Psystar Files for Bankruptcy

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/05/26/psystar-files-for-bankruptcy/)

The Mac Observer reports (http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/psystar_files_bankruptcy_stalls_apples_case/) that Psystar (http://www.psystar.com/), the manufacturer of unauthorized Mac clones currently embroiled in a legal battle with Apple, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The move is likely to delay the proceedings in Apple's case, which is currently still in the discovery phase, although it also signals that Psystar may be unable to finance its continuing defense against Apple.Unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Florida, temporarily slowing down Apple's legal case against it. The filing may be an indication that the company's financial backers have pulled out, signaling they see Apple as the clear winner in court.

The bankruptcy documents were filed with the Federal Courts in Florida on Thursday, and Apple's legal team was most likely made aware of the situation over the Memorial Day weekend.
Significantly, the bankruptcy hearing scheduled for June 5th should reveal the identities of any investors that have backed Psystar in its defiance of Apple. Apple suggested in court documents (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/03/apple-suggests-possible-conspiracy-behind-psystar/) last December that there may be such unnamed individuals or corporations, given Psystar's apparent resources to engage in the production of Mac clone systems and willingness to engage in a lengthy and costly legal battle with Apple over the products.

Article Link: Psystar Files for Bankruptcy (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/05/26/psystar-files-for-bankruptcy/)

[ziggyonice]

Time to see who's been hiding in the shadows the entire time! Any bets?

[ninjadex]

Wow, this is very exciting. There could be a lot of drama unfolding in the near future.

[Sayer]

I bet it was some big-name blogger(s) and other knowledge workers with too much money and not enough time to spend it on stuff.

[emt1]

Dang, I was kind of enjoying seeing Apple have some competition.

[Small White Car]

I supported Apple against Psystar and I suspect that Apple would have won the court case.

But even so, I'm disappointed in this outcome. I would have liked to see Psystar make their case in court, even if I did disagree with them.

[Tallest Skil]

Dang, I was kind of enjoying seeing Apple have some competition.

Yeah... competition. Because droves of people went for Psystar instead of Apple...

[Rhalliwell1]

This made me giggle.

[twoodcc]

i guess they spent all their money in court

[InTheUnion]

That's the end of that chapter ;)

[DakotaGuy]

Dang, I was kind of enjoying seeing Apple have some competition.

Why would anyone want that? ;)

[ziggyonice]

Thats's the end of that chapter ;)

http://instantrimshot.com/

[avionicsman]

Mr. Psystar Gates please stand up!! :eek:

[omikjam]

Sucks, Apple could use some competition..

[Diabeetus]

way to fail, psystar

all they did was ship Hackintoshes

you can do that with a blank dvd, any barebones tower, and arms.

[RoboCop001]

Turns out it was Rick Berman. He hates things and tries to destroy them by making his own crappy version of things.

[Kilamite]

Can't wait for the 5th of June now. WWDC coming, and we find out who was behind Psystar!

[chriszzz]

Dang, I was kind of enjoying seeing Apple have some competition.

Apple has competition in every other company who makes computers/software.

What Pystar was doing was not competing. They were breaking licensing agreements and distributing Apple's work in ways it was not meant to be used.

[MotleyPete]

Psystar just sounds like a really bad nu-metal band

[superxero3]

Sucks, Apple could use some competition..

i agree that competition is one of the greatest things for businesses, but not when it is created illegally by means of using Apple's operating system.

[r.j.s]

I think their backers decided to give it up after it became clear Psystar didn't keep any records of expenses or sales.

[Goona]

Serves them right!

[Rhalliwell1]

Sucks, Apple could use some competition..

They have competition... they are just a long way ahead of it all.

[iMacmatician]

Time to see who's been hiding in the shadows the entire time! Any bets?"I've been watching, I've been waiting
In the shadows for my time
I've been searching, I've been living
For tomorrow all my life"

:D

[Ol3s]

I'm sure there is a difference between a mac clone and a computer coming with mac OS X preinstalled

[4God]

172721

[zombitronic]

Dang, I was kind of enjoying seeing Apple have some competition.

Sucks, Apple could use some competition..

Real competition is when other companies innovate on their own to create a unique product that matches or surpasses another similar product (see iPod; iPhone). Cloning isn't helpful competition. It doesn't add anything of innovative technological value.

Competition is definitely good, but the lack of it doesn't seem to halt Apple from further innovation.

[*LTD*]

An interesting point:

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/psystar_files_bankruptcy_stalls_apples_case/

Even if Psystar has plans of continuing its battle against Apple to sell PCs with Mac OS X installed, it isn't in a strong position to move forward once the Judge overseeing its bankruptcy lifts the automatic stay since it doesn't likely have money to pay for its legal defense. Without the cash to pay its legal team, Psystar probably won't have anyone to represent it in court, and won't be in a position to defend itself against Apple.

That's right, Psystar. No one bought your garbage.

Good riddance.

[MacVixen]

This made me giggle.

Me too. :p

Ah well, so long Psystar. The trial seemed to just be getting to the good stuff with financial disclosures (or lack thereof), etc. Wonder if the backers will ever be revealed? or of it will be revealed that Psystar was in fact not purchasing legal copies of Leopard as they had claimed...

[Scooterman1]

If it was Microsoft, they would still be in business, and may have won their suit....... Too bad for competition. They haven't even been to court and people on here have already convicted them. Imagine that.

[brad.c]

Psystar = Chrysler???

Well, probably not.

[puuukeey]

Theory: It's apple.

Apple ships crappy version of their product to secure the low end section of the market. brand untarnished.

then at WWDC they unveil cheaper low end macs and psystar disappears
:D

[theheadguy]

Can a fanboy tell me how the consumer wins in this case? Reading half of these comments make me sick... like people on here live to please Apple. For god's sake, who gives a ***** if another company is trying to give us some lower cost mac clones? As much as you want to believe it, i dont think anyone here can make a case of how little teenie psystar made even a microscopic dent in apple's stock price. You don't have to feel bad for apple... they only need to look at the balance of their bank accounts to to turn their frowns upside-down. :rolleyes:

[*LTD*]

Sucks, Apple could use some competition..

It's Windows.

MS just can't hold its own in the Premium end of the market. Too bad. Perhaps if they made less crap that runs on other crap, we'll see a change.

If those MS ads are any indication, don't hold your breath.

(There is no such thing as commercial "competition" using Apple's own OS. That's theft, and the realm of rip-off artists. One of which seems to be dying, thankfully.)

[uberamd]

Most people who own Apple know that the experience comes from the blend of hardware and software, not just the OS itself.

[gregorsamsa]

All very predictable. People will always either buy Mac or, increasingly it seems (but still relatively paltry in number), do their own hack. I expect that in time, others like Psystar will follow suit. The only way you could have a feasible market here is if one day Apple licensed OS X, which is something highly unlikely to happen anytime soon, if at all.

[superwesman]

That's the end of that chapter ;)

Nice one, Officer Simpson!

[*LTD*]

Can a fanboy tell me how the consumer wins in this case? Reading half of these comments make me sick... like people on here live to please Apple. For god's sake, who gives a ***** if another company is trying to give us some lower cost mac clones? As much as you want to believe it, i dont think anyone here can make a case of how little teenie psystar made even a microscopic dent in apple's stock price. You don't have to feel bad for apple... they only need to look at the balance of their bank accounts to to turn their frowns upside-down. :rolleyes:

Non-proliferation of OS X that runs on cheap hardware. No dilution of the user experience in a mass of compatibility issues, update issues, etc. The integrity of OS X is maintained. Consumer wins because we'll continue to have a quality product that runs as it should, as intended, for everyone, with a certain and sustained level of support across the board. Average Joe to power user alike.

Or would you like some fly-by-nite company or group of them to turn OS X in to a Windows clone?

Besides, the consumer has spoken: We don't want Psystar's crap.

If we did, we wouldn't be reading this news, now would we?

[Tallest Skil]

Theory: It's apple.

Apple ships crappy version of their product to secure the low end section of the market. brand untarnished.

then at WWDC they unveil cheaper low end macs and psystar disappears
:D

Pretty darn sure you can't sue yourself...:p

[digitalbiker]

Mr. Psystar Gates please stand up!! :eek:

Why would Gates or Microsoft support psystar?

Right now Apple OS X is locked to only Apple branded hardware. If psystar somehow won their case and forced Apple to open up their EULA to legalize the license for all pc hardware, then OS X would be competing directly against Windows for factory installation on Dells, Sonys, Acer, HP, Lenova, and other PCs.

Can you imagine how much market share windows might loose to OS X if Dell were legally allowed to offer OS X as a factory install on their Net books, laptops, and desktops?

[Rhalliwell1]

If it was Microsoft, they would still be in business, and may have won their suit....... Too bad for competition. They haven't even been to court and people on here have already convicted them. Imagine that.

Unless Microsoft pulled out. Maybe they didn’t want bad press before the Windows 7 launch. Could you imagine the Mac v PC ads?

[Ellizit]

So this may show my newbie status, but is it illegal to legally purchase a copy of OSX and put it on a non-apple computer? If so, how does that not fall under some sort of "monopoly"? I mean, when you boil it down, Apple assembles computer just like everyone else, with parts everyone else can buy too (leaving aside aesthetics off course...). Insight anyone?

[designgeek]

Psystar = Chrysler???

Well, probably not.

Right on!:p Chrysler did the same thing with cars, take a perfectly good concept (ie. cars) and make it cheap and only able to function on a substandard level.

[schalkse]

Turns out it was Rick Berman. He hates things and tries to destroy them by making his own crappy version of things.

:D:p That made me pee my pants LOL
It's funny, cause it's true

[uberamd]

Can a fanboy tell me how the consumer wins in this case? Reading half of these comments make me sick... like people on here live to please Apple. For god's sake, who gives a ***** if another company is trying to give us some lower cost mac clones? As much as you want to believe it, i dont think anyone here can make a case of how little teenie psystar made even a microscopic dent in apple's stock price. You don't have to feel bad for apple... they only need to look at the balance of their bank accounts to to turn their frowns upside-down. :rolleyes:

People look at moving away from Windows to Mac for a different user experience. If they go with a hackintosh, there is a great chance that user experience will be tainted due to the fact that the OS was not designed to run on that system. When the hackintosh starts acting up the user will blame Apple for this. They will think Apple sucks at making software, and call Apple for support. This is not fair to Apple because they are being represented to consumers inaccurately by a 3rd party selling hacked together systems.

[uberamd]

So this may show my newbie status, but is it illegal to legally purchase a copy of OSX and put it on a non-apple computer? If so, how does that not fall under some sort of "monopoly"? I mean, when you boil it down, Apple assembles computer just like everyone else, with parts everyone else can buy too (leaving aside aesthetics off course...). Insight anyone?

First, its a hassle getting OS X to install on a PC. Second, Apple does not have a monopoly in the Operating System or Hardware sectors. BMW is the only company allowed to make BMW cars, however they do not have a monopoly on the car market.

[Lesser Evets]

Turns out Psystar was run by Steve Jobs.

He was bored, faked illness, and ran off to make his own company... just to shake up those lazy bums at Apple who can't even design and market a good tablet by 2010.

[Goona]

Sucks, Apple could use some competition..

Oh so Dell, HP, Acer, Asus, Microsoft, Linux aren't competition for Apple?

[Smith288]

People look at moving away from Windows to Mac for a different user experience. If they go with a hackintosh, there is a great chance that user experience will be tainted due to the fact that the OS was not designed to run on that system. When the hackintosh starts acting up the user will blame Apple for this. They will think Apple sucks at making software, and call Apple for support. This is not fair to Apple because they are being represented to consumers inaccurately by a 3rd party selling hacked together systems.

I put OSX on my Toshiba to get a feel for a mac. I ended up buying two macbooks and two iPhones ultimately because of that experience.

[Goona]

Can a fanboy tell me how the consumer wins in this case? Reading half of these comments make me sick... like people on here live to please Apple. For god's sake, who gives a ***** if another company is trying to give us some lower cost mac clones? As much as you want to believe it, i dont think anyone here can make a case of how little teenie psystar made even a microscopic dent in apple's stock price. You don't have to feel bad for apple... they only need to look at the balance of their bank accounts to to turn their frowns upside-down. :rolleyes:
Well it seems their products were garbage which is why they are filling for bankruptcy.

[*LTD*]

The only way you could have a feasible market here is if one day Apple licensed OS X, which is something highly unlikely to happen anytime soon, if at all.

We don't need that kind of market. God forbid. If it were ever to happen, OS X as you know it would cease to exist. You can kiss goodbye most of the reasons for using OS X. It would fast become a Windoze clone.

I'm not saying that's what you want, I'm merely expanding on your comment, if you don't mind.

Licensing out OS X, and Apple giving away their core business in the process, and letting OS X rot out in the open. All because people want it for cheap so they can run it on their hardware-of-the-month. No thanks.

I'd rather pay a bit more once in a while than play with a Windows clone day-in-day out.

It's the problem Windows faces (which will become Apple's problem if OS X is let loose):

MS is trying to compete against a vendor who uses a vertically integrated model rather than a horizontal model which Microsoft and the PC market uses. The result is that you have a poor integrated approach to marketing, hardware and software design where the experience is as much dictated by the hardware vendor as the quality of the operating system - both of which are developed by two separate companies with different goals over all in regards to their respective strategies.

[designgeek]

Oh so Dell, HP, Acer, Asus, Microsoft, Linux aren't competition for Apple?

They are, but barely. Psystar really isn't anyway. Just because it ran the same OS doesn't mean it directly competed with Apple. The same way a netbook by Acer doesn't compete with Alienware because they both run some iteration of windoze.

[ziggyonice]

Turns out Psystar was run by Steve Jobs.

He was bored, faked illness, and ran off to make his own company... just to shake up those lazy bums at Apple who can't even design and market a good tablet by 2010.

That would be one of the most interesting stories in tech history were it true.

[uberamd]

I put OSX on my Toshiba to get a feel for a mac. I ended up buying two macbooks and two iPhones ultimately because of that experience.

Exactly, I did that too. We are an exception to that rule as we are probably technical enough to understand why feature X may not work on the hackintosh. Plus, how much did that cost us? Free? $0.00? These Psystar customers are paying for a system. $500+, so if it doesn't work or has bugs they will not be as understanding.

[Cask]

They have competition... they are just a long way ahead of it all.

HAHAHA those are the words of a true fanboy!

[techfreak85]

I wonder who is all behind it......

[Tallest Skil]

First, its a hassle getting OS X to install on a PC.

Only if you don't know what a computer is.

Second, Apple does not have a monopoly in the Operating System or Hardware sectors. BMW is the only company allowed to make BMW cars, however they do not have a monopoly on the car market.

Truth.

[Eidorian]

Good night sweet prince.

[fishmoose]

Time to see who's been hiding in the shadows the entire time! Any bets?

I wouldn't be surpriesed if it's Dell or HP.

They did it to to see if they could win in court, they would ship some computers with OS X.

[*LTD*]

I put OSX on my Toshiba to get a feel for a mac. I ended up buying two macbooks and two iPhones ultimately because of that experience.

I totally support the hackintosh/OSX86 model.

I just don't support its commercial development and proliferation.

[techfreak85]

Unless Microsoft pulled out. Maybe they didn’t want bad press...?

That could be... and funny.

[NuMan]

I would have liked to see Psystar make their case in court, ...

Judge: Pystar, present your case.

Pystar attorney: Bear with me your honor, but here it is in a nut shell: The company is standing by it's previously stated logical defense: Pystar is right! and Apple is wrong! despite the fact that Pystar has no records, no data, no facts, no past present or future investors, no knowledge of the past present or future of any of their operations, no past present or future plans or objectives, no officers or principals, no one that has ever been accountable to anyone --- and we rest out case!

Jurist: A nut shell is right- and empty nut shell.

I agree, it still would have been fun to see.

[techfreak85]

http://wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagram=pystar&t=1000

[designgeek]

I wouldn't be surpriesed if it's Dell or HP.

They did it to to see if they could win in court, they would ship some computers with OS X.

I doubt it, they wouldn't be in chap 11 if they had backers like dell or hp.

[digitalbiker]

So this may show my newbie status, but is it illegal to legally purchase a copy of OSX and put it on a non-apple computer? If so, how does that not fall under some sort of "monopoly"? I mean, when you boil it down, Apple assembles computer just like everyone else, with parts everyone else can buy too (leaving aside aesthetics off course...). Insight anyone?

You are violating Apple's EULA agreement if you attempt to install OS X on non-Apple branded hardware.

The legality of this "EULA violation" would possibly have been cleared up in this court case. However if the case is terminated then Apple's EULA still stands as a valid contract with the purchaser.

I think the principle area of dispute stems from the definition of the OS. Is the OS an integral part of the entire product? Or is the OS just another piece of software?

If you feel that the OS is integral to the product then Apple has a valid claim to tie the OS to only their hardware, because it directly affects the user experience and Apple has the right to control that experience.

If you think that the OS is only software and that once you purchase the software and if you can install it on any hardware, then it should be your choice as to what hardware you use, not Apple's. Apple is not required to support the hardware that you choose, but Apple should not be able to make it unlawful if you choose to install the software on alternate hardware.

These are the two principle camps and the courts apparently are not going to decide the issue.

[chr1s60]

Dang, I was kind of enjoying seeing Apple have some competition.

This wasn't competition. Not only was Psystar not selling thousands and thousands of computers, they weren't developing anything to compete. They were simply stealing Apple's software and using it in their own machine.

To me, what Psystar was doing was essentially like an author stealing another authors novel and placing it in their own cover and changing the title. Hmm, competition or stealing?

[hugodrax]

Real competition is when other companies innovate on their own to create a unique product that matches or surpasses another similar product (see iPod; iPhone). Cloning isn't helpful competition. It doesn't add anything of innovative technological value.

Competition is definitely good, but the lack of it doesn't seem to halt Apple from further innovation.

Well if Compaq did not decide to make PC clones, or the guys who cloned the Phoenix bios, Things might be totally different today.

Not that I agree with Psystars method.

[lkrupp]

Dang, I was kind of enjoying seeing Apple have some competition.

Give us break will you. That's ignorant.

[Jimmery]

Hopefully other companies fill the void of Pystar. Some people like OS X but don't care to pay the "Apple Tax" for the bling factor of a small, shiny case.

[electronboy]

Time to see who's been hiding in the shadows the entire time! Any bets?

My bet is no one famous. Folks who have lots of money and/or influence take extra steps to protect their identity in ventures like this. I predict nothing of interest will be revealed.

[gkarris]

This wasn't competition. Not only was Psystar not selling thousands and thousands of computers, they weren't developing anything to compete. They were simply stealing Apple's software and using it in their own machine.

To me, what Psystar was doing was essentially like an author stealing another authors novel and placing it in their own cover and changing the title. Hmm, competition or stealing?

LOL... funny...

Yes, Psystar couldn't sell any of their Joe-Shmoe computers, which are just the same as everyone else's. So they had to bundle it with Mac OS X installed in order to make a few bucks....

[gregorsamsa]

We don't need that kind of market. God forbid. If it were ever to happen, OS X as you know it would cease to exist. You can kiss goodbye most of the reasons for using OS X. It would fast become a Windoze clone.

I'm not saying that's what you want, I'm merely expanding on your comment, if you don't mind.

Licensing out OS X, and Apple giving away their core business in the process, and letting OS X rot out in the open. All because people want it for cheap so they can run it on their hardware-of-the-month. No thanks.

I'd rather pay a bit more once in a while than play with a Windows clone day-in-day out.

It's the problem Windows faces (which will become Apple's problem if OS X is let loose):

MS is trying to compete against a vendor who uses a vertically integrated model rather than a horizontal model which Microsoft and the PC market uses. The result is that you have a poor integrated approach to marketing, hardware and software design where the experience is as much dictated by the hardware vendor as the quality of the operating system - both of which are developed by two separate companies with different goals over all in regards to their respective strategies.

Indeed, I agree that licensing OS X right across the PC platform would be highly undesirable & is likely to compromise its integrity. However, if Apple ever chose to concentrate on growing OS X market share, then having a major quality PC manufacturer as a partner, maybe selling OS X only on PC mid-towers where Apple has no foothold in the market & which is unlikely to significantly cannibalize existing Mac sales, might one day be an option. Would I buy a mid-tower with OS X? Well, I'd sure be interested.

[uberamd]

Only if you don't know what a computer is.


Oh really? I can tell you I have had handfuls of problems with OSx86 and I work on computers daily for my job as well as doing a lot of programming. From it not supporting ethernet, wireless not working and requiring a USB dongle, to Intel graphic chipsets not displaying properly, etc. Any fool can get it installed, but getting every feature to work properly (and thus have an entirely functional system) is not always easy. Do you disagree with that?

[Pika]

Maybe Steve Balmer is behind all this.

[CaptainScarlet]

I bet the financial backers (if any) pulled the plug on the money train and wrote it off as a lose.

[lkrupp]

Hopefully other companies fill the void of Pystar. Some people like OS X but don't care to pay the "Apple Tax" for the bling factor of a small, shiny case.

And just what would OS X become if it had to support every swinging dick piece of crap hardware out there? It would become Windows, that's what. A bloated, barely functional OS trying to be all things to all people and failing miserably like Windows has for the last twenty years. No thank you.

[*LTD*]

Hopefully other companies fill the void of Pystar. Some people like OS X but don't care to pay the "Apple Tax" for the bling factor of a small, shiny case.

Then I guess they don't like OS X.

Nearly all the reasons for liking OS X depend on it being locked to Apple's hardware. That's the whole point. That's the beauty of the entire Mac/OS X package.

If you want to tinker with it then build a hackintosh, it's just that simple. Or if it isn't that simple, then there's your reason for keeping OS X in the Apple family.

[techfreak85]

What if it was Apple behind it all along?:confused::confused::confused::eek::eek::eek:
:p

[avionicsman]

http://wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagram=pystar&t=1000

I love pastry!! Good job techfreak85 you have uncovered the golden layer of justice = yummy!!!

[macUser2007]

We don't need that kind of market. God forbid. If it were ever to happen, OS X as you know it would cease to exist. You can kiss goodbye most of the reasons for using OS X. It would fast become a Windoze clone....
MS is trying to compete against a vendor who uses a vertically integrated model rather than a horizontal model which Microsoft and the PC market uses. ....[/B]

So, you are a sucker (with all due respect,) and have bought Apple's anti-competitive drivel.

There is no particular reason Apple cannot use the same tactics to go after Hackint0sh. They don't have to win in court, they just have to make it really expensive and dangerous for anyone involved.

Not all that different, than Apple providing Boot Camp, IMO.

[gkarris]

So, you are a sucker (with all due respect,) and have bought Apple's anti-competitive drivel.

There is no particular reason Apple cannot use the same tactics to go after Hackint0sh. They don't have to win in court, they just have to make it really expensive and dangerous for anyone involved.

Not all that different, than Apple providing Boot Camp, IMO.

Go after a community of users who like to tinker and come up with new ideas and configurations? People like Steve Wozniak? :eek:

;)

[Achiever]

I wonder who is all behind it......

Wouldn't it be great if Gil Amelio were somehow involved?

[theheadguy]

People look at moving away from Windows to Mac for a different user experience. If they go with a hackintosh, there is a great chance that user experience will be tainted due to the fact that the OS was not designed to run on that system. When the hackintosh starts acting up the user will blame Apple for this. They will think Apple sucks at making software, and call Apple for support. This is not fair to Apple because they are being represented to consumers inaccurately by a 3rd party selling hacked together systems.
a "great chance that the user experience will be tainted"... good grief. im sure you have loads of validated data to back such a claim. even so, you are making it out that consumers are morons. if that's the typical apple customer, then so be it. but i think people buying 'hackintoshes' know they are buying just that, and if they are so stupid as to be blaming the hackintosh "tainted experience" on apple, then i doubt that small group of people will even leave a blemish on apple's image... after all, their are plenty of people quick to put the sparkle back on. :rolleyes:

[Doju]

Can a fanboy tell me how the consumer wins in this case? Reading half of these comments make me sick... like people on here live to please Apple. For god's sake, who gives a ***** if another company is trying to give us some lower cost mac clones? As much as you want to believe it, i dont think anyone here can make a case of how little teenie psystar made even a microscopic dent in apple's stock price. You don't have to feel bad for apple... they only need to look at the balance of their bank accounts to to turn their frowns upside-down. :rolleyes:*sigh*

No one did, because it's not the point.

Some sleeze-bag company shouldn't be waltzing in and trying to impede on rules Apple makes very clear.

I like the fact that the Apple platform isn't catered to the bargain giants. Apple will lose much of its style when it becomes a bargain brand, and thankfully with the death of Psytar it won't.

I don't want every cheap jackass running around with OS X bragging about how sleek it is. Save up and earn the beautiful machine, it's a sign of dedication and saving money, not "you can install our OS on any cheap piece of crap".

[techfreak85]

Wouldn't it be great if Gil Amelio were somehow involved?

or Woz?? as a $$ backer

[ikramerica]

He was pissed that Apple replaced his smarmy voice overs for an even smarmier young guy in their Mac v. PC ads, because 50+ year old smarmy people don't appeal to obnoxious young people ages 18-29.

[speedfreak007]

Mr. Psystar Gates please stand up!! :eek:

haha lol!

[macUser2007]

...

Nearly all the reasons for liking OS X depend on it being locked to Apple's hardware.....

Huh?! While I like Apple's hardware design, and buy a lot of it, others may have other needs.

Your statement about "all the reasons for liking OS X depend on it being locked to Apple's hardware" is nonsensical. Please let us know what important features can't be made to work, on what is essentially the same guts?

[bartzilla]

Unless Microsoft pulled out. Maybe they didn’t want bad press before the Windows 7 launch. Could you imagine the Mac v PC ads?

Or perhaps Microsoft had nothing to do with it

How exactly does winning a case which weakens software copyright laws and the rights of a software company over its own software help Microsoft for God's sake?

[Wordwise]

Can't wait for the 5th of June now. WWDC coming, and we find out who was behind Psystar!

I bet they don't even show up in court....:)

[Goona]

Hopefully other companies fill the void of Pystar. Some people like OS X but don't care to pay the "Apple Tax" for the bling factor of a small, shiny case.
Actually there are other companies and they will all fail because they produce garbage.

So, you are a sucker (with all due respect,) and have bought Apple's anti-competitive drivel.

There is no particular reason Apple cannot use the same tactics to go after Hackint0sh. They don't have to win in court, they just have to make it really expensive and dangerous for anyone involved.

Not all that different, than Apple providing Boot Camp, IMO.

I think someone needs to go look up what "anti-competitive" and "competition" means.

[synth3tik]

I am worried about what will come out of the lawsuit as far as future cases dealing with Apple's EULA. If Psystar can not pay to defend themselves against Apple the end result may effect other companies with similar ideas and business models in the future.

[Goona]

*sigh*

No one did, because it's not the point.

Some sleeze-bag company shouldn't be waltzing in and trying to impede on rules Apple makes very clear.

I like the fact that the Apple platform isn't catered to the bargain giants. Apple will lose much of its style when it becomes a bargain brand, and thankfully with the death of Psytar it won't.

I don't want every cheap jackass running around with OS X bragging about how sleek it is. Save up and earn the beautiful machine, it's a sign of dedication and saving money, not "you can install our OS on any cheap piece of crap".
Unfortunately that's what some people what Apple to turn into, a bargain brand.

[techfreak85]

I am worried about what will come out of the lawsuit as far as future cases dealing with Apple's EULA. If Psystar can not pay to defend themselves against Apple the end result may effect other companies with similar ideas and business models in the future.

lets all donate to the Clone makers!!!:D:rolleyes:

[uberamd]

a "great chance that the user experience will be tainted"... good grief. im sure you have loads of validated data to back such a claim. even so, you are making it out that consumers are morons. if that's the typical apple customer, then so be it. but i think people buying 'hackintoshes' know they are buying just that, and if they are so stupid as to be blaming the hackintosh "tainted experience" on apple, then i doubt that small group of people will even leave a blemish on apple's image... after all, their are plenty of people quick to put the sparkle back on. :rolleyes:

If the people buying hackintosh systems are highly technical like you imply, why don't they build their own systems? They could hop onto newegg and get the same system for less money. Psystar would try to appeal to those who want Apple, but cannot afford it. That doesn't mean they are targeting the highly technical.

[uberamd]

Unfortunately that's what some people what Apple to turn into, a bargain brand.

Let Compaq be the bargain-brand of computers.

[theheadguy]

If the people buying hackintosh systems are highly technical like you imply, why don't they build their own systems? They could hop onto newegg and get the same system for less money. Psystar would try to appeal to those who want Apple, but cannot afford it. That doesn't mean they are targeting the highly technical.
i never said they were "highly technical"... read my post again. once you understand what i said, we can simply agree to disagree.

[Achiever]

I supported Apple against Psystar and I suspect that Apple would have won the court case.

But even so, I'm disappointed in this outcome. I would have liked to see Psystar make their case in court, even if I did disagree with them.

You know, that's really the interesting part of this: Apple could have come along at any point and directed their venom at the Hackintosh community or other small operators who tried to (or did/do) put OS X on non-Apple hardware. Apple could have claimed EULA infringement on any one of these companies, but did not. Instead, they waited for the right company to come along and be their test case. A company which would loudly beat its chests and say "we are going to openly offer and support non-Apple computers with OS X and you can come sue if if you want to." Well, Apple had it's gorilla and as such, it's test case for all others to watch and learn from.

If Apple won their case against Pystar, other companies who may have been so inclined to offer OS X installed products suddenly step back and decide it's not worth it. There is legal precedent working against me now. Obviously if Apple loses, it empowers others to join the Pystars of the world but really, they could have done that at any point anyway. Strangely, now there is likely no resolution forthcoming, especially if the bankruptcy tanks. Pystar may well default IF the case ever goes back to trial and Apple hasn't proven anything to other companies to learn from except for perhaps: "don't do anything that will make us sure you. We have deeper pockets." But then everyone knew that already, didn't they? And the EULA question remains completely unresolved.

[*LTD*]

Huh?!
Please let us know what important features can't be made to work, on what is essentially the same guts?

I'm sure all features could be made to work. I'm also sure Windows can be made to work on nearly all the hardware you can throw at it. Get the right drivers, find the right hardware combination, maybe experiment a bit, make sure Joe Average reads up on what he needs to know, goes and learns it, does research on the forums, etc., and has a great time making OS X work like it should. I'm sure Joe Average will be quite pleased with all that.

Just like Windows. "On essentially the same guts."

[kajitox]

If you wanna hang with the big dogs you gotta learn how to pee in the tall grass.

[Plymouthbreezer]

About time.

It will be interesting to see who these folks actually are.

[Jimmery]

And just what would OS X become if it had to support every swinging dick piece of crap hardware out there? It would become Windows, that's what. A bloated, barely functional OS trying to be all things to all people and failing miserably like Windows has for the last twenty years. No thank you.

It's not "all or nothing" as you infer. If Apple continued to support a handful of hardware as it does now, but allowed Pystar to sell computers with OS X, things wouldn't be so miserable as you suggest.

Same hardware components, but different manufacturer. Competition.

[corinhorn]

Hopefully other companies fill the void of Pystar. What void? No one but a few tech-news whores will notice Psystar's timely death

[Eidorian]

What void? No one but a few tech-news whores will notice Psystar's timely deathI can see the tumbleweed already.

[Achiever]

I bet they don't even show up in court....:)

In actuality, the bankruptcy schedules filed with the court should already list anyone who has an ownership interest in or is a creditor (ie investor) of the company. The hearing on June 5th, called a 341(a) Meeting of Creditors, allows the Judge and Creditors to ask questions about the finances of the debtor company. So theoretically, Apple could show up and ask the debtor (Pystar) some questions. They likely will not, however, as the information they get back is likely already listed in the filed pleadings.

That said, it couldn't hurt to show up and ASK them...

[CorvusCamenarum]

All very predictable. People will always either buy Mac or, increasingly it seems (but still relatively paltry in number), do their own hack. I expect that in time, others like Psystar will follow suit. The only way you could have a feasible market here is if one day Apple licensed OS X, which is something highly unlikely to happen anytime soon, if at all.

They tried licensing back in the pre-X days. See: Power Computing, UMax, et al. It didn't last very long or go over all that well.

[SFStateStudent]

Ok, who's up next.... :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

[*LTD*]

It's not "all or nothing" as you infer. If Apple continued to support a handful of hardware as it does now, but allowed Pystar to sell computers with OS X, things wouldn't be so miserable as you suggest.

Same hardware components, but different manufacturer. Competition.

1996 clone fiasco, part II.

[CWallace]

Can a fanboy tell me how the consumer wins in this case?

I'm neither a fanboy nor a fanboi, but I am a consumer, so I feel I can represent at least myself.

As a consumer, I "win" in that Apple has protected their intellectual property - intellectual property I find enough value in to pay a "premium" to be able to gain access to it through OS X and the Macintosh computer.

Many people in this forum and others claim that the only thing holding back Apple's success is the price they charge for their product. And many on this forum believe that Apple cannot succeed without a cheap $1100 "gaming box" (where $1000 is the video card and $100 is everything else).

Well, Psystar gave the consumer both, and the consumer appears to have rejected them.

Does this mean that the consumer doesn't want a cheap Mac or a "gaming box"? Likely not. But it does seem to imply the consumer understands why an Apple costs more then a Windows or Linux box of similar hardware configuration and given the choice of a less expensive, but less impressive option to an Apple product, they will choose the Apple product.

And it's not just computers. There are plenty of MP3 players significantly cheaper then the iPod, and yet Apple owns that market. You can find cheaper smartphones then the iPhone, and yet Apple continues to make strong gains in marketshare.

As much as the computing world likes to claim those of us who own Apple products are snobs with too much money and too little sense and that Apple plays on our inflated views of self-importance to fleece us for hundreds and even thousands of dollars, the fact is that Apple products, services and technologies provide us with something of sufficient extra value to justify the extra price.

OS X may be just an operating system, iWorks and iLife may just be productivity software suites, and a MacBook Pro or iMac might be just a computer, but the sum is greater then the parts. And when you compare the retail prices of OS X, iWorks and iLife to Microsoft Vista Premium, Microsoft Office Professional and the individual applications from various vendors you need to buy to equal iLife, the real deal proves to be Apple...

[chrismacguy]

The only possible problem, which would detract from my enthusiasm of Psystar going into bankruptcy is that they may emerge from it. Good for Apple,they wouldve won as Mac OS X was created by them, and should only be bundled with their computers, as they made it and should hold distribution rights.

[*LTD*]

I'm neither a fanboy nor a fanboi, but I am a consumer, so I feel I can represent at least myself.

As a consumer, I "win" in that Apple has protected their intellectual property - intellectual property I find enough value in to pay a "premium" to be able to gain access to it through OS X and the Macintosh computer.

Many people in this forum and others claim that the only thing holding back Apple's success is the price they charge for their product. And many on this forum believe that Apple cannot succeed without a cheap $1100 "gaming box" (where $1000 is the video card and $100 is everything else).

Well, Psystar gave the consumer both, and the consumer appears to have rejected them.

Does this mean that the consumer doesn't want a cheap Mac or a "gaming box"? Likely not. But it does seem to imply the consumer understands why an Apple costs more then a Windows or Linux box of similar hardware configuration and given the choice of a less expensive, but less impressive option to an Apple product, they will choose the Apple product.

And it's not just computers. There are plenty of MP3 players significantly cheaper then the iPod, and yet Apple owns that market. You can find cheaper smartphones then the iPhone, and yet Apple continues to make strong gains in marketshare.

As much as the computing world likes to claim those of us who own Apple products are snobs with too much money and too little sense and that Apple plays on our inflated views of self-importance to fleece us for hundreds and even thousands of dollars, the fact is that Apple products, services and technologies provide us with something of sufficient extra value to justify the extra price.

OS X may be just an operating system, iWorks and iLife may just be productivity software suites, and a MacBook Pro or iMac might be just a computer, but the sum is greater then the parts. And when you compare the retail prices of OS X, iWorks and iLife to Microsoft Vista Premium, Microsoft Office Professional and the individual applications from various vendors you need to buy to equal iLife, the real deal proves to be Apple...

This should be made a sticky. And then framed.

Very well said.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Yeah... competition. Because droves of people went for Psystar instead of Apple...

How would you know what people did? Do you have Psystar's sales receipts to compare them with Apple's? Apple sells more than just computers, after all and all computer sales (that aren't netbooks) are down right now. Psystar clearly lacks Apple's advertising budget as well, so this inference that somehow Psystar just plain sucks is ridiculous, especially in light of the positive reviews that have come from various sources that have reviewed them.

The legal question hovering over Psystar (particularly with Apple demanding all buyers return their PCs they bought) didn't help encourage sales regardless. The NEED for Apple to play straight in a Capitalism market (that means COMPETITION not trying to sue your way out of competing, BTW, which is all Apple wants to do to "compete" against other hardware manufacturers...by preventing them from playing on the same playing field. And spare me any its their OS arguments as it's already been ruled ILLEGAL to use one market to leverage another market also known as "tying" and that is EXACTLY what Apple is guilty of when you make that argument since hardware and software are two separate market shares as evidence by innumerable companies that only do one or the other).

I don't care about Psystar in particular, but I do see a big need for SOMEONE to drag Apple's sorry excuse for a legal team to court over this issue because they have NO RIGHT to monopolize a segment of a market. What market segment? I'm talking about generalized computer hardware that is fully capable of running their operating system. The fact Apple's offerings can run Windows and Linux and that they "allow" that but not the opposite in return shows their disdain for the laws of this country. "Separate but equal" is the argument thrown forth by the Apple legal team and its fanatical supporters. In other words, they argue that their competition is HP, Lenovo, Dell, etc. even though those companies have nothing to compete for hardware sales to Mac users. In other words, if I own a Mac software library (which could possibly contain no software from Apple except the operating system and what ships with it), I HAVE to keep buying hardware from Apple in order to keep using that library or give up that library entirely just to get mid-range tower hardware option, for example, even though there is no technical reason that mid-range tower from Dell cannot run OS X. We simply have Apple sitting there saying "too bad, you MUST buy all your hardware from us or give up all your existing software" even though the software has nothing to do with Apple hardware, only their operating system, which they continue to sell at retail through chains like Best Buy and which I already own from the previous Mac I may wish to replace with a newer computer.

Apple then leverages that unfair market advantage to raise prices in a recession where others have to lower their prices in order to increase their profits to record levels during said recession. Over $29 BILLION in cash reserves proves the level of gouging they engage in. Even Gene Munster of Financial Week stated, “It's outrageously high”. You don't get those kind of cash reserves without either cheating your shareholders of their dividends or gouging the consumer through the fact of having no competition for your hardware (due to the need for the software that is not "allowed" to run on competing hardware). Illegal tying needs to be challenged and shot down in court for the good of the marketplace and ultimately the consumer, who is supposed to benefit from competition not the complete and total absence of it due to illegal tying by companies like Apple that would rather litigate than compete in the market place.

Any other position on this clear, cut and dried legal issue is clearly a radical fanatical position that only supports "love" for all things Apple since the consumer laws on this practice of tying have already been ruled on in the past. The fact that one "loves Apple" and doesn't want anyone to compete with them is not a supportable defense and that is the ONLY defense I've EVER seen on this issue from those that claim Apple has done no wrong and has the "right" to gouge, litigate and abstain from fairly competing on an Apples to Apples and Oranges to Oranges basis (because hardware and software are two SEPARATE market shares). No Apple wants their Apples and their Oranges in the same basket where they do not belong. If Apple's operating system is as great as the fanatics claim, it does not need the hardware tie-in to succeed and if Apple's hardware offerings are as great as the fanatics claim, then it does not need the operating system to compete in the market place. Both should be capable of standing on their own merits. Entire companies are based on those single merits including the supposed "competition" on both segments (i.e. Microsoft for the OS and HP, Lenovo, Dell, etc. on the hardware side). The fact Apple has its feet in both markets should not allow them special privileges to restrict competition on either segment alone. No, each segment MUST compete on its own merits or you have that "tie" that has already been ruled illegal in a previous case.


Apple's lack of hardware choices for the consumer would NEVER STAND on its own at the current price levels nor would the price levels stand if they actually had real Apples to Apples competition in the hardware segment of the market place. Why would any non-professional spend $2500 on a 4-core Mac Pro when they could get mid-range computer for $1000 that performs BETTER than that same machine with the same operating system? It simply would not happen, but if you believe it would, then where is the harm in allowing that competition since people would choose Apple? The fanatics never answer that question, but evade it with the typical "it's their OS and they can do anything they want in the whole wide world regardless of consumer laws that are designed to prevent such things". But the Mac Pro is not a consumer machine, you might say. True, but there is NO OTHER CHOICE for the consumer if they want an expandable high-powered desktop machine that runs OS X. Apple offers no alternatives what-so-ever to that market segment and only proves that they need competition to both keep their prices in check and also their design decisions, which should serve their customers, not just their bank accounts.

Furthermore, the fan argument is that there aren't enough buyers to warrant a mid-range tower and that's why Apple won't offer us one or that it would usurp sales from the overpriced Mac Pro. So if the market is so small, then why not let someone like Dell service it? Up until this year, tower desktops have been the #1 seller for the PC industry. It's still just below notebooks/netbooks. That's almost 50% of the market. Apple ignores it or tries to tell us an iMac IS a desktop when in fact it's just a laptop in an big monitor that cannot close (essentially an over sized tablet that doesn't run on batteries). No, Apple knows that people would plainly see how overinflated their prices are (which again is why they have over $29 BILLION in cash reserves when just ten years ago they were on the verge of bankruptcy) if a mid-range Apple tower sat next to an HP at Best Buy and the Apple one cost $500-800 more just because it's an "Apple" with no other hardware advantages so they avoid the comparison entirely at such places and simply don't sell towers there. This is exactly the approach Microsoft has been taking with their notebooks since you can plainly see there that Apple's offerings cost more and have less features that are important to the average person (e.g. HDMI, expanded memory by default, higher quality web-cams, etc. and offer what in return? Reflective screens? Removal of firewire? Ridiculous ram upgrade prices from the manufacturer? Almost no warranty unless you pay a LOT extra for it? Yeah, those are great "features" alright).

I don't bash the Apple operating system. I think it's the best one out there for consumers. But liking an operating system doesn't mean I have to like Apple's anti-competitive practices and price gouging that is a direct result of that lack of competition. I'd rather see Apple charge more for the operating system (and please no BS comparisons where you inflate the operating system value to MORE than an entire computer that Apple sells WITH the operating system--that's just plain stupid, IMO. In other words, OS X cannot possibly sell for more than $599 since the Mini sells for that with the OS and includes hardware to boot. Thus, the value of the OS must be $599 - the at-cost hardware price of the Mini at MAXIMUM). That means around $300 at MOST. I'd gladly pay $300 for OS X if it meant I could buy any hardware I like to use with it (within the driver constraints of OS X; I'm not suggesting Apple support everything out there like Microsoft, simply that I can buy a compatible computer from a competitor at my own risk). This is because as I mentioned earlier, I can easily get a computer that outpaces a Mac Pro in the areas important to me for under $1000. Even with a $300 OS purchase on top of that, it's STILL over $1000 less than a Mac Pro. No, it's not the same machine, but it's better for the things *I* need, not the things Apple wants to sell.

The truly sad part of this is that Apple could license out OS X to someone like Dell to cover the areas they do not support currently like mid-range and low-end towers and make $129-300 + licensing cost from Dell for each computer with no manufacturing costs what-so-ever to them. That's PURE PROFIT from a market segment they do not even support AND it would increase their market share, which hedges bets against Microsoft for the future since more market = slower fall if Microsoft's next OS is much better received than Vista. But no, Apple wants to control the entire market segment, which is akin to a monopoly for that segment. This will bite them in the butt in the future when Microsoft inevitably releases a better OS. It already happened with Windows 95/98. Vista has given the Mac a big break, but it will not last forever. They should be trying to build market share like mad. They are not even CLOSE to the share levels they had before Windows 95 came about (close to 20%) and even that share level did not save them from dropping to 4% when a better mouse-trap came out.

Yes, the iPhone is nice, but that's not their core profit maker and even the iPhone won't be state-of-the-art forever. But look at Microsoft. They can blunder badly like with Vista and still not worry much because they have 90% of the market that is dependent on their OS. Even if you buy a Mac and run something like Parallels or Fusion, you STILL have to buy a copy of Windows to run your old software so Microsoft wins a share regardless and the Mac just breaks even. That's the advantage of a virtual monopoly on a market and Microsoft DOES have competitors for the OS (namely Apple and Linux). So how much more does Apple have a monopoly on hardware for OS X when there are no competitors? Yes, Apple is under 10% of the market, but 100% of 10% is a LOT of money and their cash reserves and manufacturing numbers show that is absolutely the case. Therefore, one cannot argue they are too insignificant for anti-trust rules to apply...not when they are consistently in the top 5 hardware manufacturers despite having a segment that is unrelated to the 90% segment of the OS share. A lot of computer sales is a lot of computers sales. But they would not be so high on that list if they had actual competition for the hardware segment of the OS X market place. Call it a segment or sub-market, but the fact is Apple has almost 100% of that market share (minus Hackintoshes and until now Psystar).

And what if Apple ever did eclipse Microsoft for OS market share? Do you think the courts could turn a blind eye then to the fact that no one else is allowed to sell hardware for the OS X operating system even though that hardware is IDENTICAL to that of both Windows and Linux? There is NO WAY ON EARTH it would stand at that point. They'd be in even bigger trouble than Microsoft was. So what's the difference in the opposing argument? Their OS share is too small so we should allow them to monopolize all the hardware for that share out of pity? They're making more profit than Microsoft right now! You don't need a lot of OS share if you get 100% of the profits from that share's hardware segment.

[Snowy_River]

Can a fanboy tell me how the consumer wins in this case? Reading half of these comments make me sick... like people on here live to please Apple. For god's sake, who gives a ***** if another company is trying to give us some lower cost mac clones? As much as you want to believe it, i dont think anyone here can make a case of how little teenie psystar made even a microscopic dent in apple's stock price. You don't have to feel bad for apple... they only need to look at the balance of their bank accounts to to turn their frowns upside-down. :rolleyes:

The issue is one of precedent. Sure, Psystar wasn't doing anything that would really hurt Apple. But if they won their case, I'm sure that before long you'd see Dells with Mac OS X preinstalled, and Acers, and corner-build-it shops, too. Yes, Mac OS X might see a boost in marketshare, but it would pay for that in the loss of tight integration between hardware and software. Apple would be forced to make a decision about how to handle the issue, either take steps to lock the OS to their hardware more tightly, or deal with all the sub-standard hardware issues that would come up from having their OS running on any old piece of hardware. Neither is a good result, from the stand point of the consumer. Right now, if you know what you're doing and understand the shortcoming of such systems, you can build a very inexpensive 'Hacintosh'. As such a person, you'll know that you can expect some compatibility issues that probably have nothing to do with the quality of the OS. Someone who would be a computer from Dell, for example, wouldn't necessarily be in as good a position to understand that.

Real competition is when other companies innovate on their own to create a unique product that matches or surpasses another similar product (see iPod; iPhone). Cloning isn't helpful competition. It doesn't add anything of innovative technological value.

Competition is definitely good, but the lack of it doesn't seem to halt Apple from further innovation.

There are many different kinds of competition. One is certainly the "I can do that better!" kind, but another, which is the one that Psystar was engaged in, is the "I can do that cheaper!" kind. The flaw is, of course, that what they were really saying is "If I ignore the rules that you have set, then I can do that cheaper!", and that's where Apple is getting them.

[jav6454]

A little something from the guys at Gizmodo.

Click it to see full resolution

[CWallace]

Well if Compaq did not decide to make PC clones, or the guys who (created) the Phoenix BIOS, Things might be totally different today...Not that I agree with Psystars method.

The difference is Phoenix actually made a concerted effort to not infringe on the intellectual property IBM held with the PC BIOS. They created a "clean room" version of BIOS that, while providing similar functionality to IBM's BIOS, did not use IBM intellectual property to do it. So IBM had no legal grounds to sue them nor companies like Compaq who used the Phoenix BIOS to create PC clones.

So if Psystar had developed a "clean room" implementation of OS X that did not use Apple code, patents or other intellectual property, they would have been in a very strong legal position to offer clones.

But they didn't. They took the easy and cheap route and just circumvented and subsumed Apple's intellectual property. They just hoped Apple would ignore them.

[Tallest Skil]

*wow*

You've been typing that since I posted, haven't you? :D

It's over; no sense in arguing anymore. Not a monopoly. Toyota doesn't have a monopoly. Sony doesn't have a monopoly. Heck, even Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly... because people ALREADY HAVE A CHOICE.

[CWallace]

The fact Apple's offerings can run Windows and Linux and that they "allow" that but not the opposite in return shows their disdain for the laws of this country.

Could you please point me to the section of the Microsoft Windows XP and Windows Vista EULAs that specifically prohibit the installation of those Operating Systems on Apple-branded computers?

And can you point me to an EULA, period, for Linux?

Just because Microsoft is willing to whore it's software to any platform willing to write MS a check doesn't mean Apple's refusal to do so is "illegal". If and when Microsoft writes their EULA to forbid installing it on Apple-branded computers, I will remove it from my Macs. Until then, Microsoft agreed to take my money in exchange for installing their OS on them.

[frogger2020]

I think it was Perez Hilton

[jav6454]

You've been typing that since I posted, haven't you? :D

It's over; no sense in arguing anymore. Not a monopoly. Toyota doesn't have a monopoly. Sony doesn't have a monopoly. Heck, even Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly... because people ALREADY HAVE A CHOICE.

Agreed. Keep saying Apple is a monopoly is just trying to beat a dead equine style of argument.

[psingh01]

Psystar is owned an operated by Apple. The test run is over. The jig is up. :cool:

[farmboy]

Can a fanboy tell me how the consumer wins in this case? Reading half of these comments make me sick... like people on here live to please Apple. For god's sake, who gives a ***** if another company is trying to give us some lower cost mac clones? As much as you want to believe it, i dont think anyone here can make a case of how little teenie psystar made even a microscopic dent in apple's stock price. You don't have to feel bad for apple... they only need to look at the balance of their bank accounts to to turn their frowns upside-down. :rolleyes:

Yeah, because we should all encourage small companies to steal another company's property as long as "the consumer" gets a lower price--because lower prices are all that life is about. I'm guessing you don't have any intellectual property to protect.

[HLdan]

So glad, I hope Psystar fries! If you can't do your own stuff don't steal business from others. :p

[Sehnsucht]

A little something from the guys at Gizmodo.

Click it to see full resolution

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=172730&d=1243362681



Giz illustrations are always hilarious. Love 'em. :D

[*LTD*]

1) How would you know what people did?

2) The fact Apple's offerings can run Windows and Linux and that they "allow" that but not the opposite in return shows their disdain for the laws of this country.

1) Not buy enough Psystar crap. The whole bankruptcy thing kind of points to that.

2) Apple is in total compliance with the DMCA and US Intellectual Property laws, always has been, and it has also been ruled (more than once) that they are neither a monopoly, nor are they abusing their position. Or were you referring to some other kind of law?

[Peace]

All I've got to say is good riddance !! They made an ugly Mac.

The fun part will be seeing who was behind this.

[Ellizit]

You are violating Apple's EULA agreement if you attempt to install OS X on non-Apple branded hardware.

The legality of this "EULA violation" would possibly have been cleared up in this court case. However if the case is terminated then Apple's EULA still stands as a valid contract with the purchaser.

I think the principle area of dispute stems from the definition of the OS. Is the OS an integral part of the entire product? Or is the OS just another piece of software?

If you feel that the OS is integral to the product then Apple has a valid claim to tie the OS to only their hardware, because it directly affects the user experience and Apple has the right to control that experience.

If you think that the OS is only software and that once you purchase the software and if you can install it on any hardware, then it should be your choice as to what hardware you use, not Apple's. Apple is not required to support the hardware that you choose, but Apple should not be able to make it unlawful if you choose to install the software on alternate hardware.

These are the two principle camps and the courts apparently are not going to decide the issue.

Thanks for the very informative reply! I wasn't aware of the exact EULA. That being the case, I really would have liked to see this cleared up in court.

Say, for instance, that my motherboard went bad on my mac and I replace it and re-install (a legal copy of) OSX, would that fall under "non apple-branded hardware"? ... seems like some area for debate there...

[gkarris]

How would you know what people did?

............................................................................

You don't need a lot of OS share if you get 100% of the profits from that share's hardware segment.

Whoah, dude, you need to go out and get some fresh air... :eek:

:D

[smurfjammer]

Say, for instance, that my motherboard went bad on my mac and I replace it and re-install (a legal copy of) OSX, would that fall under "non apple-branded hardware"? ... seems like some area for debate there...

Won't be a problem as you can't install a standard motherboard in a Mac without major mods.

[Ellizit]

Won't be a problem as you can't install a standard motherboard in a Mac without major mods.

Point taken. :p

Make it something like ram or hdd then. I guess the bottom line is that if it was originally purchased from apple, then you can swap out whatever you want and still be "legal"?

[CWallace]

Point taken. :p

Make it something like ram or hdd then. I guess the bottom line is that if it was originally purchased from apple, then you can swap out whatever you want and still be "legal"?

Well Apple does add their label to their HDDs while keeping the OEM label and branding present. So I am not sure that is considered "branding", especially as it applies to "Apple-branded hardware".

I do not recall seeing the Apple logo/label on their RAM.

[porky]

Won't be a problem as you can't install a standard motherboard in a Mac without major mods.

What about the EFI-X dongle? Put it in a PC with a gigabyte mainboard and you can install OS X from the original installation DVD! Without modification. What about that? It looks a lot more a problem than those ugly Psystar PC's....

[Silicon Jedi]

Hey, you can get around the copyright infringement claims. Just slap an Apple sticker like from an iPod on your beige box. Now it's "Apple branded"

Of course now you've committed trademark infringement.

[Silicon Jedi]

What about the EFI-X dongle? Put it in a PC with a gigabyte mainboard and you can install OS X from the original installation DVD! Without modification. What about that? It looks a lot more a problem than those ugly Psystar PC's....

Expense. You might as well be paying the apple tax directly.

[CWallace]

What about the EFI-X dongle? Put it in a PC with a gigabyte mainboard and you can install OS X from the original installation DVD! Without modification. What about that? It looks a lot more a problem than those ugly Psystar PC's....

Well that is different then what Ellizit was asking, since a Gigabyte or DFI motherboard likely will not fit in an Apple case. ;)

I don't know enough about the EFI-X dongle itself to comment on how it may or may not infringe on Apple's intellectual property, but it would violate the EULA to use it to install OS X on a PC.

[RiverFox]

That's right, Psystar. No one bought your garbage.

Good riddance.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh... if no one bought their "garbage", they wouldn't be in this mess.

[doug in albq]

Nice rebut to the fanboys!

sounds like you read my blog I wrote last December.....(or just thinking similar).

http://dougitdesign.com/blogs/blog_1_07_09_Mac-OS-X-for-PC.html

<snip>

[*LTD*]

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh... if no one bought their "garbage", they wouldn't be in this mess.

Which is what I said . . .

[ditzy]

Not exactly surprising news, I'm looking forward to seeing who the backer is though.

[Ansuz]

Not exactly surprising news, I'm looking forward to seeing who the backer is though.

We won't find out anything useful. If the actual backer was a player in the PC world, they would have been intellegent enough to plan for this eventuality. They wouldn't back directly, instead backing through a dummy subsidiary or completley independent company.

Whatever information is relvealed won't be all that interesting.


And spare me any its their OS arguments as it's already been ruled ILLEGAL to use one market to leverage another market also known as "tying" and that is EXACTLY what Apple is guilty of when you make that argument since hardware and software are two separate market shares as evidence by innumerable companies that only do one or the other).

Except the judge already ruled that the requirements Apple placed on their OS did not constitute illegal tying.

[porky]

Well that is different then what Ellizit was asking, since a Gigabyte or DFI motherboard likely will not fit in an Apple case. ;)

I don't know enough about the EFI-X dongle itself to comment on how it may or may not infringe on Apple's intellectual property, but it would violate the EULA to use it to install OS X on a PC.

True. But i've seen it working. I think that it could hurt Apple a lot more than Psystar because you can build the PC yourself with the best hardware. It's strange nobody cares about that. I think the imac is too beautiful to build a clone mac, but the thing is, it's possible and it's easy. So EFI-X is next on Apple's black list?

[Michaelgtrusa]

Good news!

[macUser2007]

I am not sure why so many are happy to see the demise of a company, which offered an alternative.

The enforceability of Apple's EULA is at best debatable, and squashing anyone who attempts to challenge it by making the process extremely expensive, is nothing for anyone to be happy about. Unless you are Apple, and Apple attorney or an investor, or just a brainless fanboy.

Technically, "Apple hardware" means exactly that, and if the EULA was to be upheld in its entirety, you CAN'T legally use non-Apple provided RAM, HD, or a faster processor.

So, be careful what you wish for.

It seems like there are camps of gloaters: One is the "we want high-end exclusivity" crowd. They seem to have missed the news about Apple setting up in Walmart.

The other is the "it will be like Windows" group. But that just shows complete ignorance of Windows-based systems.

People install Hackingtosh on netbooks, and other hardware which is missing from the Apple lineup. If you don't like it, don't do it.

But gloating is just stupid, and shortsighted.

[*LTD*]

I am not sure why so many are happy to see the demise of a company, which offered an alternative.

The enforceability of Apple's EULA is at best debatable, and squashing anyone who attempts to challenge it by making the process extremely expensive, is nothing for anyone to be happy about. Unless you are Apple, and Apple attorney or an investor, or just a brainless fanboy.

Technically, "Apple hardware" means exactly that, and if the EULA was to be upheld in its entirety, you CAN'T legally use non-Apple provided RAM, HD, or a faster processor.

So, be careful what you wish for.

It seems like there are camps of gloaters: One is the "we want high-end exclusivity" crowd. They seem to have missed the news about Apple setting up in Walmart.

The other is the "it will be like Windows" group. But that just shows complete ignorance of Windows-based systems.

People install Hackingtosh on netbooks, and other hardware which is missing from the Apple lineup. If you don't like it, don't do it.

But gloating is just stupid, and shortsighted.

Psystar were ripoff artists. The "alternative" is Windows, or Linux, or FreeBSD, etc.

WalMart might carry Macs. They won't be subject to WalMart bargain-pricing. They're just another retail outlet. Who in the world thought someone could actually class up WalMart? It might actually happen.

Technically, "Apple hardware" means exactly that, and if the EULA was to be upheld in its entirety, you CAN'T legally use non-Apple provided RAM, HD, or a faster processor.

"Apple Hardware" is defined by certain limits. The EULA does not prohibit the use of third-party RAM, for instance. Best-Buy, TigerDirect and others freely advertise some third-party RAM as Apple-compatible, i.e., Corsair, Patriot, etc. There's nothing wrong with that.

Gloating is fun when you're right.

[Ellizit]

First, its a hassle getting OS X to install on a PC. Second, Apple does not have a monopoly in the Operating System or Hardware sectors. BMW is the only company allowed to make BMW cars, however they do not have a monopoly on the car market.

haha, good point. However, if I take a BMW engine and put it in a KIA, BMW is not gonna sue me.

[BaldiMac]

I am not sure why so many are happy to see the demise of a company, which offered an alternative.

The enforceability of Apple's EULA is at best debatable, and squashing anyone who attempts to challenge it by making the process extremely expensive, is nothing for anyone to be happy about. Unless you are Apple, and Apple attorney or an investor, or just a brainless fanboy.

Or someone who believes that, when you write software, other companies shouldn't be able to take your work and use it however they want in violation of your expressed agreement and copyright law.

This case isn't just about Apple.

[pdjudd]

haha, good point. However, if I take a BMW engine and put it in a KIA, BMW is not gonna sue me.

They might if you try to make a business of it though.

[Ansuz]

haha, good point. However, if I take a BMW engine and put it in a KIA, BMW is not gonna sue me.

They might if you started producing them en masse and marketing them using the BMW name.

[Santa Rosa]

Time to see who's been hiding in the shadows the entire time! Any bets?

From previous thread still think Michael Dell :D

[farmboy]

Nice rebut to the fanboys!

sounds like you read my blog I wrote last December.....(or just thinking similar).

http://dougitdesign.com/blogs/blog_1_07_09_Mac-OS-X-for-PC.html

Um. If you think that rant was a nice "rebut", you need to get outside and breathe some nice, clean air as well. Magnus has a history of making completely, obtusely inaccurate claims. He does so here again in a post so replete with inaccuracies and fallacies that nobody cares to take the time to go through them one by one. Suffice it to say, he's wrong. Just factually and conceptually wrong, no equivocations.

And of course it doesn't help you to call anyone with a different opinion a "fanboy/fanboi".

[MacVixen]

haha, good point. However, if I take a BMW engine and put it in a KIA, BMW is not gonna sue me.

No, BMW is not gonna sue you; just like Apple has not sued an an individual for creating a Hackinstosh. But if someone opened up shop for "BMW Engine - Now Available in The KIA Sportage!!" - I would hazard a guess that BMW make take small issue with that.

To top it off, Psystar couldn't even back up their numbers or provide receipts to show they had actually legally purchased OSX! Something was not right with that company - just like the new company out there selling clones, and straight up calling them "clones". How in the world do you ship someone a Hackintosh with OSX installed, but make the OSX DVD an "option" to purchase?? :confused:

[smurfjammer]

Technically, "Apple hardware" means exactly that, and if the EULA was to be upheld in its entirety, you CAN'T legally use non-Apple provided RAM, HD, or a faster processor.

You need to read the whole EULA is says: "embedded or otherwise contained in Apple-labeled hardware" nothing to do with RAM or HD's.

[uberamd]

i never said they were "highly technical"... read my post again. once you understand what i said, we can simply agree to disagree.

So what if "mom and dad" want to buy a Psystar, and run into problems. Who will they blame? Apple and the OS? I think so.

[Ellizit]

They might if you try to make a business of it though.

:) Perhaps. Although I doubt that a factory purchased BMW engine comes with some sort of agreement saying that "you will only place this in a BMW automobile"...

[marold280]

Psystar, i believe only wanted the thrill of a challenge to compete against apple.

[Goona]

Nice rebut to the fanboys!

sounds like you read my blog I wrote last December.....(or just thinking similar).

http://dougitdesign.com/blogs/blog_1_07_09_Mac-OS-X-for-PC.html

So when will all this happen?

I am not sure why so many are happy to see the demise of a company, which offered an alternative.

The enforceability of Apple's EULA is at best debatable, and squashing anyone who attempts to challenge it by making the process extremely expensive, is nothing for anyone to be happy about. Unless you are Apple, and Apple attorney or an investor, or just a brainless fanboy.

Technically, "Apple hardware" means exactly that, and if the EULA was to be upheld in its entirety, you CAN'T legally use non-Apple provided RAM, HD, or a faster processor.

So, be careful what you wish for.

It seems like there are camps of gloaters: One is the "we want high-end exclusivity" crowd. They seem to have missed the news about Apple setting up in Walmart.

The other is the "it will be like Windows" group. But that just shows complete ignorance of Windows-based systems.

People install Hackingtosh on netbooks, and other hardware which is missing from the Apple lineup. If you don't like it, don't do it.

But gloating is just stupid, and shortsighted.

We are happy because their crap products failed.

[smurfjammer]

:) Perhaps. Although I doubt that a factory purchased BMW engine comes with some sort of agreement saying that "you will only place this in a BMW automobile"...

But you are using their intellectually property without permission.

[macUser2007]

You need to read the whole EULA is says: "embedded or otherwise contained in Apple-labeled hardware" nothing to do with RAM or HD's.

The iMac I am typing this on, is "Apple-labeled hardware." And parts such as RAM, HD, etc., are "contained" in it.

What part of this do you have trouble comprehending?

[bboucher790]

Why buy a Psystar when you can buy an EFiX? Apple's real competition (if you want to call it that) is EFiX. A true Mac experience without Mac prices....as long as you know how to build a computer.

It's a little young, but with time this software will mature into the Mid-Tower Mac we've always wanted.

http://www.efi-x.com/

[dguisinger]

The iMac I am typing this on, is "Apple-labeled hardware." And parts such as RAM, HD, etc., are "contained" in it.

What part of this do you have trouble comprehending?

Hah, plus the warranty and manual typically reference user replacable parts.
I swear, you'd think some of these posters had never made it through high school.....actually, they probably are still in high school....so never mind :p

[skottichan]

The iMac I am typing this on, is "Apple-labeled hardware." And parts such as RAM, HD, etc., are "contained" in it.

What part of this do you have trouble comprehending?

Because ram and hard drives are classified as "User Serviceable" on the vast majority of Apple products, which creates an easily inferred allowance for such parts to be swapped with non-Apple branded parts, since Apple does not sell post purchase RAM or hard drives.

[Tallest Skil]

Nice rebut to the fanboys!

sounds like you read my blog I wrote last December.....(or just thinking similar).

http://dougitdesign.com/blogs/blog_1_07_09_Mac-OS-X-for-PC.html

So... what part of:

Selling software and only software to consumers is not Apple's business model because it has never been their business model, because selling hardware bundled with software is more profitable, easier to maintain, and works more efficiently than selling software to hundreds of different hardware vendors and attempting to support thousands of configurations of computers, and that the majority of the population doesn't give a flying frig that they have a limited number of configurations so long as their computer works because not every single person on the planet is a master at computer maintenance and design, nor do 90% of people care about upgrading their hardware and searching for parts that are applicable to their lifestyle because they're not all specialists in the field of computing and have absolutely no desire to be (because, come on, this is the same as a fireman telling you that you have to know how to put out house/forest fires when you feel perfectly all right knowing how to deal with candles and stove flare-ups) specialists in the field of computing

... don't you understand?

[celtikmind]

You need to read the whole EULA is says: "embedded or otherwise contained in Apple-labeled hardware" nothing to do with RAM or HD's.

FYI, Apple's EULA in itself, is illegal in some countries as they go against things already set in constitutional law. Too many details for me to write here and I'm not a lawyer so do a search if you're interested.

Not defending anyone, just wanted to give you a friendly heads up. ;)

[pdjudd]

The iMac I am typing this on, is "Apple-labeled hardware." And parts such as RAM, HD, etc., are "contained" in it.

What part of this do you have trouble comprehending?

RAM and Hard Drives are exceptions since those components are considered user replaceable (on certain models) and upgradeable by Apple (they do not disallow their replacement). They are still contained in the overall package of what a Mac is. Now, if we start talking about parts not considered replaceable (not on a 1:1 basis at least), then we start not calling it a Mac. Apple's branding is what allows them to determine what can be used in a Mac and what a Mac is made up of. It doesn't just consist of "everything and only what is in the case". Its just not that simple.

Try again.

[Jim Campbell]

Two unrelated points on this:

1) If Psystar were, as they claimed, not able to produce balance sheets or P&Ls for any of their trading activities, how do they know they're bankrupt? Bankruptcy is a function of the balance sheet.

2) Anyone who thinks Psystar was backed by Gates, Dell, or anyone currently directly involved in the Western computer market is out of their tiny minds.

No-one -- let me spell that out for you in a Perry-Cox-from-Scrubs-stylee -- Nuh-uh oh-ho-oh-ho-oh-one selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principal of the EULA.

Cheers!

Jim

[skottichan]

FYI, Apple's EULA in itself, is illegal in some countries as they go against things already set in constitutional law. Too many details for me to write here and I'm not a lawyer so do a search if you're interested.

Not defending anyone, just wanted to give you a friendly heads up. ;)

But those are also generally countries that don't give two ***** about a creator's rights when it comes to intellectual properties. They make the US comic book industry look generous.

[theheadguy]

Yeah, because we should all encourage small companies to steal another company's property as long as "the consumer" gets a lower price--because lower prices are all that life is about. I'm guessing you don't have any intellectual property to protect.
What was stolen? The software wasn't purchased? I was with the understanding every computer they sold had a fully paid for copy of OS X. You don't have to make up fake accusations at this point -- Psystar is already going down. Have a martini and celebrate. The group mentality here could use a rest. Ciao folks.

[Tallest Skil]

FYI, Apple's EULA in itself, is illegal in some countries as they go against things already set in constitutional law. Too many details for me to write here and I'm not a lawyer so do a search if you're interested.

Not defending anyone, just wanted to give you a friendly heads up. ;)

F your I, stealing intellectual property, modifying it, and selling it for a profit without paying the company that owns the intellectual property is also illegal...

...I'm going to say in most countries.

[windywoo]

i agree that competition is one of the greatest things for businesses, but not when it is created illegally by means of using Apple's operating system.

But now we won't get to see if it was legal or not. They didn't break a law they broke the EULA which they were contesting in court. The judge ruled that they should be allowed to make a case, indicating that he didn't entirely agree with Apple's EULA.

[skottichan]

But now we won't get to see if it was legal or not. They didn't break a law they broke the EULA which they were contesting in court. The judge ruled that they should be allowed to make a case, indicating that he didn't entirely agree with Apple's EULA.

No, what he was clearly indicating was that according to the justice system, as it is supposed to work, both sides are given a chance to expand upon their arguments.


Edit: This also has the potential to be a precedence setting case, so he was dotting every I and crossing every T.

[BaldiMac]

FYI, Apple's EULA in itself, is illegal in some countries as they go against things already set in constitutional law. Too many details for me to write here and I'm not a lawyer so do a search if you're interested.

Not defending anyone, just wanted to give you a friendly heads up. ;)

You do realize that Apple does employ lawyers, right? As far as I know, Apple's SLA has never been found to be illegal in any country.

Of course, there are some countries where the enforceability of SLAs that are agreed to after purchase is in question.

[MacVixen]

What was stolen? The software wasn't purchased? I was with the understanding every computer they sold had a fully paid for copy of OS X. You don't have to make up fake accusations at this point -- Psystar is already going down. Have a martini and celebrate. The group mentality here could use a rest. Ciao folks.

I do believe that was a point of contention. Psystar claimed that they purchased legal copies of OS X. However, when pressed, they came up with ZERO documentation to show that the copies were, in fact, legal. All the depo revealed were a bunch of "I don't know" "I don't recall" "our records were destroyed in a fire" BS.

[smurfjammer]

What was stolen? The software wasn't purchased? I was with the understanding every computer they sold had a fully paid for copy of OS X. You don't have to make up fake accusations at this point -- Psystar is already going down. Have a martini and celebrate. The group mentality here could use a rest. Ciao folks.

They don't have any financial records (according to Psystar) and you don't own the software, you only license it from Apple.
EDIT: Beaten by MacVixen

[*LTD*]

The iMac I am typing this on, is "Apple-labeled hardware." And parts such as RAM, HD, etc., are "contained" in it.

What part of this do you have trouble comprehending?

RAM and user-serviceable parts not included. Adding third-party RAM does not void your warranty, etc.

[windywoo]

No, what he was clearly indicating was that according to the justice system, as it is supposed to work, both sides are given a chance to expand upon their arguments.


Edit: This also has the potential to be a precedence setting case, so he was dotting every I and crossing every T.

But he could have thrown out the case entirely, but he didn't, inferring he thought Psystar should be allowed to challenge the EULA. If he thought they should be allowed he mustn't have entirely agreed with it.

[thpope]

They probably can't sell these things. I know I wouldn't buy one for fear of being roughed up by all you Apple Fanboys.

[celtikmind]

F your I, stealing intellectual property, modifying it, and selling it for a profit without paying the company that owns the intellectual property is also illegal...

...I'm going to say in most countries.

Of course it is, but that doesn't change anything for Apple's EULA being legal or not. There are other parts in an EULA as well, no?

But those are also generally countries that don't give two ***** about a creator's rights when it comes to intellectual properties. They make the US comic book industry look generous.

Are you a real lawyer or the arm-chair one? Check my answer above.

Only gave you the heads up so no reason for you to go off like that. Like I said, I don't know the details on why it's illegal. Just know it is.

Not like we haven't been claimed to be barbarians before... http://www.anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/viking.gif

[Veri]

Is there anyone here at all, out of interest, who defends a legal system where you can lose a case / be driven to bankruptcy because you run out of money for legal representation?

I can't think of justice less blind than one which makes it possible to overpower your adversary simply because you have more money. It doesn't matter one bit whether Psystar are morally right or wrong, the law should be such that any man of reasonable intelligence stands able to defend himself in court.

Or, looked at from a different angle, what is actually so hard about defending oneself in a US civil case? What legal skills are needed that couldn't possibly be learnt by a group of intelligent laymen over a few months? Is Apple intending to win on a multitude of obscure technicalities which would only be familiar to a gaggle of experienced lawyers?

Nuh-uh oh-ho-oh-ho-oh-one selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principal of the EULA.
Not that they'd likely be backing Psystar, but the FSF
(i) is probably the greatest contributor to OS X outside Apple itself, what with its work on gcc'n'all;
(ii) despises EULAs;
(iii) sells software - just because they are happy for you to copy it, it doesn't mean they don't also sell official copies and accept donations in kind.

Also, has everyone here who defends Apple because they believe Apple is morally entitled to payment for its work also contributed to the FSF for the FSF's contribution toward OS X? Just want to make sure that people aren't just being "legit" because they're afraid to get caught, and actually do it because they believe in paying people for their work.

[Dagless]

Good. I believe if you want to make a non-Mac branded OSX running computer you should jolly well build your own. Psystar just seemed cheap to me, like the kind of company I wouldn't trust sending my money to in exchange for a computer. Meh.
I still believe OSX's real competition is going to come from Microsoft once Win 7 is out.

[celtikmind]

You do realize that Apple does employ lawyers, right? As far as I know, Apple's SLA has never been found to be illegal in any country.

Of course, there are some countries where the enforceability of SLAs that are agreed to after purchase is in question.

That might be it, as I've said do a search. I can't give you a more detail answer. I'm a Mac-user, not a judge.

[macUser2007]

...Now, if we start talking about parts not considered replaceable (not on a 1:1 basis at least), then we start not calling it a Mac. Apple's branding is what allows them to determine what can be used in a Mac and what a Mac is made up of....
Try again.

I am happy, that you carefully read the EULA, to determine which Mac models allow you to replace what parts. But most of us use common sense.

But no, it's not that simple, and there is a good argument, that portions of that EULA are unenforceable. That's the part that you are missing.

But Apple has a lot of cash, and is one of the most litigation-happy companies in the industry, so it's hard for smaller companies to find out, before they go broke.

I do like Apple products, but I also am aware that Apple is a rather evil company, which uses the thread of litigation to stifle competition and innovation.

[celtikmind]

Is there anyone here at all, out of interest, who defends a legal system where you can lose a case / be driven to bankruptcy because you run out of money for legal representation?


Me? Never. But it seems very possible to do in the States?

Good. I believe if you want to make a non-Mac branded OSX running computer you should jolly well build your own. Psystar just seemed cheap to me, like the kind of company I wouldn't trust sending my money to in exchange for a computer. Meh.
I still believe OSX's real competition is going to come from Microsoft once Win 7 is out.

You got my vote.

[accumulator]

Can a fanboy tell me how the consumer wins in this case?

I don't know if I qualify as a "fanboy". But here's why the consumer wins. Let's assume that Psystar sells crappy knockoff computers running Apple's Mac OSX. Let's further assume that Apple doesn't make as much money when one of those computers is sold as they do when an Apple-branded machine is sold. So far, so good?

First: Apple is having that money stolen from them - their intellectual property is being used to benefit some other company, in violation of the law. Long term: If psystar and others succeed at doing this, then Apple's revenues drop, and Apple has less money to pour into R&D, and OS X stops being as much better than alternative options because there's less investment in it.

Second: Apple is justifiably worried that people will get a bad impression of Mac OS X because it's running on some crappy hardware that is not well integrated with the software, lacks support for various features, and can't be updated. Apple is concerned that an uninformed consumer would blame APPLE for the fact that their Psystar POS is flaking out on them. They have a bad experience, and associate that bad experience with Apple. They tell all their friends that Mac OS X is crap and that their machine doesn't work right and lost all their data (or [insert other complaint here]). Apple wants Psystar to cease and desist because Apple's good name is being placed in jeopardy by actions taken by another firm. Consumers benefit from the knowledge that if they buy something running Mac OS X, Apple will stand behind it, so the consumer knows that it works. Again, this puts Apple in a position where it loses revenue, which means less money for OS X development, so we all suffer.

[windywoo]

So... what part of:
and that the majority of the population doesn't give a flying frig that they have a limited number of configurations so long as their computer works

... don't you understand?

But the majority of the population use Windows, so clearly they couldn't give a frig about nice looking overpriced PCs either.

[machomer]

They have competition... they are just a long way ahead of it all.


Nicely put, Apple's products are so widely accepted for its simplicity and ease of use, the competition is leaps and bounds behind

[windywoo]

Second: Apple is justifiably worried that people will get a bad impression of Mac OS X because it's running on some crappy hardware.

They should stop making iMacs and Mac Minis then.

[smurfjammer]

I do like Apple products, but I also am aware that Apple is a rather evil company, which uses the thread of litigation to stifle competition and innovation.

They only go after companies that use their copyright/trademark/intellectual property, you just need to look at the ModBook who has Apple's permission to alter and sell Apple laptops.

[*LTD*]

I am happy, that you carefully read the EULA, to determine which Mac models allow you to replace what parts. But most of us use common sense.

But no, it's not that simple, and there is a good argument, that portions of that EULA are unenforceable. That's the part that you are missing.

But Apple has a lot of cash, and is one of the most litigation-happy companies in the industry, so it's hard for smaller companies to find out, before they go broke.

I do like Apple products, but I also am aware that Apple is a rather evil company, which uses the thread of litigation to stifle competition and innovation.

Psystar innovated nothing. Nothing. They're ripoff artists. What could they possibly innovate? Running Apple's own OS on junk boxes?

The competition doesn't innovate when it infringes on Apple's products and their rights under IP law.

And Apple isn't "evil." There's no such thing, unless your name is Sam and your friend's name is Frodo. Apple is simply doing what any other company in their right mind would do: protect their rights under the law and enforce them whenever possible. Anyone who depends on IP law in order to make a living would do the same (i.e., Font designers, software writers, etc.)

[Krevnik]

But now we won't get to see if it was legal or not. They didn't break a law they broke the EULA which they were contesting in court. The judge ruled that they should be allowed to make a case, indicating that he didn't entirely agree with Apple's EULA.

EULAs generally fall under contract law / copyright law. "By following these rules, we grant you a license to use a copy of this product" is the name of the game with a EULA. Contract law and copyright law do give copyright owners and those who entered into a contract a means to find relief if one party violates copyright law, or violates the rules of the contract. Also, remember that the GPL is a EULA, using contract/copyright law to the advantage of the OSS community. It is also fairly open in nature, and as such, less likely to run afoul of the problems below. But for the GPL portion of the OSS community to thrive and enforce its principles, EULAs need to be enforceable on some level.

Usually were EULAs break down is if they have rules that cannot be followed without breaking local law (which can plague any contract), or those rules are specifically prohibited by local law. Another issue is if the purchaser buys the product, sees the EULA and decides not to be bound by it, and then cannot seek a refund from the seller and the seller auto-assumes the buyer entered the contract. Coercion into contracts is bad, and can get the contract rendered null and void depending on your local law. This is a fairly hotly contested area of law right now (what renders a EULA null and void and what doesn't, and why, and if bad clauses invalidate the entire contract, or just the clause, and what jurisdictions does that happen in).

The judge saying Psystar can make a case doesn't mean that he has an opinion at that point, but rather that Psystar may have a legal leg to stand on. If there is valid reason to hear the argument, it must be heard. If someone comes in and their claim is basically gibberish, the judge is within his/her right to dismiss the case right then and there. But as law can get murky, a lot of cases do get heard regardless of the judge's personal opinion (which shouldn't even enter the equation, if the judge is good at what they do). SCO's own lawsuit against IBM was ridiculous, but it had to be heard, because there may have been a legal leg to stand on, and it wouldn't have become even remotely clear until after the discovery phase.

I personally would have bet money that Apple's winning the case would have hinged on the fact that Psystar was pre-installing OS X on machines. Doing so would have meant Psystar was entering the contract on the buyer's behalf. If Apple's EULA clause that it needs to be installed on hardware that they brand is valid, then Psystar violated the contract on behalf of the buyer and could very likely be held liable for that violation.

[fun173]

I was a little excited to see a pystar netbook :mad:
but :apple: all the way

[windywoo]

EULAs generally fall under contract law / copyright law. "By following these rules, we grant you a license to use a copy of this product" is the name of the game with a EULA. Contract law and copyright law do give copyright owners and those who entered into a contract a means to find relief if one party violates copyright law, or violates the rules of the contract. Also, remember that the GPL is a EULA, using contract/copyright law to the advantage of the OSS community. It is also fairly open in nature, and as such, less likely to run afoul of the problems below. But for the GPL portion of the OSS community to thrive, EULAs need to be enforceable on some level.

Usually were EULAs break down is if they have rules that cannot be followed without breaking local law (which can plague any contract), or those rules are specifically prohibited by local law. Another issue is if the purchaser buys the product, sees the EULA and decides not to be bound by it, and then cannot seek a refund from the seller and the seller auto-assumes the buyer entered the contract. Coercion into contracts is bad, and can get the contract rendered null and void depending on your local law. This is a fairly hotly contested area of law right now (what renders a EULA null and void and what doesn't, and why, and if bad clauses invalidate the entire contract, or just the clause, and what jurisdictions does that happen in).

The judge saying Psystar can make a case doesn't mean that he has an opinion at that point, but rather that Psystar may have a legal leg to stand on. If there is valid reason to hear the argument, it must be heard. If someone comes in and their claim is basically gibberish, the judge is within his/her right to dismiss the case right then and there. But as law can get murky, a lot of cases do get heard regardless of the judge's personal opinion (which shouldn't even enter the equation, if the judge is good at what they do). SCO's own lawsuit against IBM was ridiculous, but it had to be heard, because there may have been a legal leg to stand on, and it wouldn't have become even remotely clear until after the discovery phase.

I personally would have bet money that Apple's winning the case would have hinged on the fact that Psystar was pre-installing OS X on machines. Doing so would have meant Psystar was entering the contract on the buyer's behalf. If Apple's EULA clause that it needs to be installed on hardware that they brand is valid, then Psystar violated the contract on behalf of the buyer and could very likely be held liable for that violation.

Thanks for the legal clarification, I was trying to say something along the lines of "The judge had an open mind" not that he supported Psystar or was against Apple.

[zombitronic]

Point taken. :p

Make it something like ram or hdd then. I guess the bottom line is that if it was originally purchased from apple, then you can swap out whatever you want and still be "legal"?

RAM and Hard Drives are exceptions since those components are considered user replaceable (on certain models) and upgradeable by Apple (they do not disallow their replacement). They are still contained in the overall package of what a Mac is. Now, if we start talking about parts not considered replaceable (not on a 1:1 basis at least), then we start not calling it a Mac. Apple's branding is what allows them to determine what can be used in a Mac and what a Mac is made up of. It doesn't just consist of "everything and only what is in the case". Its just not that simple.

A Mac's motherboard has the firmware needed to boot OS X. The firmware contains specific code that is created, owned and sold by Apple only in conjunction with an Apple computer. There is no legal way to obtain this firmware without buying an Apple motherboard. It is NOT sold separately from the hardware, so the argument that you can buy OS X by itself does not apply to the firmware needed to boot OS X.

If you were to buy an Apple motherboard and put it in your own case with your own RAM, hard drive, etc., it seems to me that you'd be installing Mac OS X on a genuine Apple branded computer, since the official firmware is step one in the startup process. Then again, you'd have to purchase an Apple motherboard, which isn't cheap.

Quote: (http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Training-Mac-Support-Essentials/dp/0321489810#reader)
"When you power on your Mac, even before it starts a "real" operating system, the firmware acts as a mini operating system with just enough software to get things going. Specifically, your Mac's firmware tests and initializes the hardware, and then locates and starts the system software booter."

[bboucher790]

They should stop making iMacs and Mac Minis then.

Sort of. Apple's philosophy is more than just speed and state-of-the-art hardware. Sure, an iMac won't win any speed competitions, but it has many benefits over standard tower PCs. Apple will sacrifice speed for design, ease-of-use, and convenience. Since most of the population does NOT need to be able to hit 20,000 on a 3dMark test, the iMac is a great computer for the general public.

[skottichan]

Of course it is, but that doesn't change anything for Apple's EULA being legal or not. There are other parts in an EULA as well, no?



Are you a real lawyer or the arm-chair one? Check my answer above.

Only gave you the heads up so no reason for you to go off like that. Like I said, I don't know the details on why it's illegal. Just know it is.

Not like we haven't been claimed to be barbarians before... http://www.anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/viking.gif

Actually, I've been on the infringed side of the Intellectual Law system. It's illegal because it is a simple "create all you want, you don't have the right to tell people they can't do with things you create".

[macUser2007]

...We are happy because their crap products failed.

This is a bit dim, IMO.

Why would you be happy that a cheaper alternative failed? If you didn't like it, you didn't have to buy it.

It's like a Windows fan being happy if Apple failed, because of Boot Camp. Just silly.

[3.1416]

No, BMW is not gonna sue you; just like Apple has not sued an an individual for creating a Hackinstosh. But if someone opened up shop for "BMW Engine - Now Available in The KIA Sportage!!" - I would hazard a guess that BMW make take small issue with that.

It's not at all clear that BMW could do anything about that, assuming the engines were legitimately acquired and accurately described. Intellectual property is not a blanket prohibition on using products in any way the manufacturer doesn't approve of.

I get the feeling that many of Apple's defenders are on the other side when the RIAA tries to pull stuff like this. After all, you don't own the music on a CD that you buy, just a "license to listen", so they should be able to prohibit ripping to iPods or selling used CDs, right?

[Veri]

Psystar innovated nothing. Nothing. They're ripoff artists. What could they possibly innovate? Running Apple's own OS on junk boxes?
Name me three features of any single Apple product that were invented within Apple rather than an integration of external R&D.

[Krevnik]

Thanks for the legal clarification, I was trying to say something along the lines of "The judge had an open mind" not that he supported Psystar or was against Apple.

Well, don't take it as legal advice, IANAL. But, there are some basics that people tend to ignore (or abstract away, if you will) when dealing with contracts/EULAs/etc...

One contested area is shrinkwrap EULAs (which Apple's belongs to), and how enforceable they are because you have to open the shrinkwrap before you can agree to the EULA and enter the contract. Especially if the other party then jumps through hoops to prevent you from getting a refund if you disagree with the EULA and decide not to enter the contract.

There is just so much there than you can cover, it would be hard to not let Psystar make a case to defend itself. The devil is in the details, and there are a lot of details that don't have a lot of precedent.

[*LTD*]

Sort of. Apple's philosophy is more than just speed and state-of-the-art hardware. Sure, an iMac won't win any speed competitions, but it has many benefits over standard tower PCs. Apple will sacrifice speed for design, ease-of-use, and convenience. Since most of the population does NOT need to be able to hit 20,000 on a 3dMark test, the iMac is a great computer for the general public.

I have no idea who needs those ridiculous amounts of speed other than GAMERS. Not even Final Cut Pro and other Pro apps require that much, and for Pros who use that software, there's the Mac Pro and 17-inch MBP.

Much of this clamouring for highest-end hardware in Macs is simply the desire to one-up the kid in his basement next door. It's hardly a reflection of what the general userbase is most concerned about.

This kind of moaning has always been there in the Mac forum community. Except that curiously, all these things Macs are "missing" doesn't seem to be impacting Mac sales at all. Mac sales are experiencing among the smallest contraction in the entire industry in this recession. So the vocal minority (and they're a small minority) is really just misrepresenting the situation, as usual. They have no basis in reality whatsoever.

[macUser2007]

They only go after companies that use their copyright/trademark/intellectual property....

Hm, Apple IS a religion to some, and apparently can do no wrong.

Let's see this (http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/08/elan-turns-the-tables-on-apple-sues-for-multitouch-patent-infri/):

"If you missed it, Apple delivered a very thinly veiled threat to Palm, flouting how it had touch-sensitive intellectual rights up the wazoo to protect itself from the competition. Apple, though, may be due for a heaping helping of humble pie, as it's now on the receiving end of a lawsuit from Elan Microelectronics claiming infringement on two patents -- both involving multitouch. Elan, best known for its keypads found in Eee PCs everywhere (along with some other diversions), won a court injunction against Synaptics for infringement on one of those patents, and seems like it may actually have a shot of shaking down the house of Jobs. It's also seeking an injunction against Apple to prevent it from selling the MacBook, iPhone, and iPod Touch until everything gets legally sorted...."

I suppose we could have a bunch Palm fan-boys indulging in similarly moronic gloating....

[*LTD*]

Name me three features of any single Apple product that were invented within Apple rather than an integration of external R&D.

"Invention" is nothing.

Patenting and implementation is everything. What belongs to whom legally.

[BaldiMac]

Is there anyone here at all, out of interest, who defends a legal system where you can lose a case / be driven to bankruptcy because you run out of money for legal representation?

I can't think of justice less blind than one which makes it possible to overpower your adversary simply because you have more money. It doesn't matter one bit whether Psystar are morally right or wrong, the law should be such that any man of reasonable intelligence stands able to defend himself in court.

Or, looked at from a different angle, what is actually so hard about defending oneself in a US civil case? What legal skills are needed that couldn't possibly be learnt by a group of intelligent laymen over a few months? Is Apple intending to win on a multitude of obscure technicalities which would only be familiar to a gaggle of experienced lawyers?

What makes you think that Psystar ran out of money for legal representation as a result of this case? There is no way that they would have been able to fund this case with corporate profits. The lawyers were most likely working for payment based on winning the case or a settlement. Or they were financed by third parties.

Not that they'd likely be backing Psystar, but the FSF
(i) is probably the greatest contributor to OS X outside Apple itself, what with its work on gcc'n'all;
(ii) despises EULAs;
(iii) sells software - just because they are happy for you to copy it, it doesn't mean they don't also sell official copies and accept donations in kind.

Also, has everyone here who defends Apple because they believe Apple is morally entitled to payment for its work also contributed to the FSF for the FSF's contribution toward OS X? Just want to make sure that people aren't just being "legit" because they're afraid to get caught, and actually do it because they believe in paying people for their work.

Uhh, the FSF does not actually code or otherwise produce any software.

[smurfjammer]

Hm, Apple IS a religion to some, and apparently can do no wrong.

Let's see this (http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/08/elan-turns-the-tables-on-apple-sues-for-multitouch-patent-infri/):

"If you missed it, Apple delivered a very thinly veiled threat to Palm, flouting how it had touch-sensitive intellectual rights up the wazoo to protect itself from the competition. Apple, though, may be due for a heaping helping of humble pie, as it's now on the receiving end of a lawsuit from Elan Microelectronics claiming infringement on two patents -- both involving multitouch. Elan, best known for its keypads found in Eee PCs everywhere (along with some other diversions), won a court injunction against Synaptics for infringement on one of those patents, and seems like it may actually have a shot of shaking down the house of Jobs. It's also seeking an injunction against Apple to prevent it from selling the MacBook, iPhone, and iPod Touch until everything gets legally sorted...."

I suppose we could have a bunch Palm fan-boys indulging in similarly moronic gloating....

Apple is protecting their multitouch patent so what, Elan thinks that have a case against Apple and if they have any valid patents the courts will sort it out. If you don't protect you patents you get everyone using your R&D.

[Sun Baked]

Apple demanded their detailed financials and then this happens. :p

Got to love it when a company says they don't have any, you know a BK is going to happen soon.

[*LTD*]

Hm, Apple IS a religion to some, and apparently can do no wrong.

Let's see this (http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/08/elan-turns-the-tables-on-apple-sues-for-multitouch-patent-infri/):

"If you missed it, Apple delivered a very thinly veiled threat to Palm, flouting how it had touch-sensitive intellectual rights up the wazoo to protect itself from the competition. Apple, though, may be due for a heaping helping of humble pie, as it's now on the receiving end of a lawsuit from Elan Microelectronics claiming infringement on two patents -- both involving multitouch. Elan, best known for its keypads found in Eee PCs everywhere (along with some other diversions), won a court injunction against Synaptics for infringement on one of those patents, and seems like it may actually have a shot of shaking down the house of Jobs. It's also seeking an injunction against Apple to prevent it from selling the MacBook, iPhone, and iPod Touch until everything gets legally sorted...."

I suppose we could have a bunch Palm fan-boys indulging in similarly moronic gloating....

You're not making sense. It's a patent dispute. Apple owns multitouch patents and it's defending them. Nothing wrong here.

[gnasher729]

Why would Gates or Microsoft support psystar?

Right now Apple OS X is locked to only Apple branded hardware. If psystar somehow won their case and forced Apple to open up their EULA to legalize the license for all pc hardware, then OS X would be competing directly against Windows for factory installation on Dells, Sonys, Acer, HP, Lenova, and other PCs.

It would be a lot, lot worse for Microsoft. Basically, Psystar's argument is that license agreements cannot be enforced. For Apple, this would be bad; for Microsoft, it would be fatal. Every business would ask its employees to buy home licenses for all the Microsoft products and bring them to work. Windows Home Editions would be hacked to run on high end servers. Any company that sells student or home licences for their software would lose out.

[marksman]

Can a fanboy tell me how the consumer wins in this case? Reading half of these comments make me sick... like people on here live to please Apple. For god's sake, who gives a ***** if another company is trying to give us some lower cost mac clones? As much as you want to believe it, i dont think anyone here can make a case of how little teenie psystar made even a microscopic dent in apple's stock price. You don't have to feel bad for apple... they only need to look at the balance of their bank accounts to to turn their frowns upside-down. :rolleyes:

The consumer wins because apple does not have to spend millions of dollars going after a company that is breaking the law and stealing their product and mis-using it, which means in turn they don't have to pass that cost on to the consumer.

It is like asking when the police arrest the shop lifter how does the consumer win...

[marksman]

Pretty darn sure you can't sue yourself...:p

Clearly never heard of a little company called COKE ZERO!

[Veri]

What makes you think that Psystar ran out of money for legal representation as a result of this case? There is no way that they would have been able to fund this case with corporate profits. The lawyers were most likely working for payment based on winning the case or a settlement. Or they were financed by third parties.
So what you're saying is that representation was no longer available because it could no longer be paid for: directly, indirectly or retroactively. This comes down to exactly the same thing: losing a case not because blind Lady Justice judged against you but because you can't afford lawyers.

Losing because you are weak rather than because your case is weak is what happens in a society of men, not a society of laws.

Uhh, the FSF does not actually code or otherwise produce any software.
Apple does not "actually code", its employees do, with copyright being assigned to Apple. Apple provides resources to enable the coordination of developers of its software. The FSF does not "actually code", but its adherents do, with copyright being assigned to the FSF. The FSF provides resources to enable the coordination of developers of its software.

If you're bothered that the FSF doesn't pay developers of gcc a wage, feel free to send money directly to developers or ask them which charity they'd like money to go to. The principle and its application here are that, if people should be paid for work from which you benefit, then you need to pay those who are responsible for the creation and maintenance of gcc. Do not use the excuse that "the FSF don't ask for money", because they do - they just don't use the law to force it out of you.

"Invention" is nothing.

Patenting and implementation is everything. What belongs to whom legally.
Morally or legally?

Basically, Psystar's argument is that license agreements cannot be enforced. For Apple, this would be bad; for Microsoft, it would be fatal. Every business would ask its employees to buy home licenses for all the Microsoft products and bring them to work. Windows Home Editions would be hacked to run on high end servers
Sorry, no. The average business has better things to do than maintain a hacked up version of Windows XP Home Edition to run on a high end server, just as it has better things to do than take the risk of Psystar over Apple. Perhaps this was useful with NT 3.51, and remotely worthwhile with NT 4.

[Ansuz]

It would be a lot, lot worse for Microsoft. Basically, Psystar's argument is that license agreements cannot be enforced. For Apple, this would be bad; for Microsoft, it would be fatal. Every business would ask its employees to buy home licenses for all the Microsoft products and bring them to work. Windows Home Editions would be hacked to run on high end servers. Any company that sells student or home licences for their software would lose out.

It could end up being a whole lot worse than just that. One of the main reasons that OSX has a limited market share is the hefty price tag that Apple puts on the hardware required to run it. If Psystar were to win the argument that the EULA'a were unenforcable the other companies would be allowed to do exactly what Psystar did. You'd see Dell, Toshiba, HP, Compaq, etc, offering an OSX option on the machines they sell. Apple's marketshare would skyrocket, at the cost of Windows licences.

Microsoft actually has a distinct advantage in the marketplace so long as OSX remains "unbreakably" tied to Apple hardware. They would be the last people in the world to try and sever that cord.

[gnasher729]

So this may show my newbie status, but is it illegal to legally purchase a copy of OSX and put it on a non-apple computer? If so, how does that not fall under some sort of "monopoly"? I mean, when you boil it down, Apple assembles computer just like everyone else, with parts everyone else can buy too (leaving aside aesthetics off course...). Insight anyone?

Now think about it. You say "Apple assembles computer just like everyone else, with parts everyone else can buy too". So you just made it very, very clear that in your own opinion Apple has absolutely no monopoly in their hardware. On the other hand, there is the software. I don't know if you followed the Psystar court case, but Psystar claimed that Apple had a monopoly in MacOS X. Guess what: A company cannot have a monopoly on its own product. You have to find a relevant market, and the market here would not be "MacOS X", it would be "operating systems". And guess what: Microsoft has 90% of that market. Apple has 10%. No monopoly here.

When you buy a box with MacOS X, you know what the license says: You are allowed to install _one_ copy of MacOS X on _one_ Apple labeled computer. If you want to read the license, type "macos x licensing" into Google. The judge in the Psystar case said exactly that: Apple is free to sell MacOS X with this license; you can take it or leave it, and if you take it, you have to conform to the license terms. Copying MacOS X without permission by the license (and installing is copying) is copyright infringement.

[smurfjammer]

Microsoft actually has a distinct advantage in the marketplace so long as OSX remains "unbreakably" tied to Apple hardware. They would be the last people in the world to try and sever that cord.

100% correct - the only people to gain out of breaking the EULA would be hardware makers namely Dell (since they have publicly stated that they would like to have OS X as an option).

[pdjudd]

Apple's marketshare would skyrocket, at the cost of Windows licences.

Until at least Apple could no longer afford to further develop OSX (at its current pricing) or until Apple is forced to jack up its pricing. OSX is only useful as long as Apple can put resources into it. If EULAS were to go bye-bye, both MS and Apple would loose big - they couldn't afford to develop software on a large scale. When Apple can no longer justify its R&D costs (which it makes up right now with hardware), they will most likely cancel it since they can't make a profit.

Of course they could jack up the price, but the market can only tolerate that for so long.

[Krevnik]

Apple does not "actually code", its employees do, with copyright being assigned to Apple. Apple provides resources to enable the coordination of developers of its software. The FSF does not "actually code", but its adherents do, with copyright being assigned to the FSF. The FSF provides resources to enable the coordination of developers of its software.

WOAH! That is a huge, and inaccurate claim there.

FSF does not get copyright assigned to it without the author's permission. The FSF will definitely help you find representation if you have a case, and sponsors/hosts various GNU projects (as the two are tightly knit groups for the most part), but they are NOT copyright owners in the way Apple is. (EDIT: For some of the larger projects, like GCC, this may be different due to the complexity of the project, but most projects don't operate this way)

Copyright for code written under the GPL and similar licenses remains under the control of the author, unless otherwise given over to someone else. I don't think even the FSF would try to assert copyright on code added to projects they sponsor. That goes against their own tenants.


Do not use the excuse that "the FSF don't ask for money", because they do - they just don't use the law to force it out of you.

Force is the wrong word to use here. You spend money on a product in exchange for the product. Law is there to protect the right of trade, and copyright law is there to help encourage creative works to be created, and help those individuals make a living off things that enrich society as a whole, if they choose to take advantage of it.

There are problems with the current copyright/patent system, yes... but that is another discussion.

[smurfjammer]

Of course they could jack up the price, but the market can only tolerate that for so long.

As well as a price increase would come software activation (like MS) and that's the last thing you would want.

[LaDirection]

Sucks, Apple could use some competition..

Are you joking? Microsoft, Dell, HP... Ring a Bell?

[gkarris]

QUESTION:

Why are people still talking about the End-User-License-Agreement and Psystar in the same sentence... :confused:

Psystar is NOT an End-User... :eek:

Fun times!

(eagerly awaits the Mac Tablet...) :D

[bruinsrme]

I never realized MR had so many members that were lawyers.

[Ansuz]

Can a fanboy tell me how the consumer wins in this case?

Its actually really simple. Apple has a duty to its stockholders to be as profitable as it can be. Very little of their revenue is derived from sales of OSX itself, rather, the profit Apple makes is derived from its hardware sales and OSX is a driving force for a consumer to purchase that hardware. This hardware profit in turn allows Apple to sell OSX upgrades at a low cost to the comsumer and upgrade and innovate OSX in order to sell more hardware in the future, etc.

If Apple had lost its case, it would not have lead to a widespread corruption of the OS as many here claim; Apple wouldn't let one of their flagship products become tarnished like that. Rather, Apple would have done one of three things:

1) Released a non upgrade, retail version of OSX that could be installed on other machines at a prohibitivly high cost (likely, the difference in cost between the machine and its Apple counterpart) in order to discourage others from purchasing OSX by itself.

2) Revamped the Apple hardware line to make current generation PCs completely incompatable with the OS without major modifications. This would discourage sales since the modification would be very time consuming and not produce a stable product.

3) Shut down their computer division and focused instead on consumer electronics (very unlikely but possible.

Not one of these three scenarios is good for the consumer.

[Veri]

FSF does not get copyright assigned to it without the author's permission.
Apple does not get copyright assigned to it without the author's permission. In the case of Apple, the permission is implicit when you decide to work for Apple. In the case of the FSF, per Why the FSF gets copyright assignments for contributors (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html):
FSF requires that each author of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright assignment, and, where appropriate, a disclaimer of any work-for-hire ownership claims by the programmer's employer.
IOW, you can tweak gcc to your heart's content, but you better accept that if you want to contribute to the gcc people actually use - not some obscure fork or your own private repository - you're going to be giving copyright to the FSF.

Copyright for code written under the GPL and similar licenses remains under the control of the author, unless otherwise given over to someone else.
I think you may be confusing "writing code under the GPL" and "writing code for an FSF project". gcc is ostensibly an FSF project. To cynics, it is perhaps the FSF project.

[supmango]

Can a fanboy tell me how the consumer wins in this case? Reading half of these comments make me sick... like people on here live to please Apple. For god's sake, who gives a ***** if another company is trying to give us some lower cost mac clones? As much as you want to believe it, i dont think anyone here can make a case of how little teenie psystar made even a microscopic dent in apple's stock price. You don't have to feel bad for apple... they only need to look at the balance of their bank accounts to to turn their frowns upside-down. :rolleyes:

The consumer doesn't win if your definition of winning means lower prices. What it does mean is better integrity of the overall brand image of Apple computer. It means that you are guaranteed a computer that doesn't suck nearly as much as a PC. It means you don't have a computer with excessive hardware specs that the software cannot begin to dream of utilizing. I would rather have a slower processor if I know it was made better than the faster one. So the consumer wins by having a computer that they can trust is worth the money they spent on it. As a former PC owner, when you examine the total cost of ownership, Mac's are WAY cheaper because they are WAY more reliable and the hardware doesn't suck (like on a Dell, HP, Toshiba, fill-in-the-blank PC manufacturer). I have owned them all and all have hardware problems after about 1 year. 2 and 1/2 years with my iMac, not so much as a hiccup. It is ridiculous.

[Krevnik]

QUESTION:

Why are people still talking about the End-User-License-Agreement and Psystar in the same sentence... :confused:

Psystar is NOT an End-User... :eek:

Fun times!

(eagerly awaits the Mac Tablet...) :D

Because Psystar must enter into the agreement on behalf of the end-user to pre-install the software. Before delivery of the system takes place, they /are/ the end-user.

[ericinboston]

With alllllll the people on this forum and 'round the world that love to turn their pcs into Macs, why the heck are you glad Psystar is going under?

I rarely got a chance to look at Psystar's systems but for the most part, they were cheaper than Macs but more expensive than PCs...they were designed for folks who were somewhat technical but didn't have the time or knowledge to go about buying $400 in hardware and converting it to a Mac.

I, personally, would have loved to see this in court...Psystar challenging Apple's OS license (I think the license is completely absurd...and please don't reply with "well, you knew what you were getting when you bought it so be quiet"). It's not illegal until the courts rule it illegal. It may be Apple's "policy" but ultimately the way that policy is interpreted and used and then sued upon does it become legal or illegal. And we all know the EULA on pretty much anything these days is impossible to read in laymen's terms.

I like the Macs but I hate the price. I also hate the fact that machines like the iMac are an "all in 1 machine" (meaning the monitor) and that my beautiful 24" monitor becomes a very large paperweight. I have a Mini but for the price (over $900 after upgrades at Apple) it's not worth it (disclaimer...not worth it for MY needs and as a consumer I have an opinion).

Gimme a desktop like the good old days...something around $800, not built into a monitor and includes a keyboard/mouse without charging me $100 "extra" for the combo. Yeah, I know Apple doesn't want to do that right now (or the last 10 years) but OBVIOUSLY there is a market if companies like Psystar set up shop to fill this void, but moreover, all the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people that are converting their pc to a Mac with the Hackintosh folks which is just as much a blow (and likely worse) to Apple than Psystar.

Lemme guess, someone's gonna reply telling me to go out and buy one of those really cheap $2700 Mac Pros.

-Eric

[Tallest Skil]

Clearly never heard of a little company called COKE ZERO!

Did they?! A subsidiary of Coke sued Coke itself?

[pdjudd]

QUESTION:

Why are people still talking about the End-User-License-Agreement and Psystar in the same sentence... :confused:

Psystar is NOT an End-User... :eek:

Fun times!

(eagerly awaits the Mac Tablet...) :D
Well they are and they are not... They are in the sense they they are the (alleged) original purchasers. They are not in the sense that they are a business and are held to different legal standards than you or I would be. Besides the statement is moot. Traffic laws (for example) still apply to people who do not possess a drivers license.

A more apt question is not "who" is the end user, but "why" we are calling anybody an "end user". Apple uses a "Software License Agreement". Not an "End User License Agreement". In a sense, Apple's licensing terms apply to everybody equally if you are an end user or a reseller.

[celtikmind]

This kind of moaning has always been there in the Mac forum community. Except that curiously, all these things Macs are "missing" doesn't seem to be impacting Mac sales at all.

Until Apple makes a Mac SemiPro (a.k.a. headless iMac/PC GamerMac) I wouldn't be so certain. Quite a few people seem to be screaming for one... Thinking the Mac mini weak, the Mac Pro way too expensive and the iMac not enough in storage, expandability or graphics power.

However, the low margin, the sustainability of the expandability and the resemblance of a typical PC isn't "way of Apple" so it's perfectly clear why they won't make one. But if they were, I for one think it would sell like hotcakes, with the added bonus of many Hackintosh'ers buy a real, Apple Mac.

[BaldiMac]

So what you're saying is that representation was no longer available because it could no longer be paid for: directly, indirectly or retroactively. This comes down to exactly the same thing: losing a case not because blind Lady Justice judged against you but because you can't afford lawyers.

Losing because you are weak rather than because your case is weak is what happens in a society of men, not a society of laws.

No one has said that representation is no longer available. Psystar has not lost. The case has not been decided. Your point is valid in the larger sense. Just not in this case.

Apple does not "actually code", its employees do, with copyright being assigned to Apple. Apple provides resources to enable the coordination of developers of its software. The FSF does not "actually code", but its adherents do, with copyright being assigned to the FSF. The FSF provides resources to enable the coordination of developers of its software.

Apple's employees are part of Apple. Their work is property of Apple. Your argument is like saying "I didn't write that letter, my hand did."

[bruinsrme]

Lemme guess, someone's gonna reply telling me to go out and buy one of those really cheap $2700 Mac Pros.

-Eric

Why just one?

[celtikmind]

Did they?! A subsidiary of Coke sued Coke itself?

Welcome to America! Country of Sue R and Sue E! :D

[Ansuz]

*sic*

You are more than entitled to your opinion but at the end of the day, Apple is allowed to make whatever product they feel like making and sell it for whatever price they feel like selling it for. Neither on of these choices is illegal simply because the end user isn't satisfied with the options available to them.

You clearly like the OSX environment but are unhappy with the price to power ratio of their hardware offerings. Thats understandable but it does not entitle you to a product that fits your needs. I'm a big fan of Aston Martin cars but am unhappy with their prices. This does not mean that AM should come out with a cheaper care to appease me, rather, it means that I buy a different car.

[inkswamp]

i agree that competition is one of the greatest things for businesses, but not when it is created illegally by means of using Apple's operating system.

No laws were being broken and I'm not sure why people keep insisting otherwise. If laws were being broken, Apple could have issued a cease and desist notice and taken Psystar down from the start. That, of course, is why there was litigation, to figure out if Apple or their brand were being damaged by Psystar's actions.

Lots of people on this site and elsewhere claim Psystar was breaking laws, but that's demonstrably untrue. If you'd like to explain what was illegal in their actions, by all means, enlighten me. And do so without relying on the shaky, if not debunked, argument that EULAs are legally binding contracts because they are not.

QUESTION:

Why are people still talking about the End-User-License-Agreement and Psystar in the same sentence... :confused:

Psystar is NOT an End-User... :eek:

And what's worse is that EULAs have never been clearly established as a legally binding contract so even if Psystar were defined as an end user, it still wouldn't give Apple any legal rights to stop them.

[Ansuz]

And do so without relying on the shaky, if not debunked, argument that EULAs are legally binding contracts because they are not.

Please cite the court case where it was ruled that EULAs are not legally binding. I was under the impression that this was still being decided by the courts and, in fact, this trial was to be one of the major players in making that decision.

And what's worse is that EULAs have never been clearly established as a legally binding contract so even if Psystar were defined as an end user, it still wouldn't give Apple any legal rights to stop them.

Contracts are generally concidered to be legaly binding until a court rules that they are not. They do not have to be found binding to be enforcable.

[gkarris]

A more apt question is not "who" is the end user, but "why" we are calling anybody an "end user". Apple uses a "Software License Agreement". Not an "End User License Agreement". In a sense, Apple's licensing terms apply to everybody equally if you are an end user or a reseller.

O I C... :)

Thanks....

(stops wondering...)

You have my permission to continue arguing... :D

[designgeek]

Two unrelated points on this:

1) If Psystar were, as they claimed, not able to produce balance sheets or P&Ls for any of their trading activities, how do they know they're bankrupt? Bankruptcy is a function of the balance sheet.

2) Anyone who thinks Psystar was backed by Gates, Dell, or anyone currently directly involved in the Western computer market is out of their tiny minds.

No-one -- let me spell that out for you in a Perry-Cox-from-Scrubs-stylee -- Nuh-uh oh-ho-oh-ho-oh-one selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principal of the EULA.

Cheers!

Jim

Thank you, I've been thinking this since I read the story today and I just didn't think it worth my time to go over these points but in reading the rest of the thread I'm glad you did. :) Especially the second point, it's not even worth discussing, obviously beyond a reasonable doubt Dell is not going to involve itself in something like this.

[*LTD*]

With Psystar out of the picture (it seems), the consumer hasn't lost any more than it has in the past with Apple. And hasn't won anything more, either, except the same thing as before.

If you're going to argue that Apple's emergence in this dispute as the "victor" is somehow bad for the consumer, you'll need to believe that Apple has always been bad for the consumer. That's really an untenable argument to make, especially in light of a) Apple's customer satisfaction records, year after year, leading the industry, and b) in light of their continued strong Mac sales performance in this economy, not to mention their record pre-recession performance.

Most of the small, anti-Apple minority here that continually beleives that Apple is doing the consumer a disservice doesn't have any kind of leg to stand on, really. The numbers don't bear out their allegations, nor does the majority of customer feedback.

[zap2]

Only if you don't know what a computer is.


:rolleyes:


Please..its more of a hassle then Linux/Windows is(and for good reasons, Apple doesn't make OS X with installing on PC in mind)

[inkswamp]

Please cite the court case where it was ruled that EULAs are not legally binding. I was under the impression that this was still being decided by the courts and, in fact, this trial was to be one of the major players in making that decision.

You're asking me to disprove a negative. Uh-huh.

Instead, you show me the court cases where EULAs have been established as a legally binding contract. The only instances where EULAs have teeth is when they are used to stop piracy. And since each copy of OS X Psystar sold was legally purchased off-the-shelf, then that's not applicable to what they were doing.

[ericinboston]

Are you joking? Microsoft, Dell, HP... Ring a Bell?

I have to agree with the other person.

It's not really a competitive landscape for Apple to compete with the PC world since you can do whatever the !(@#^@$ you want to a pc yet if dare think about installing anything non-Apple on a Mac you're excommunicated.

Yes, there is competition on the OPERATING SYSTEM level...you know...Apple OS vs. Microsoft OS...but that's really it.

Until I can walk into a store and see a Mac Clone next to a Mac just like I can see 37 PCs next to each other, I really don't think Apple "competes" with the PC industry. Remember, I didn't say the Microsoft Windows industry.

Before people fire back paragraphs about the MS and Apple ads, I am aware of them and I can probably sit here for 45 minutes and write everything you are going to say.

Apple makes a good product, but the Apple world vs. the PC world (again, not Windows world) is a topic where the word competition just doesn't exist.

Apple seems to finally be approaching 9% personal computer marketshare for the first time since 1985...I'd like to see them hit 15% but I doubt that will happen unless prices fall and more computer options are available (read: bring back the normal desktop and let me choose my monitor, for example.) as well as Apple targeting people who just want a sub $500 desktop. Not everyone in the USA can afford a $1200 iMac. The Mini is barely an option as it comes with nothing but a power cable...so turns that $599 into $699 pretty quickly when you add a keyboard/mouse.

-Eric

[Tallest Skil]

:rolleyes:


Please..its more of a hassle then Linux/Windows is(and for good reasons, Apple doesn't make OS X with installing on PC in mind)

Eh, it's probably difficult for a first-timer. I've done it a lot, so I guess I've forgotten the beginning.

[*LTD*]

Two unrelated points on this:

1) If Psystar were, as they claimed, not able to produce balance sheets or P&Ls for any of their trading activities, how do they know they're bankrupt? Bankruptcy is a function of the balance sheet.

2) Anyone who thinks Psystar was backed by Gates, Dell, or anyone currently directly involved in the Western computer market is out of their tiny minds.

No-one -- let me spell that out for you in a Perry-Cox-from-Scrubs-stylee -- Nuh-uh oh-ho-oh-ho-oh-one selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principal of the EULA.

Cheers!

Jim

Thank you! Extremely lucid thinking.

It comes down to the basic integrity of Intellectual Property. A lot of people depend on it to be able to make a living.

[pdjudd]

Please cite the court case where it was ruled that EULAs are not legally binding. I was under the impression that this was still being decided by the courts and, in fact, this trial was to be one of the major players in making that decision.


No need to. EULA's have been upheld as legal before. However the legally has always been on a case by case basis:

Other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg) (at findlaw.com (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=case&no=961139)), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_v._Harmony_Computers&action=edit&redlink=1) (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_New_York) 1994), Novell v. Network Trade Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novell_v._Network_Trade_Center&action=edit&redlink=1) (at harvard.edu (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/cases/Novell_v_NTC.html)), and Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Cartridge_Remanufacturers_Association_Inc._v._Lexmark_International_Inc.) may have some bearing as well. No Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.

Cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA#Enforceability)

There hasn't been any real push in testing EULA's in general since the entire software business is based on licensing a product to somebody.

[Veri]

No one has said that representation is no longer available. Psystar has not lost. The case has not been decided. Your point is valid in the larger sense. Just not in this case.
OP pointed to a "lengthy and costly legal battle with Apple", then citing conjecture that "the company's financial backers have pulled out". The clear implication is that money is needed to enable one's case to be seen in equal light to that of one's opponent. This sucks.

Apple's employees are part of Apple. Their work is property of Apple. Your argument is like saying "I didn't write that letter, my hand did."
Apple's employees are part of Apple in a specific sense, for Apple does not have slaves, but voluntary employees. The effect of the employment contract is such that the work done by employees toward Apple's projects belongs to Apple. Similarly, the work done by, well, anyone, towards the FSF's projects belongs to the FSF.

(You are allowed to tweak gcc to your heart's content and give away your changes. But what you're producing isn't gcc. Despite the common viewpoint that the FSF are a bunch of hippies, they own a huge chunk of intellectual property that's critical to multiple platforms, including Apple's own. Microsoft are one of the very few exceptions to this reliance on FSF IP.)

[Ansuz]

You're asking me to disprove a negative. Uh-huh.

Instead, you show me the court cases where EULAs have been established as a legally binding contract. The only instances where EULAs have teeth is when they are used to stop piracy. And since each copy of OS X Psystar sold was legally purchased off-the-shelf, then that's not applicable to what they were doing.

I'm really not. You claimed that EULA's are not legally binding. Contracts are legally binding until a court rules them illegal. In order for EULA's to be not legally binding a court somewhere would have had to rule this so. I am asking you for the case where this ruling was made.

As for cases where they have been found binding, see pdjudds post:


Other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), Novell v. Network Trade Center (at harvard.edu), and Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. may have some bearing as well. No Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.

Even if those copies were legally purchased (which we aren't sure that they were since Psystar can't produce any evidence of the purchases) they violated the terms of the EULA - which has never been declared illegal - when they installed it on non approved hardware. That was the point of the entire case.

[BaldiMac]

No laws were being broken and I'm not sure why people keep insisting otherwise. If laws were being broken, Apple could have issued a cease and desist notice and taken Psystar down from the start. That, of course, is why there was litigation, to figure out if Apple or their brand were being damaged by Psystar's actions.

Lots of people on this site and elsewhere claim Psystar was breaking laws, but that's demonstrably untrue.

You say that you can demonstrate that the claim that Psystar was breaking laws is untrue. Go for it!

If you'd like to explain what was illegal in their actions, by all means, enlighten me.

The most obvious infraction would be that they are in violation of copyright law by distributing OS X without a valid license to do so.

And do so without relying on the shaky, if not debunked, argument that EULAs are legally binding contracts because they are not.

The fact that you claim that license agreements are not legally binding does not make it so. They have consistently been upheld in the US, although certain provisions have been found to be unconscionable or otherwise illegal. Most of the stricken provisions are related to arbitration.

[inkswamp]

Cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA#Enforceability)

Exactly. If EULAs were legally binding contracts, there would be no uncertainty about their enforceability like that.

[pdjudd]

You're asking me to disprove a negative. Uh-huh.

Instead, you show me the court cases where EULAs have been established as a legally binding contract.

You made an assertion that EULA's are not legal contracts. We want proof of that.

The only instances where EULAs have teeth is when they are used to stop piracy. And since each copy of OS X Psystar sold was legally purchased off-the-shelf, then that's not applicable to what they were doing.

Unless you can provide any evidence of that beyond the assertions by Psysar (which have no legal weight or muster), you can't state that. We have no proof that Psystar purchased anything from Apple.

[bruinsrme]

I'm really not. You claimed that EULA's are not legally binding. Contracts are legally binding until a court rules them illegal. In order for EULA's to be not legally binding a court somewhere would have had to rule this so. I am asking you for the case where this ruling was made.

Even if those copies were legally purchased (which we aren't sure that they were since Psystar can't produce any evidence of the purchases) they violated the terms of the EULA - which has never been declared illegal - when they installed it on non approved hardware. That was the point of the entire case.

I read several EULAs and they state if i dont agree to a EULA I can take it back to the store I purchased it for a full refund. What stores take returns on an open software box?

[pdjudd]

Exactly. If EULAs were legally binding contracts, there would be no uncertainty about their enforceability like that.
umm... I am actually in agreement with BaldiMac since I sowed several cases where EULA's have been shown to be unenforceable and valid - the antithesis of what you claim.

[ericinboston]

You are more than entitled to your opinion but at the end of the day, Apple is allowed to make whatever product they feel like making and sell it for whatever price they feel like selling it for. Neither on of these choices is illegal simply because the end user isn't satisfied with the options available to them.

You clearly like the OSX environment but are unhappy with the price to power ratio of their hardware offerings. Thats understandable but it does not entitle you to a product that fits your needs. I'm a big fan of Aston Martin cars but am unhappy with their prices. This does not mean that AM should come out with a cheaper care to appease me, rather, it means that I buy a different car.

Great point...but please, no car references.

And my reply to you would be: If Apple ever wants to see 15% marketshare, they're gonna have to start APPEALING to folks other than Apple loyalists, clueless rich customers, and people who want a Mac just to have a shiny box on their desk. If they don't wanna hit 15%, fine. And I'm not being sarcastic. Many on this forum seem to claim they live with Jobs and has been told that Apple never wants to create computers for the masses for several reasons. Ooooookay.

Seriously. I may annoy some people by making that statement (both on the marketshare comment and my stereotyping) but it is true.

Macs are not $249 iPods. Macs are not $299 iPhones. If (and I'm stating IF) Apple wants to start gaining true Mac marketshare, they're gonna have to start selling a LOT more...which, as we all know, means that Apple is going to have to target newer/more audiences...which likely means that Apple will need to target folks whose budget is under $1000 for a full system...and very likely sub $700. PC land provides this option, Apple does not. I have many friends/family members that look to me for computer advice and my first question is "would you consider a Mac" and their immediate reply is "no, too expensive". They know it. They're not techies like many of us on this board. They are the average consumer out to buy their kids or family a new notebook or desktop and they know that every BB and Staples ad in every Sunday paper shows numerous computers for under $1000 yet never an Apple.

Don't make me out to be an Apple hater. I like Apple, but I think I have a sense of reality of what they will need to do IF they want to grow serious marketshare...and plenty of trade publications and investor comments agree with me. Appealing to new audiences is what Apple needs to do...and a big way to be more appealing is to create cheaper product lines that target the new audiences.

-Eric

[inkswamp]

You made an assertion that EULA's are not legal contracts. We want proof of that.

Your own Wikipedia link explains better than I can. Go read it. They're not consistently enforceable. What does that tell you?

But common sense and simple observation of the events here shows that if the EULA were already a legally enforceable contract, Apple would have been able to stop Psystar without litigation. The fact that they are in court over all this pretty much puts it to rest.

But yeah, I know. Wrong site for this line of thinking. :rolleyes:

[Veri]

Contracts are legally binding until a court rules them illegal.
How can something be legally binding unless a court's obliged you to follow it? IOW, what does it actually mean for something to be "legally binding"?

A more realistic interpretation of a contract is "a random string of pompous loghorrea", except when either
(i) you respect the guy you're signing it with; or
(ii) you think the guy is going to cause you damage in court if you ignore it.

Contracts only work because (i) or (ii) cover many cases.