how
to put hooks in the OS & or firmware thus copy protecting it, build a better mousetrap and price it right, thats your protection :)

Winni
Feb 21, 2009, 02:47 PM
Apple makes the OS. Apple decides how the OS can be used. It's very simple.

No. It's up to the customer to decide how to use a product that he purchased. I don't need a corporation to tell me what I can do or not do. It's okay that they don't "guarantee that a product is fit for a specific purpose", but it certainly is not okay if they want to tell me what I can or cannot do. If I make it work, it's none of their business.

Imagine Dunlop telling you that you can use their tires only on Ford. Imagine Ford at the same time telling you that you are only allowed to drive Michelin. Get the idea? The world doesn't work like that.

IJ Reilly
Feb 21, 2009, 03:01 PM
In these thread we always hear from people who believe that all intellectual property laws are evil, probably because they've never created anything themselves.

EmperorDarius
Feb 21, 2009, 03:56 PM
No. It's up to the customer to decide how to use a product that he purchased. I don't need a corporation to tell me what I can do or not do. It's okay that they don't "guarantee that a product is fit for a specific purpose", but it certainly is not okay if they want to tell me what I can or cannot do. If I make it work, it's none of their business.

Imagine Dunlop telling you that you can use their tires only on Ford. Imagine Ford at the same time telling you that you are only allowed to drive Michelin. Get the idea? The world doesn't work like that.

They are selling the OS for their machines only. They make it and they should have the full right to do decide how the users can use it.

If you don't want to use the OS under the manufacture's machine, then don't use it at all.

wizard
Feb 21, 2009, 04:04 PM
In these thread we always hear from people who believe that all intellectual property laws are evil, probably because they've never created anything themselves.

There is nothing at all evil about the law, it just isn't clear that Apple has the rights some here thinks it has. For one thing the concept of right to first sale has been around for ages. IP laws do provide for certain exceptions to azure interoperability also. Beyond all of that Apple is not even the copyright holder on a vast portion of Mac OS, read through Apples own licensing statement to understand that.

One thing that will come out of this law suit is a better understanding of just what is legal. Especially with respect to eula and an individuals right to resell software legally purchased by him. Expect Apple to get a lot of software companies to support them in court if it looks like they are loosing.


Dave

wizard
Feb 21, 2009, 04:45 PM
They are selling the OS for their machines only. They make it and they should have the full right to do decide how the users can use it.

Imagine if Nikon or Cannon took that position with their cameras and they only allowed you to use YOUR camera in the way they wanted. Would you accept that and if so why?

Same thing goes for a dirt bike. Shuold the manufacture have a say in where and how you ride it?

If you are into music, should the manufacture of the quitar have any say in what music you play on it. More so if you create an entirely new style of music should the manufacture be able to stop you from playing that genre?

Coming around to software Apple often suggest minimal machines for it's software should that prevent you from installing on older hardware if you are willing to take the speed or feature hit? This is somthing that requires that you yourself evaluate the value in the arrangement. If you can make a decision here can't you also evaluate the suitability of the OS, you legally purchased, running on another hardware platform?


If you don't want to use the OS under the manufacture's machine, then don't use it at all.

You are simply giving away rights to something you legally purchased. With your attitude we are likely to revert to the days where everybody had a proprietary interface to each and every component of a PC. I don't think anybody wants to revert to those days.


Dave

BenRoethig
Feb 21, 2009, 05:18 PM
In these thread we always hear from people who believe that all intellectual property laws are evil, probably because they've never created anything themselves.

And those who think only Apple has rights and the users and developers who have invested their own time and money in the platform have none at all. This isn't about whether some crackpot PC assembler in a basement can make Macs, this is about whether Apple is afforded despotism.

armoguy94
Feb 21, 2009, 05:52 PM
I really hope Psystar wins this one, which will make more possibilities for us to build our own macs...at least more easily.

Tallest Skil
Feb 21, 2009, 05:55 PM
I really hope Psystar wins this one, which will make more possibilities for us to build our own macs...at least more easily.

Mmm... not really. It'd be harder if they won.

If they win, all that that means is that it isn't illegal to install OS X on a PC.

That doesn't mean that Apple can't hardcode the OS to ONLY run on the hardware configurations in Macs.

armoguy94
Feb 21, 2009, 06:19 PM
Mmm... not really. It'd be harder if they won.

If they win, all that that means is that it isn't illegal to install OS X on a PC.

That doesn't mean that Apple can't hardcode the OS to ONLY run on the hardware configurations in Macs.
Unless Apple gets a wake up call, and realizes that this all happens because they overprice, so I'd hope they'd either let us be and install os x on pc's or reduce the costs of Apple computers.

Knowing Apple, both are very unlikely to occur though.

Tallest Skil
Feb 21, 2009, 06:21 PM
Unless Apple gets a wake up call, and realizes that this all happens because they overprice...

No, they don't.

Overpriced implies that people don't buy them.

They've posted record sales every quarter for years. They have no need to reduce the price.

MacUser2525
Feb 21, 2009, 06:31 PM
Apple makes the OS. Apple decides how the OS can be used. It's very simple.

No it is not that simple Apple can do what they want with the part of the OS X system they wrote the rest is under the BSD and GPL licenses probably others as well that have their own terms and conditions that Apple has to abide by to use...

IJ Reilly
Feb 21, 2009, 07:04 PM
There is nothing at all evil about the law, it just isn't clear that Apple has the rights some here thinks it has. For one thing the concept of right to first sale has been around for ages. IP laws do provide for certain exceptions to azure interoperability also. Beyond all of that Apple is not even the copyright holder on a vast portion of Mac OS, read through Apples own licensing statement to understand that.

One thing that will come out of this law suit is a better understanding of just what is legal. Especially with respect to eula and an individuals right to resell software legally purchased by him. Expect Apple to get a lot of software companies to support them in court if it looks like they are loosing.


Some people think the laws protecting IP are evil. You hear it in threads about this and other related topics all the time.

I wouldn't count on this lawsuit clarifying much. As the article says, the case is very specific to the individual facts.

Another thing the pie-in-the-sky crowd doesn't seem to understand is that if by some fluke Psystar managed to win this case or any significant part of it, Apple needs only to change the way they sell OSX -- because we can be 100% certain that they will not give up the right to sell Macintosh computers in the way they choose. The irony is the methods they will use to make certain that copies of OSX can't be legally purchased, installed on non-Apple computers and resold, will make every Mac owner unhappy. Psystar will still be out of business, and the world will not have become a better place for their having been here.

And those who think only Apple has rights and the users and developers who have invested their own time and money in the platform have none at all. This isn't about whether some crackpot PC assembler in a basement can make Macs, this is about whether Apple is afforded despotism.

No, it's about whether Apple has the right to decide who can make and sell Macintosh computers. The only despotism that might result from the lawsuit is if the courts tell Apple that they no longer have that right.

MacProFCP
Feb 21, 2009, 07:04 PM
I agree that under current intellectual property rights, Apple is the clear winner. On the other hand, I kind of want Pystar to win. I think that if the law suit looks that Pystar will come out ahead, Apple will announce a new way to allow clones, probably with a lot more control then back in the messed up 90s. However, I think it would be a major mistake for Apple to hardware tie to the software.

DaReal_Dionysus
Feb 21, 2009, 08:57 PM
The biggest problem for Apple that I can see is that Mac OS is a product in it's own right, freely sold in Apple stores even, thus people have the right to make hardware that is interoperable with it.


I simply must intervene on this. I used to work with attorneys and have done extensive work on this subject.

First the statement you made is not correct but totally flawed. When you purchase the software you have to agree to the terms of use to install it. Your have the obligation to read and accept the agreement of free will. If you do not accept the agreement then you do not have the rights to use the software by any means.

That agreement does not state in any way shape or form that you are allowed to redistribute their work in a profitable basis to any other individual or entity. If that was the case then one person could purchase the software and distribute anyway he or she see's fit and you would be S.O.L.!

THATS RIDICULOUS

APPLE WILL WIN AND THEY SHOULD.

Revelation78
Feb 21, 2009, 09:09 PM
OK, some of you think Apple can't tie their software to their hardware? So that means I can get the Navigation software from say a Mercedes and load it on a Dodge? Also, look back to the 90's when Apple did license out it's OS, the company almost went out of business.

If Apple were forced to license out their OS, guess what, they're going to operate just like Microsoft and sell 6 different versions for $400+. I HOPE Psystar loses. Apple does retain the right to determine if their IP, i.e. Mac OSX should only run on they're hardware. It's also clearly printed on the box the requirements to install said OS. If you don't like, you don't buy it.

This will most assuredly hurt the hackintosh community more than anything else. For those that still think Mac's are too expensive; so the world should change everything so that you can afford something nice? Why are you not crying that a Bugatti sells for 2+ million when you can only afford a $30K car. Should Bugatti be forced to sell there cars for less so you can afford them?

Another thing that will be hurt is Apple's quality hardware. They will not put the R&D in to developing new systems. The reason Apple has done so well in the past several years is there time-tested way of doing business.

I wish Apple luck, and I hope they prevail. I also hope the backers of these guys are brought into the open and Apple takes measures against them.

blueninja
Feb 22, 2009, 12:43 AM
Unfortunately it really isn't that simple, if it was the issue would not have made it to court.

I disagree. It only went to court because someone had enough money to take it there.

Realistically, can Apple guarantee that OS X will run on any computer and still maintain the high level of reliability that we've come to expect? Of course not. OS X is engineered, tested, and licensed for specific hardware. As a result, it's more reliable than anything out there. That's why people are willing to pay so much more for the OS and computers it's designed to run on.

Psystar will argue that OS X can run well on a wide variety of computers and they're obviously willing to support it. Either way, they're just trying to ride the coattails of Apple's success.

blueninja
Feb 22, 2009, 12:53 AM
Unless Apple gets a wake up call, and realizes that this all happens because they overprice, so I'd hope they'd either let us be and install os x on pc's or reduce the costs of Apple computers.

Knowing Apple, both are very unlikely to occur though.

That's like wanting a Ferrari and then whining that it's too expensive. If you want a Mac, pay for it like everyone else.

EmperorDarius
Feb 22, 2009, 05:00 AM
Imagine if Nikon or Cannon took that position with their cameras and they only allowed you to use YOUR camera in the way they wanted. Would you accept that and if so why?

Same thing goes for a dirt bike. Shuold the manufacture have a say in where and how you ride it?

If you are into music, should the manufacture of the quitar have any say in what music you play on it. More so if you create an entirely new style of music should the manufacture be able to stop you from playing that genre?

Coming around to software Apple often suggest minimal machines for it's software should that prevent you from installing on older hardware if you are willing to take the speed or feature hit? This is somthing that requires that you yourself evaluate the value in the arrangement. If you can make a decision here can't you also evaluate the suitability of the OS, you legally purchased, running on another hardware platform?


You are simply giving away rights to something you legally purchased. With your attitude we are likely to revert to the days where everybody had a proprietary interface to each and every component of a PC. I don't think anybody wants to revert to those days.


Dave

It's not the same thing. Apple is not restricting in any way what you can use OS X for, just WHERE you can run it.
When you legally purchase the program you must agree to the license agreenment, so if it says you're only allowed to run it on an Apple machine, you're must do so.
This way Apple makes OS X run smooth with it's full performance and without problems caused by incompatible hardware.

Again, if you don't like the way it is, don't buy the OS at all.

kurosov
Feb 22, 2009, 06:45 AM
People fail to realise that psystar are making a profit while breaking the liscense agreement.

If you want to use an analogy then drop the stupid car on road nonsense and look at dvd purchases. If a cinema bought a dvd movie and started selling tickets for people to watch it they would be making a profit by breaking the agreement that is stated on every dvd.

The issue however is too complex to get a true fitting analogy.

This issue would never have arisen if microsoft didn't have the business strategy they do. In the past hardware and os where released as apple does.

bobsentell
Feb 22, 2009, 07:24 AM
Blah...Blah...Blah...

If Apple wants to relegate itself to obscurity, then let them. Has anyone thought that the reason Pystar is doing well is people want to buy Mac OS but don't want to spend $1,200 for a laptop to run it? This is a perfect opportunity for Apple to do what Microsoft does...sell it's product to a larger crowd. Apple can still make its own hardware, but by allowing the product to be installed on PCs would allow Apple to reach a group of people its never reached before...PC users en mass.

BenRoethig
Feb 22, 2009, 09:33 AM
Unless Apple gets a wake up call, and realizes that this all happens because they overprice, so I'd hope they'd either let us be and install os x on pc's or reduce the costs of Apple computers.

Knowing Apple, both are very unlikely to occur though.

They don't overcharge, they have consistent margins. Some things will be more expensive, some things will be cheaper. Dell and the rest use a system where they have very low margins on the cheaper stuff (and hope to make it up in volume) while sticking the professional/corporate user with the bill by charging very high margins on severs and workstations.

Apple has holes in the lineup you could drive a battleship through. Since they are the only company who sells Mac OS X computers the platform does as well. Unless you're a low or middle end consumer (more or less the upscale version of the windows crowd) or a super high end professional, you might have a very though time finding a good fit these days.

BenRoethig
Feb 22, 2009, 09:57 AM
It's not the same thing. Apple is not restricting in any way what you can use OS X for, just WHERE you can run it.

Indirectly, yes. The hardware you have can have a lot of impact on how you use it.

This way Apple makes OS X run smooth with it's full performance and without problems caused by incompatible hardware.

It runs smooth because Apple did their homework and made an adaptable modern OS. They don't have the 80s baggage that started to plague Mac OS classic and still plague windows.

Again, if you don't like the way it is, don't buy the OS at all.

Would you to do the same if Apple changed directions and left you high and dry. I don't see many here just walking away and going to windows without a fight.

IJ Reilly
Feb 22, 2009, 10:29 AM
Would you to do the same if Apple changed directions and left you high and dry. I don't see many here just walking away and going to windows without a fight.

What? This is the weirdest justification yet for violating IP. It sounds eerily similar to the rationale some use to justify stealing music.

If you don't like the way the company who makes a product sells it, then your option is not buying it -- your only legitimate option. This is the way it has always been, and it hasn't changed because the company is Apple and the product is computers.

EmperorDarius
Feb 22, 2009, 10:35 AM
Indirectly, yes. The hardware you have can have a lot of impact on how you use it.



I see nothing wrong with Apple's hardware, as you can do everything you can do with any other computer with it.




It runs smooth because Apple did their homework and made an adaptable modern OS. They don't have the 80s baggage that started to plague Mac OS classic and still plague windows.



It runs smooth because the OS is good but also because it has been designed and tested in order to integrate well with the hardware.

Joe The Dragon
Feb 22, 2009, 10:58 AM
Why can't apple just sell osx for $200 for all pc's as the mini likely has that much in cost over it's the cost of it's hardware.

And if they go to intel atom at $600 then you are looking at about $350 $400 in hardware and that is on the high side selling at $600 that is slower then the old mini that Mikey has dropped down to $500 or less.

IJ Reilly
Feb 22, 2009, 11:02 AM
I see nothing wrong with Apple's hardware, as you can do everything you can do with any other computer with it..

What you say is correct, but you'll never make any progress with this argument. The mindset we are dealing with is that if Apple doesn't sell the exact hardware that pleases me or meets my specific desires, then they are doing something horribly wrong, and no longer deserve to decide how they make and sell their own products.

Floris1994
Feb 22, 2009, 11:11 AM
I think Psystar should win:D

If they don't they will probably ship there computers without operating systems on them and "give" a copy of leopard to install on any "apple" computers you may have.

Tallest Skil
Feb 22, 2009, 11:14 AM
I think Psystar should win:D

If they don't they will probably ship there computers without operating systems on them and "give" a copy of leopard to install on any "apple" computers you may have.

You seem to not realize that if Psystar loses, they will be bankrupted, shut down, and, if Apple gets their way, their owners will serve jail time.

All that is, of course, assuming that there isn't a conspiracy with a larger company behind Psystar like Apple believes there to be.

Floris1994
Feb 22, 2009, 11:15 AM
Unless Apple gets a wake up call, and realizes that this all happens because they overprice, so I'd hope they'd either let us be and install os x on pc's or reduce the costs of Apple computers.

Knowing Apple, both are very unlikely to occur though.

Agreed

rfruth
Feb 22, 2009, 11:54 AM
Apple needs to change their business model or someone else will

http://i.gizmodo.com/5156903/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-9-into-the-ultimate-os-x-netbook

IJ Reilly
Feb 22, 2009, 12:27 PM
You seem to not realize that if Psystar loses, they will be bankrupted, shut down, and, if Apple gets their way, their owners will serve jail time.

This is a civil action, not a criminal one -- so unless Apple has opened their own gulags...

Apple needs to change their business model or someone else will

Right, because they are so unsuccessful. Or is it because they are successful? It's so hard to tell what is meant, with comments like these.

rfruth
Feb 22, 2009, 12:39 PM
they are successful if ~ 10 % market share is all they want (yes more isn't always better)

IJ Reilly
Feb 22, 2009, 12:44 PM
Of course it's not "all they want." Mac sales have been growing at five times the PC industry rate, so more is coming steadily. Everybody wishes they could reproduce Apple's business model. Even Microsoft would, if only they knew how.

ipoppy
Feb 22, 2009, 12:48 PM
Guys,
I just cant simply understand why you want to change image of apple from that what they are? I happy buying product which is at least twice expensive from any other pc's, because I pay for quality. I pay for image like buying merc or bmw or better car. Why do you want OSX to be installed on pcs??? Why? To increase risk and expose for potential idiot hackers with their malware, spyware etc.???
And please...examples like ...."...Imagine Dunlop telling you that you can use their tires only on Ford. Imagine Ford at the same time telling you that you are only allowed to drive Michelin. Get the idea?"....to justify it are usless!!! Its absolutely wrong to compare that way. If I buy apple product I simply agree with their terms and cond. If I wont like them, I won't .... simply again...buy it.
And thats what people wants.

kastenbrust
Feb 22, 2009, 12:56 PM
Guys,
I just cant simply understand why you want to change image of apple from that what they are? I happy buying product which is at least twice expensive from any other pc's, because I pay for quality. I pay for image like buying merc or bmw or better car. Why do you want OSX to be installed on pcs??? Why? To increase risk and expose for potential idiot hackers with their malware, spyware etc.???
And please...examples like ...."...Imagine Dunlop telling you that you can use their tires only on Ford. Imagine Ford at the same time telling you that you are only allowed to drive Michelin. Get the idea?"....to justify it are usless!!! Its absolutely wrong to compare that way. If I buy apple product I simply agree with their terms and cond. If I wont like them, I won't .... simply again...buy it.
And thats what people wants.

Thats a fallacy, Mac's are the same price as PC's

but all the other rant was correct :):apple:

marold280
Feb 22, 2009, 12:58 PM
phystar are not doing anything wrong in my opinion.
I hope this doesnt annoy anyone

kastenbrust
Feb 22, 2009, 01:04 PM
phystar are not doing anything wrong in my opinion.
I hope this doesnt annoy anyone

Go and put your fire retardant clothes on now

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-forum/flamed.gif

Beric
Feb 22, 2009, 05:07 PM
Thats a fallacy, Mac's are the same price as PC's

Try comparing some PC's to Macs and then say that.

kastenbrust
Feb 22, 2009, 05:12 PM
Try comparing some PC's to Macs and then say that.

I do all the time, which is why i said that, i'll say it again if you like?

Mac's are the same price as PC's

:):apple:

If you believe otherwise....prove it
i'll give you some advice, don't waste your time, because you can't.

ipoppy
Feb 22, 2009, 05:16 PM
phystar are not doing anything wrong in my opinion.
I hope this doesnt annoy anyone

In your opinion yes.....but in my they do something wrong. They trying to put "nice picture in ugly frame"...which is OSX in their pc boxes. Plus they trying to win this case not to prove the point but make others to try to screw Apple.
Dont get me wrong but in computer world I feel kinda safe work on OSX hardware/software...and we do not need "low budget" guests to screw that up. And they will ...trust me on that.

ipoppy
Feb 22, 2009, 05:33 PM
I do all the time, which is why i said that, i'll say it again if you like?

Mac's are the same price as PC's

:):apple:

If you believe otherwise....prove it
i'll give you some advice, don't waste your time, because you can't.

I am not an expert in this field so probably I am wrong. But I did 3 min search and I have found this:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090122170916AA0QPJR

..from there this:


http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=324012

They say the best Qosimo cost $4199...where MBP the same size is $5100. Dont want to go into details of hardware, but I think thats fair contrast.

BenRoethig
Feb 22, 2009, 05:41 PM
Try comparing some PC's to Macs and then say that.

Not too many PC makers have made similar hardware choices, so its hard to make direct comparison. Similar small form factor desktops, all in ones, premium thin and light notebooks, and dual socket workstation are more expensive than what Apple offers. That being said, Apple (and therefore OSX) only plays in those markets which leaves many with a mismatch for hardware and you have to pay significantly more for certain features in those markets than you would with something more suitable.

kastenbrust
Feb 22, 2009, 05:42 PM
I am not an expert in this field so probably I am wrong. But I did 3 min search and I have found this:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090122170916AA0QPJR

..from there this:


http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=324012

They say the best Qosimo cost $4199...where MBP the same size is $5100. Dont want to go into details of hardware, but I think thats fair contrast.

Its double the price of the Macbook pro and not even as good! it doesnt even have an HD screen? whereas the Macbook pro does, its half a foot thicker than the macbook pro, looks disgusting, isnt made of aluminium, has a power hungry processor, poor battery, similar graphics cards and a very poor hard drive... all for double the price?!?! :confused: Still the Macbook is cheaper than the PC....

Thats not a comparison, thats an insult comparing the Macbook Pro to that, even if we are talking about price.

BenRoethig
Feb 22, 2009, 05:56 PM
Its double the price of the Macbook pro and not even as good! it doesnt even have an HD screen? whereas the Macbook pro does, its half a foot thicker than the macbook pro, looks disgusting, isnt made of aluminium, has a power hungry processor, poor battery, similar graphics cards and a very poor hard drive... all for double the price?!?! :confused: Still the Macbook is cheaper than the PC....

Thats not a comparison, thats an insult comparing the Macbook Pro to that, even if we are talking about price.

Completely different market. Macbook Pros are premium thin and lights. They are designed for maximum portability and battery life while offering decent power. The Toshiba is a desktop replacement. It is designed to offer power (Quad core CPU, one or two high end CPUs, dual hard drives) you would normally see in a desktop in something you can lug around. It gives up weight and battery life for this.

Bottom line, don't believe the absolutism coming out of cupertino. There is no such thing as the perfect computer. Everything is a compromise. To have one thing, you have to give up something else.

Billy Boo Bob
Feb 22, 2009, 06:03 PM
Everybody seems to act like they actually "purchase" the software. You don't. You license it. It's called a SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MAC OS X. There are terms (agreements) that come with that license.

kastenbrust
Feb 22, 2009, 06:19 PM
Everybody seems to act like they actually "purchase" the software. You don't. You license it. It's called a SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MAC OS X. There are terms (agreements) that come with that license.

Thats true, and Psystar doesnt have the right to sell those licenses, just like Coca Cola doesnt have the right to sell Pepsi, and so Psystar is in the wrong.

coolfactor
Feb 23, 2009, 03:20 AM
Blah...Blah...Blah...

If Apple wants to relegate itself to obscurity, then let them. Has anyone thought that the reason Pystar is doing well is people want to buy Mac OS but don't want to spend $1,200 for a laptop to run it? This is a perfect opportunity for Apple to do what Microsoft does...sell it's product to a larger crowd. Apple can still make its own hardware, but by allowing the product to be installed on PCs would allow Apple to reach a group of people its never reached before...PC users en mass.

That's a flawed model, proven by Microsoft themselves. It's a recipe for disaster.

ipoppy
Feb 23, 2009, 04:13 AM
That's a flawed model, proven by Microsoft themselves. It's a recipe for disaster.

Could not agree more.

SPUY767
Feb 23, 2009, 07:55 AM
No. It's up to the customer to decide how to use a product that he purchased. I don't need a corporation to tell me what I can do or not do. It's okay that they don't "guarantee that a product is fit for a specific purpose", but it certainly is not okay if they want to tell me what I can or cannot do. If I make it work, it's none of their business.

Imagine Dunlop telling you that you can use their tires only on Ford. Imagine Ford at the same time telling you that you are only allowed to drive Michelin. Get the idea? The world doesn't work like that.

Exactly, which is why it's A-OK for a consumer to buy a retail copy of OS X and get it functioning on his own PC. However, for a company to build a PC with the express purpose of installing a hacked OS onto it is another issue alltogether. EFix is above reproach in this regard, Psystar is not.

BaldiMac
Feb 23, 2009, 08:48 AM
Exactly, which is why it's A-OK for a consumer to buy a retail copy of OS X and get it functioning on his own PC. However, for a company to build a PC with the express purpose of installing a hacked OS onto it is another issue alltogether. EFix is above reproach in this regard, Psystar is not.

I don't mean this question to be rhetorical. I am interested in the justification.

Why is EFIx above reproach? What purpose does their product have other than contributing to copyright infringement? Does it have any other use then to allow the installation of OS X in violation of the license agreement?

nfrankli
Feb 23, 2009, 12:18 PM
This discussion actually got me thinking about MacOS and how it's license terms are different from Windows. If you are following Apple's rules then all you can legally do with the retail copies of MacOS is upgrade your current Apple computer to the a new MacOS. So I presume that Apple has priced MacOS similar to other "upgrades", which frequently run at a significant discount.

So depending on how Apple looks at it from a business point of view, they sell retail MacOS at a discount since they already made their profit off of the original Mac purchase. So the main point here is that just because you can buy MacOS for $129 at retail, that doesn't mean that's how much it "costs" for a new system.

If Apple was interested in selling their MacOS as a standalone product they could start to make the upgrade/new license distinction and charge appropriately. Though I don't ever see that happening, Apple prefers to manage the whole user experience so that people are happy with paying a premium. But it they do "lose" the case (unlikely) this might be a way to sink Psystar in the long run. Just charge $400 for MacOS as a new license and I doubt you'd see many people going to Psystar.

IJ Reilly
Feb 23, 2009, 01:15 PM
For many years, Apple didn't charge anything for MacOS updates. You could go into any Apple dealer with floppy discs in hand, and they'd make you a copy for free. If you didn't have floppy discs, most dealers would sell you a box and make the copy of the OS for you right then. So, did that mean that anyone could build and sell computers that ran the MacOS?

nagromme
Feb 23, 2009, 02:29 PM
Legalese aside, I want CHOICE. That means I want Psystar and others to lose.

The only issue I REALLY care about is whether Apple can be forced to SUPPORT the OS on other platforms. If they can be forced to SELL it for others, unsupported, that's one thing (and it wouldn't make Mac clones very appealing anyway). But I'd hate to see Apple SUPPORTING that (unless the other hardware is literally identical) and I would be amazed if a court required them to.

Support means:

* Every change to the OS, from a bug fix to a new feature, can no longer assumed to be aimed only at the known Mac models which Apple themselves designed. Changes must be targeted at OTHER maker's hardware too.

* That means additional testing time and then additional bug-fixing time. (Oops--Snow Leopard breaks the 3rd-party driver for PsyStar's speakers. Gotta fix that! But now THAT led to another bug... better look into that... is it a bug in the OS--Apple's problem to fix--or a bug in the 3rd-party driver--which Apple will get blamed for anyway? Either way, time and effort and money must be spent figuring it out.)

* That means everything Apple ever does with the OS will happen slower. Innovation and advancement will slow.

* It also means more people will be needed to work on the OS. More communications barriers, more cooks stirring a bigger pot.

* And it means the OS will be more internally complex, contain more code, and have more bugs--the same challenge Microsoft has faced.

* Plus it means Apple's customer support costs will go up--and without increased hardware sales to pay for it. Will Apple's customer service remain on top?

* Not to mention, when other maker's hardware (and drivers and support software) fails, it will in part be Apple's reputation that suffers. "They've become a buggy mess just like Windows," will be the meme. "I thought Mac OS was supposed to be better!"

Bottom line, if Apple has to SUPPORT other hardware makers, then the Mac OS will be a worse product. It will advance more slowly, gain fewer features, and have more problems and worse support. Are there ways to help some of those issues? I'm sure. Ways to make them go away completely? No.

I want CHOICE.

Microsoft is one choice--an OS that's separate from the hardware. I'm glad Apple supports giving me that choice (Windows) on my Mac in the event that I need it.

But there's another approach: design the hardware and the software TOGETHER. This does have REAL advantages that benefit me as a user. A better, faster-evolving OS that's less of a mess under the hood.

I want an OS that's cleanly designed for and with specific hardware. Don't take that CHOICE away from me. The Microsoft business model is NOT the only one worth having in the market. I don't want to see my favorite OS fall into the pit of chaotic, unpredictable hardware configs that has plagued Windows.

IJ Reilly
Feb 23, 2009, 04:42 PM
Amen to all of the above.

One of the factors touched on, which I think is probably the single most important take-away, is that Apple has consciously chosen to design the total Mac product, which is the sum of the OS and the hardware design. Apple should not lose the right to decide how a Mac computer operates or how it looks. Psystar (and their cheerleaders here) seek to do nothing less than completely destroy the relationship between Mac hardware and the Mac operating system which Apple has carefully cultivated over a period of decades. Pystar is doing this because they wish to trade on the Mac's identity (something I believe they will not be allowed to do). Others like the idea because it gets them a product Apple isn't selling currently or may never sell. Neither justification is any good -- legally, ethically, or realistically.

PCMacUser
Feb 23, 2009, 05:33 PM
Pystar is doing this because they wish to trade on the Mac's identity (something I believe they will not be allowed to do). Others like the idea because it gets them a product Apple isn't selling currently or may never sell. Neither justification is any good -- legally, ethically, or realistically.

I don't think that Psystar are representing themselves as manufacturing 'Macs', but simply making the palatable Apple operating system available to a wider audience. I'd love to be able to run OSX on my PC (whose hardware outperforms nearly everything that Apple produces, despite being nearly two years old). Imagine the performance that people could be enjoying from their favourite operating system if they were allowed to run it on the latest architectures such as Intel i7 and the upcoming 32nm process CPUs.

Yes, Apple have every legal right to control what hardware their software runs on. But think of the potential! For all of OSX's benefits, the major thing stopping me from investing in OSX based software is the Apple-imposed lack of freedom to choose what hardware I can use and therefore how much performance I can get out of that software. My Apple laptop is a great email and Internet machine, but for serious application work, Apple has forced me to stick with the 'open' Windows platform.

sushi
Feb 23, 2009, 06:19 PM
I want to know where this company is getting all this money for all the lawyers.
The 64 dollar question.

This is a perfect opportunity for Apple to do what Microsoft does...sell it's product to a larger crowd. Apple can still make its own hardware, but by allowing the product to be installed on PCs would allow Apple to reach a group of people its never reached before...PC users en mass.
Apple makes it's money through hardware sales.

Software such as Mac OS X is there to sell the hardware and not the other way around.

Apple sells Mac OS X updates so current users can upgrade their systems, not for individuals to purchase and install on PCs.

Selling Mac OS X for PC systems would cannibalize Apple's hardware sales. They learned this lesson before during the clone period.

Why can't apple just sell osx for $200 for all pc's as the mini likely has that much in cost over it's the cost of it's hardware.
See above.

Legalese aside, I want CHOICE. That means I want Psystar and others to lose.<snip really good post.>
Well put. :)

nagromme
Feb 23, 2009, 06:46 PM
For all of OSX's benefits, the major thing stopping me from investing in OSX based software is the Apple-imposed lack of freedom to choose what hardware I can use and therefore how much performance I can get out of that software. My Apple laptop is a great email and Internet machine, but for serious application work, Apple has forced me to stick with the 'open' Windows platform.

Many of those OS X benefits are BECAUSE Apple approaches OS design differently that Microsoft: they design it for a limited, known set of hardware, which speeds up and simplifies everything involved in making an OS better and better.

A more realistic hope for your situation would be to hope that Apple releases more powerful laptops. (Although here I am on a first-gen Air--slower than any Mac made today--doing serious productivity work from 3D modeling to programming to Photoshop.) What apps do you run that Apple laptops are too slow to be productive with? They can certainly handle far more than email and Internet. (Sometimes a lot of what people perceive as "performance" is really just numbers on a spec sheet--which don't translate to productivity in reality. A few extra MHz plus Windows is often LESS productive than OS X.)

The real "hole" I see in Apple's lineup* is a machine with high GPU specs and low (therefore cheap) other specs. In other words, a high-end gamer's tower that costs less than a Mac Pro. The hope for filling that (or any other) niche market lies in the rapid growth of Mac sales: the bigger the Mac market is, the bigger each niche is too. It then becomes profitable for Apple to sell a wider range of specialized machines. (Look back: once upon a time a low-end headless seemed unthinkable--and then came the Mini. And look at the zillion iPod variations. Apple will make more and more Mac options when the demand reaches sufficient scale.)

* I'm not counting netbooks because all netbook sales put together equal fewer units than iPhone sales (to say nothing of iPods). That suggests the the iPhone and iPod Touch are doing well as "Apple's netbooks"--for now, anyway. That niche too may get back enough to matter, and if so, I'm sure Apple will step up with something interesting. (Meanwhile, cheap-o netbooks are killing the profits of all other PC makers--not something for Apple to be jealous of.)

rfruth
Feb 23, 2009, 06:55 PM
CHOICE is good yes but trying to force me to buy from a monopoly isn't - how about sell OS X bundled and outright then if X doesn't work just so on my third party hardware I can look in a mirror for my support person (or Apple can offer 3rd party support for an additional fee if they like) - corce you could buy the real thing (a Mac) and have the best chance of success + U get support from the get go.

nagromme
Feb 23, 2009, 07:02 PM
CHOICE is good yes but trying to force me to buy from a monopoly isn't - how about sell OS X bundled and outright then if X doesn't work just so on my third party hardware I can look in a mirror for my support person (or Apple can offer 3rd party support for an additional fee if they like) - corce you could buy the real thing (a Mac) and have the best chance of success + U get support from the get go.

That's the option I started with, which I wouldn't mind: Apple will sell the OS to anyone, but not SUPPORT it.

Apple would still get a bad reputation from doing so, though, and all the people clamoring for Apple to stop being a "monopoly" (misused word) would complain about the problems. They'd accuse Apple of breaking their machine on purpose, when in fact Apple simply didn't waste time and money TESTING for non-Apple hardware issues.

"Look in a mirror" support only really works if Apple advises people on no uncertain terms NOT to use non-Mac hardware. Otherwise, Apple will be expected to support the OS. I wouldn't mind seeing Apple sell the OS without legal restrictions on hardware, but WITH legal restrictions on getting support. Make that very clear, and let the hobbyists do what they like.

Of course, the hobbyists already do!

As for Psystar and other ready-made PC makers, which is what the current issue is: "look in the mirror" support is never going to be acceptable in that situation. Psystar could sell machines, saying very clearly, "this machine may stop working with the next software update--and it's your problem." But who would accept that? (And ironically, some people would blame Apple, not Psytar.) So REAL support--with all the problems I describe above--is thing I don't want Apple to have to get into.

rfruth
Feb 23, 2009, 07:42 PM
I sure hope Apple would encourage people to use a Mac else they go to their hardware vendor for support (buy from Psystar get your updates & support from them ((like you do now)))

PCMacUser
Feb 23, 2009, 08:20 PM
A more realistic hope for your situation would be to hope that Apple releases more powerful laptops.

And here lies my problem. Why wait, "hoping" that Apple will release high end hardware when one can have it NOW from a huge number of alternative sources.

nagromme
Feb 23, 2009, 09:57 PM
BTW, I have to note for the record that cars are truly NOT the same as computers. Comparing computers to cars proves nothing about the situation, it's merely a way to clarify a point. Your point, once clarified, still has to stand on its own ;)

For example, can you imagine if Ford made you touch your windshield to drive your car? There, I just proved that the iPhone needs physical controls instead of a touchscreen :)

People who say this is like a car company making you use a certain kind of tires, or roads, or gas, aren't thinking it through. Ford lets me use any tire I want. Does that make Fords a worse product? No. Tires ARE interchangeable, so restrictions would be ridiculous. But supporting OS X on any hardware WOULD make it a worse product. And computer hardware is NOT interchangeable. Supporting different hardware would be a massive burden on Apple's OS development--and we users would suffer the consequences.

Does anyone think Snow Leopard would arrive at the same time if Apple were testing on and supporting all the different hardware and drivers out there? It wouldn't--it would arrive much later and with more problems.

Microsoft's model DOES have real advantages--hardware choice. Does anyone deny that Apple's model ALSO has real advantages?

So let's keep BOTH models in the market.

And here lies my problem. Why wait, "hoping" that Apple will release high end hardware when one can have it NOW from a huge number of alternative sources.

Because you actually can't have it now, supported--and if you could, the serious problems in my post above would result.

And again, what is Apple really missing on the high end? It's stripped-down systems that are lacking in the lineup.

rfruth
Feb 23, 2009, 10:30 PM
Why would Apple need to (or try to) support OS X on any hardware - if ya don't use a genuine Mac your on your own (unless you bought a pre built system, like a Psystar, then contact them) - granted there is no free lunch, their OS X EULA needs some serious work (to protect them) etc.

SPUY767
Feb 24, 2009, 07:18 AM
I don't mean this question to be rhetorical. I am interested in the justification.

Why is EFIx above reproach? What purpose does their product have other than contributing to copyright infringement? Does it have any other use then to allow the installation of OS X in violation of the license agreement?

The device merely emulates EFI functionality. There are plenty of functions beyond copyright infringement, but copyright infringement will likely be the most popular use.

SPUY767
Feb 24, 2009, 07:20 AM
I want to know where this company is getting all this money for all the lawyers.

I beleive that it's been mentioned numerous times that the lawyers are taking the case for free, which means that they believe they can get a settlement at the very least.

kastenbrust
Feb 24, 2009, 07:31 AM
For all of OSX's benefits, the major thing stopping me from investing in OSX based software is the Apple-imposed lack of freedom to choose what hardware I can use and therefore how much performance I can get out of that software. My Apple laptop is a great email and Internet machine, but for serious application work, Apple has forced me to stick with the 'open' Windows platform.

So your saying a Mac Pro with Dual 3.2Ghz Quad Core Intel Zeon Processors with 32GB of DDR2 RAM isn't enough for you?

Jeeez what are you? a Nasa scientist? I can't imagine what "serious application work" you must be doing, but damn!

BaldiMac
Feb 24, 2009, 07:51 AM
The device merely emulates EFI functionality. There are plenty of functions beyond copyright infringement, but copyright infringement will likely be the most popular use.

Why would a device need to simply "emulate EFI functionality"? EFI appears to be a published specification. How would that get around the encryption that Apple uses to verify that OS X is running on Apple hardware?

IJ Reilly
Feb 24, 2009, 10:02 AM
Why would a device need to simply "emulate EFI functionality"? EFI appears to be a published specification. How would that get around the encryption that Apple uses to verify that OS X is running on Apple hardware?

I don't think this issue has been fully explored. As I understand it, Apple writes some of its own code into EFI. Emulation of this code's functionality through reverse engineering is potentially not a copyright violation, but not automatically.