Psystar Exits Bankruptcy, Launches New Xeon-Based Systems Running OS X [Archive] - Page 2

Anuba

Jul 2, 2009, 09:40 PM

You must be the disgruntled prick that is outside the norm.
How about outside the United States?

AppleCare is an overpriced joke, they're asking more than other manufacturers do for a 3Y warranty, only the other manufacturers include next business day on-site repairs. Apple are too cheap and greedy for that, so you have to drag your computer to the nearest Apple reseller, wherever that is.

I did just that, dragged my iMac 24" to the neighboring town to get a dead PSU repaired. It took them 3 weeks and 2 days. After I picked it up, took it home and opened the box I noticed the screen looked like crap so I wiped it off, only to find that some of the smudges and particles were on the inside of the glass. Plugged it in, ran it for 30 minutes, put it in sleep mode. When I tried to wake it up the next morning it was dead, again.

I called Apple to ask if there was another place in the vicinity where I could take it since the last place needed 3 weeks to get the iMac back to the same broken state it was already in, but it turned out to be a 2-hour drive so I guess I'm stuck with the guys who had lunch on the inside of the screen glass. While I had Apple on the phone I also asked them about the battery on my new MBP; after a couple of calibration attempts I haven't been able to get it past 93% health, so I asked what the policy is on battery replacement and whether 93% is within spec. He replied "Does it run?" "Not sure what you mean", I said. "Does it, like, run... on the battery?", he said. "Well... yeah, but... you know, isn't a new battery supposed to hold a full charge?" "But", he said, "does it run for a long time? Because sometimes they do that". At this point I didn't know if he was drunk or maybe talking to a potted plant in his room, I didn't feel like a part of the conversation so I said "Is there any way to find out if the battery is defective?". "Oh yeah", he said, "they have this battery test application on a USB dongle... when you take in the iMac, bring the laptop and have them run that test."
"Okay".
"They might charge you for it though".
"O... kay".

Stellar support, really.

Nermal

Jul 2, 2009, 10:29 PM

The savvy users have already figured out ways to build their own systems without Apple's "help". If it was easy, the users would no longer need to be savvy, would they?

I'm thinking more along the lines of legality: If Apple was to sell a barebones motherboard along with OS X then there wouldn't be arguments about whether it's legal or not. There would also be no issues with your sound breaking after every patch :p

bobertoq

Jul 2, 2009, 10:47 PM

Wow these guys are playing dirty, lol I love it :D

Go Psystar!

I really pray for the day OSX is made available for all PC owners, and I am not talking about OSX86, I mean real deal OSX from Apple.

They make a killer OS, now if they would fight on the PC's home turf. they would really slaughter Windows.No, that would mean Apple's hardware sales would plummet, resulting in more expensive Macs and a more expensive Mac OS X. Apple already has competition, and their competition is Microsoft with Dell, Asus, Gateway, etc.

NoSmokingBandit

Jul 2, 2009, 11:04 PM

No, that would mean Apple's hardware sales would plummet, resulting in more expensive Macs and a more expensive Mac OS X. Apple already has competition, and their competition is Microsoft with Dell, Asus, Gateway, etc.

Not necessarily. Some people will buy whatever it takes to use OSX, so theres no competition for that market.
Plenty of film makers require Final Cut Pro, and will have to buy apple's hardware to use it, so theres really no competition for that demographic.

This is why i dont miss the late 80s/early 90s. I should be able to run any app on my hardware instead of buying several computers just to use specific apps.

Sehnsucht

Jul 2, 2009, 11:36 PM

6 x 2 GB isn't that expensive.

I was just going by the fact that an 8 GB DDR3 RAM kit (like the kind that goes into a MacBook Pro) is SEVEN HUNDRED FREAKING DOLLARS on NewEgg. :eek: :( I suppose laptop modules are just more expensive across the board...

Eidorian

Jul 2, 2009, 11:41 PM

I was just going by the fact that an 8 GB DDR3 RAM kit (like the kind that goes into a MacBook Pro) is SEVEN HUNDRED FREAKING DOLLARS on NewEgg. :eek: :( I suppose laptop modules are just more expensive across the board...It's the RAM density that's costly. You can populate 6 RAM slots with 2 GB a hell of a lot more cheaply than just 2 slots with 4 GB of RAM.

Hell I have 6 GB of RAM that cost me $60 over the past two years. I might even get more DD2-800 because it's dirt cheap and AMD has some killer DDR2 motherboards. I'll have 8 GB and move the spare 2 into a HTPC I've been considering.

Sehnsucht

Jul 2, 2009, 11:42 PM

...I called Apple to ask if there was another place in the vicinity where I could take it since the last place needed 3 weeks to get the iMac back to the same broken state it was already in, but it turned out to be a 2-hour drive so I guess I'm stuck with the guys who had lunch on the inside of the screen glass. While I had Apple on the phone I also asked them about the battery on my new MBP; after a couple of calibration attempts I haven't been able to get it past 93% health, so I asked what the policy is on battery replacement and whether 93% is within spec. He replied "Does it run?" "Not sure what you mean", I said. "Does it, like, run... on the battery?", he said. "Well... yeah, but... you know, isn't a new battery supposed to hold a full charge?" "But", he said, "does it run for a long time? Because sometimes they do that". At this point I didn't know if he was drunk or maybe talking to a potted plant in his room, I didn't feel like a part of the conversation so I said "Is there any way to find out if the battery is defective?". "Oh yeah", he said, "they have this battery test application on a USB dongle... when you take in the iMac, bring the laptop and have them run that test."
"Okay".
"They might charge you for it though".
"O... kay".

Stellar support, really.

I'm not making light of your situation when I say this (because I realize how irritating and frustrating that must be) but the way you told it made me laugh my ass off for four million years!!! Your posts are always so entertaining...:D :D :D

I'm wondering if (and hoping that) Steve Jobs' successor might work to improve Apple support in other countries. Or maybe Steve Jobs himself! Apple certainly has the cash they'd need to make all those improvements and more...:eek:

MattInOz

Jul 2, 2009, 11:43 PM

Eidorian

Jul 2, 2009, 11:48 PM

I'm not making light of your situation when I say this (because I realize how irritating and frustrating that must be) but the way you told it made me laugh for four million years!!! Your posts are always so entertaining...:D :D :D

I'm wondering if (and hoping that) Steve Jobs' successor might work to improve Apple support in other countries. Or maybe Steve Jobs himself! Apple certainly has the cash they'd need to make all those improvements and more...:eek:It can be a mess even stateside. It's an hour to the nearest Apple Store or 3 in the other direction. They finally added another local repair shop to the list but they only handle notebooks.

Dell gives you on-site goodness for desktops and their notebooks if you coughed up for that support level. Remote diagnosis seems to be their new feature before you have a chance to mail it in now for lower tier support levels.

I've only had to deal with Dell's education and business support. It has been top notch. Even if that one Latitude D500 took 3 site visits to fix.

Sehnsucht

Jul 3, 2009, 12:05 AM

It can be a mess even stateside. It's an hour to the nearest Apple Store or 3 in the other direction. They finally added another local repair shop to the list but they only handle notebooks.

I am officially spoiled. My Apple store is about 15 - 25 minutes away depending on traffic, and the hardest part is lugging a heavy boxed computer up and down a moving escalator (it's inside a shopping mall.) Luckily, though, I've not yet had to do this myself. Yet...

Last time I was in there, I saw a guy dragging his Mac Pro in. I was just thinking, "Damn dude, that must have been fun!" :D

Eidorian

Jul 3, 2009, 12:06 AM

I am officially spoiled. My Apple store is about 15 - 25 minutes away depending on traffic, and the hardest part is lugging a heavy boxed computer up and down a moving escalator (it's inside a shopping mall.) Luckily, though, I've not yet had to do this myself. Yet...I had to lug my iMac in to prove there was a problem with my iPod Shuffle. They later released a firmware update for the iPod Shuffle that fixed the problem because every one had the same playback flaw. :rolleyes:

Apple gives me good support when I act like an idiot. If I show any intelligence it's a trip to hell.

bedifferent

Jul 3, 2009, 12:12 AM

It can be a mess even stateside. It's an hour to the nearest Apple Store or 3 in the other direction. They finally added another local repair shop to the list but they only handle notebooks.

Dell gives you on-site goodness for desktops and their notebooks if you coughed up for that support level. Remote diagnosis seems to be their new feature before you have a chance to mail it in now for lower tier support levels.

I've only had to deal with Dell's education and business support. It has been top notch. Even if that one Latitude D500 took 3 site visits to fix.

A little known fact about AppleCare: My father, who is wheel chair bound, experienced a crashed hard drive in his iMac. While speaking with AppleCare, it turns out that on-site, no cost service is included in AppleCare (at least stateside). A technician came to his home, replaced the drive, reset the drive with Time Machine after running a barrage of system tests, and didn't leave until the iMac was up and running. No extra charge was incurred. When speaking with AppleCare, mention the fact that on-site service is included in the coverage. If the rep denies it, read the fine print, it's in there.

bedifferent

Jul 3, 2009, 12:13 AM

Not true! Configuring the new Psystar model as close as possible to a low-end Mac Pro ends up with a computer that is about $2000. The low-end Mac Pro, similarly configured, is $2500. I'd hardly call $500 "thousands more".

Mark

Easy killer. So it's not thousands less, but it's still "less" :)

MorphingDragon

Jul 3, 2009, 12:39 AM

How about outside the United States?

AppleCare is an overpriced joke, they're asking more than other manufacturers do for a 3Y warranty, only the other manufacturers include next business day on-site repairs. Apple are too cheap and greedy for that, so you have to drag your computer to the nearest Apple reseller, wherever that is.

I did just that, dragged my iMac 24" to the neighboring town to get a dead PSU repaired. It took them 3 weeks and 2 days. After I picked it up, took it home and opened the box I noticed the screen looked like crap so I wiped it off, only to find that some of the smudges and particles were on the inside of the glass. Plugged it in, ran it for 30 minutes, put it in sleep mode. When I tried to wake it up the next morning it was dead, again.

I called Apple to ask if there was another place in the vicinity where I could take it since the last place needed 3 weeks to get the iMac back to the same broken state it was already in, but it turned out to be a 2-hour drive so I guess I'm stuck with the guys who had lunch on the inside of the screen glass. While I had Apple on the phone I also asked them about the battery on my new MBP; after a couple of calibration attempts I haven't been able to get it past 93% health, so I asked what the policy is on battery replacement and whether 93% is within spec. He replied "Does it run?" "Not sure what you mean", I said. "Does it, like, run... on the battery?", he said. "Well... yeah, but... you know, isn't a new battery supposed to hold a full charge?" "But", he said, "does it run for a long time? Because sometimes they do that". At this point I didn't know if he was drunk or maybe talking to a potted plant in his room, I didn't feel like a part of the conversation so I said "Is there any way to find out if the battery is defective?". "Oh yeah", he said, "they have this battery test application on a USB dongle... when you take in the iMac, bring the laptop and have them run that test."
"Okay".
"They might charge you for it though".
"O... kay".

Stellar support, really.

Sounds Like Renaissance NZ. At Least if there was a Real Apple NZ branch I could blame Apple for lackluster service. But its all Renaissance's fault for anything here, Even PCs. Magnum Mac sucks and Renaissance are slow with repairs. I only recently found a good 3rd party repairer!!! :mad:

---

On Topic...

If I wanted a Hackintosh I could just get an EFI-X dongle, build it for cheaper and still get hardware warranty support for over 6 months. Plus ever since the eMac I have had a pure hate for Boxes. (With the exception of Workstations or slimline boxes) The boxes for the cheaper ones look plasticy and cheap. Reminds me of a Subaru Interior... and not the Legacies.

applefan69

Jul 3, 2009, 01:22 AM

This question is out of pure curiosity, and hopefully someone can answer. But lets pretend for a moment that in the end it turned out microsoft or some sort of close competitor of apple was behind this psystar operation.

Could apple do anything about it?

MorphingDragon

Jul 3, 2009, 01:41 AM

ikir

Jul 3, 2009, 02:01 AM

Winni

Jul 3, 2009, 03:28 AM

So you endorse competition doing illegal things with another companies IP in order to compete?

I agree with competition is good, but when a company uses another companies IP without permission and thus change the coding of the product so it will work for them is unethical and illegal. That is why I view Psystar as scumbags and to a certain extent with Palm( for the whole iTunes thing). You want to compete with Apple using their IP? Get their permission. If they say no, suck it up and develop your own competing product.

Firstly, Psystar are NOT doing anything illegal with another companies IP. EULAs are neither laws nor has it been confirmed by any court of law anywhere in this world that they even represent a legally binding contract.

Secondly, you are obviously not up-to-date on how easy it has become to install completely unmodified versions of OS X on non-Apple hardware.

Thirdly, what Apple is doing with the iTunes store and iPhone/iPod products is no different to what Microsoft is doing in most countries with Windows and hardware bundles. And -THAT- has been found to be illegal by German laws and probably also by laws in other countries as well.

Winni

Jul 3, 2009, 03:32 AM

Matek

Jul 3, 2009, 03:42 AM

Crazy.... I'm going crazy reading some comments here. People says Psystart is a competitor, or love their hardware just don't get it. Psystar is parasite, they sell generic hardware without all the cool thing mac has, from the smallest thing to the engennering of hardware.The "cool thing" Apple has is mainly OS X.

Sure it cost less... would you buy a ****** pc for more than a mac pro? Saying a mac is different from a PC is passe for a couple of years now. They all use the same, identical generic hardware, so when you buy a Mac Pro, you're already buying a ****** pc.

FireWire 800, audio out with support for digital volume, commands and mic, alluminium ultra silent custom made towers? imac slim design? iMac built in audio, webcam, mic? Nothing...They have FW800, they have digital audio out, you can buy a mic and a webcam and still save a considerable amount of money. OK, their towers aren't custom made, but they are some of the highest quality enclosures Antec has to offer. And they are famous for their low noise.

Sure, the dimensions of Mac Mini and iMac replacements are nowhere near comparable, but having a case you can easily open yourself has some advantages.

JohnnyLemonhead

Jul 3, 2009, 03:51 AM

Psystar FTW.

zami

Jul 3, 2009, 03:56 AM

I'm all in favour. Now the Dell Mini 9 is no more there isn't a perfect OS X Netbook out there anymore.

They should take that route and make themselves some serious money.

sbb155

Jul 3, 2009, 04:00 AM

100% ACK. Only PC OEMs could be interested in Psystar winning this lawsuit. Microsoft has absolutely nothing to gain but a lot to loose when an American court rules in Psystar's favor.

actually, M$ could crush apple in a sec by stopping support of office mac, and making other options incompatible with the pc version. Most educational and corporate users need good compatibility, esp with word and excel.

Dont be fooled, MS holds the cards. But apple market share is so small, it is not on the radar screen.

Psystar is doing good work, and it is interesting. Competition is good.

EmperorDarius

Jul 3, 2009, 04:04 AM

I wonder how much more it'll take to bring down this a-holes.

PCMacUser

Jul 3, 2009, 04:26 AM

MorphingDragon

Jul 3, 2009, 05:13 AM

Now we just need someone like Psystar to start selling to the international market.

With Apple overcharging more than ever here in New Zealand (the entry level Mac Pro costs US$3550 here) they have literally priced themselves out of the workstation market.

Here Here.
For the Mac Pro my sister needs she could by a car for how much it costs here. We get overcharged even compared to Aussie. Damn Renaissance. The other kick in the nuts its that the only way to get such massive amounts of Power and amount of ram is through Apple. We cant even get Nehalem Xeon workstations from Dell or HP.

gnasher729

Jul 3, 2009, 05:29 AM

Not a chance in hell Microsoft is behind it. That would be a nightmare for them, because if Psystar win, that means that in theory, any machine with PC hardware can get Mac OSX as the OS. Right now, Microsoft has that market cornered, because Apple refuses to allow anyone to use OS X unless it's on a computer made and sold by Apple.

That's not the only problem for Microsoft. If Psystar were to win the argument that EULA's are invalid, then any company could buy the family versions of their software instead of the full commercial versions. I mean when Microsoft sells you a "Home User" version of Microsoft Office for three home users for $100, what gives Microsoft the right to tell a company that it can't use that $100 version for three of its employees? (The answer is of course: The same copyright law that gives Apple the right to limit use of MacOS X to Apple-labeled computers).

This question is out of pure curiosity, and hopefully someone can answer. But lets pretend for a moment that in the end it turned out microsoft or some sort of close competitor of apple was behind this psystar operation.

Could apple do anything about it?

Apple couldn't prevent anyone from giving money to Psystar. However, Apple will ask the court for damages which will most likely exceed any amount of money that Psystar would ever be able to pay; if say Microsoft were behind that (just for arguments sake, I highly doubt they are), Apple might be able to make them pay the damages. And since we read that making 24 songs available in your file sharing folder is apparently worth almost two million dollars in damages, that might end up being an amount that would hurt even Microsoft (very slightly).

Firstly, Psystar are NOT doing anything illegal with another companies IP. EULAs are neither laws nor has it been confirmed by any court of law anywhere in this world that they even represent a legally binding contract.

Secondly, you are obviously not up-to-date on how easy it has become to install completely unmodified versions of OS X on non-Apple hardware.

Thirdly, what Apple is doing with the iTunes store and iPhone/iPod products is no different to what Microsoft is doing in most countries with Windows and hardware bundles. And -THAT- has been found to be illegal by German laws and probably also by laws in other countries as well.

Oh Winni, not again. In Germany, when a company (and Psystar is a company) enters a contract (and buying a copy of MacOS X is entering into a contract), then the terms of the contract are one hundred percent binding. If they don't read the contract before entering it, tough. Germany has excellent consumer protection laws. Consumer protection laws, as one might suspect, protect consumers; they don't protect companies in any way.

So for a company in Germany to install MacOS X on a non Apple-labeled computer is breach of contract first, then it is copyright infringement, and selling the machine is again copyright infringement. And yes, I know that there is a guy in Germany with no phone number and no verifiable company address who claims to be selling computers with MacOS X installed; seems like Apple doesn't take him serious.

They already do. There is no DRM / License Certification Engine / etc. on Mac OS X. There is a EULA but there is no deep DRM. Apple's position is that draconian DRM doesn't work well.

There is actually DRM in MacOS X. However, it doesn't check whether you are installing the same copy of Leopard on two dozen Macs; it checks whether you install it on a non-Apple computer. And it is not at all hard to circumvent; it is quite possible to build a computer that tricks MacOS X to believe that it is a Macintosh when it isn't. The DRM is just enough to have the desired legal effect: To make getting MacOS X to work on a non-Apple labeled computer not just copyright infringement, but also a DMCA violation.

christian_k

Jul 3, 2009, 06:37 AM

I wonder if Mac rumors did ever write something about Pearc?

They are selling (https://www.pearc.de/) Mac "clones" inlcuding an i7 based system in Germany.

They started selling Mac clones in February and it seams Apple has not taken any legal action against them yet.

They say, they feel secure because of German and European law.

Christian

Bloomedis

Jul 3, 2009, 06:42 AM

It's been like a year. I can't wait for this imbecilic and illegal mob to be crushed like a bug under the firepower of Apple Legal. The guys who finance Psystar deserve capital punishment.

windywoo

Jul 3, 2009, 07:04 AM

It's been like a year. I can't wait for this imbecilic and illegal mob to be crushed like a bug under the firepower of Apple Legal. The guys who finance Psystar deserve capital punishment.

Wow epic fanboyism taken to a new level. Wishing death upon a company challenging Apple's business practices.

Vulpinemac

Jul 3, 2009, 07:19 AM

Apple will lower the price when doing so doesn't cut into their margins to a huge level. Like they did with the WWDC drops. They will never drop them because of some upstart geek in his mama's basement trying to illegally steal the non open source parts of their software.

You know, with Leopard now being a full UNIX on its own, no longer based on BSD, methinks the Open Source part of OS X has disappeared. It may well be that Apple owns the entire OS now.

macintoshtoffy

Jul 3, 2009, 07:30 AM

Wow epic fanboyism taken to a new level. Wishing death upon a company challenging Apple's business practices.

So I guess you support all those companies who violate Microsoft's Windows licences? I mean, after all - if you're going to be consistent in your argument of 'free love, freedom and all is groovy'.

HyperZboy

Jul 3, 2009, 07:54 AM

*
exactly...I was about to write the same thing...one can wish it would start at that price:cool:

There in lies the problem...

Mac towers used to start at $1499!

No more. :(

This is a problem Apple needs to solve. I don't want an All-In-One iMac or a ridiculously underpowered Mini that's less powerful than my POWERPC PowerMac G5!

I want something mid-range priced, still expandable and versatile.
Apple doesn't have such a product anymore like that at $1499.
If they did, there would be no such thing as Psystar!

It's obvious Psystar is out of bankruptcy through some benevolent contributor who wants their name not revealed in bankruptcy proceedings. The whole bankruptcy thing sounds like it was a delaying tactic to me.

The next phase will be discovery in the trial and I don't think it's certain Apple will win.
The only thing we know for sure is that Psystar has more money to fight Apple.

I like competition.

Btw, some of the Fanboy comments in here remind me of Michael Jackson's Jesus Juice!
LOL

MorphingDragon

Jul 3, 2009, 08:04 AM

Wow epic fanboyism taken to a new level. Wishing death upon a company challenging Apple's business practices.

Actually I wish Phystar would die too. Not because they're competition. But because they're using someone else's work to make money while the original owner says no. Programming Ethics my University called it. I call it douchery. Its something you develop when you start programming, pirating is now a bitch slap in the face instead of a student's retreat.

macintoshtoffy

Jul 3, 2009, 08:13 AM

There in lies the problem...

Mac towers used to start at $1499!

No more. :(

This is a problem Apple needs to solve. I don't want an All-In-One iMac or a ridiculously underpowered Mini that's less powerful than my POWERPC PowerMac G5!

I want something mid-range priced, still expandable and versatile.
Apple doesn't have such a product anymore like that at $1499.
If they did, there would be no such thing as Psystar!

It's obvious Psystar is out of bankruptcy through some benevolent contributor who wants their name not revealed in bankruptcy proceedings. The whole bankruptcy thing sounds like it was a delaying tactic to me.

The next phase will be discovery in the trial and I don't think it's certain Apple will win.
The only thing we know for sure is that Psystar has more money to fight Apple.

I like competition.

Btw, some of the Fanboy comments in here remind me of Michael Jackson's Jesus Juice!
LOL

What is wrong with an all in one - I keep hearing the whining and yet every time a person brings it up, under scrutiny the demand for a mini-tower turns out to be little more than a monument to their own ego to show off to friends than anything to do with functionality.

*LTD*

Jul 3, 2009, 08:17 AM

Just let those feelings out. Glad you feel so confident in IP law and in the interests of everyone in the free market.

It'll be nice to see what the US Courts decide.

BTW, I can't seem to find "ignorati" in any English dictionary. ;) Perhaps you meant to use ignoramuses.

It's an obvious play on "Literati."

Technorati
Blogorati
Culturati
Glitterati, etc.

under scrutiny the demand for a mini-tower turns out to be little more than a monument to their own ego to show off to friends than anything to do with functionality.

LOL, this.

No mini-tower from Apple = no demand for it.

Desktops are at the ass-end of the market. Portables/notebooks/handhelds are the way to go. This isn't 1998.

I want something mid-range priced, still expandable and versatile.
Apple doesn't have such a product anymore like that at $1499.
If they did, there would be no such thing as Psystar

Why don't you call Apple and let them get in on this incredible revelation they've missed. Then they'll make one JUST FOR YOU and the 4 other people here who want one.

Psystar exists because someone/entity is injecting their fly-by-night operation with cash. Not because they're making sales.

*LTD*

Jul 3, 2009, 08:19 AM

delete

macintoshtoffy

Jul 3, 2009, 08:33 AM

LOL, this.

No mini-tower from Apple = no demand for it.

Desktops are at the ass-end of the market. Portables/notebooks/handhelds are the way to go. This isn't 1998.

Well, it is true though. I know end users who swore that they really, really, really needed a mini tower and shunned my all in one. Well, three years later and they admit to me that the only time they opened up their case was to put in a larger hard disk and add more memory - all of which one can do with an iMac.

So yes, I've see people like HyperZboy, and what they want is the 'Ego Stroker 2000' rather than a computer. The same sort of people who boast about driving 'stick' but can't actually drive a manual to save themselves. Boast about 'audiophile' hardware but when it comes to blind tests they can't tell the difference between a $7000 Pear Anjou Home Audio Speaker Cable and a kettle cord.

Yes, there are those who need a tower, but that is what the Mac Pro is for - its a workstation. Unless you're in need of a workstation, the iMac is more than sufficient for 99% of end users.

Regarding the last part of your post regarding them being here because someone is injecting money - I only can think of one person who has bought one; and the guy was a bit of a doufus to begin with. With such 'spectacular' sales, I don't see it being a business standing on its own merits without something or someone backing it.

Tallest Skil

Jul 3, 2009, 08:37 AM

No mini-tower from Apple = no demand for it.

Desktops are at the ass-end of the market. Portables/notebooks/handhelds are the way to go. This isn't 1998.

We'll flip a coin.

Heads, you get to be the one to tell professionals that they have to do all of their work on laptops from now on.

Tails, you get to be the one to tell professionals that they have to do all of their work on laptops from now on.

*LTD*

Jul 3, 2009, 08:42 AM

We'll flip a coin.

Heads, you get to be the one to tell professionals that they have to do all of their work on laptops from now on.

Tails, you get to be the one to tell professionals that they have to do all of their work on laptops from now on.

Pros have the Mac Pro. And if they're "Pros", they can afford it.

Tallest Skil

Jul 3, 2009, 08:45 AM

Pros have the Mac Pro. And if they're "Pros", they can afford it.

So professionals are the rear-end of the market...

I still wouldn't want to be the one to tell them that. :p

ajbrehm

Jul 3, 2009, 08:49 AM

So for a company in Germany to install MacOS X on a non Apple-labeled computer is breach of contract first, then it is copyright infringement, and selling the machine is again copyright infringement.

What contract?

Are you saying that according to German law merely mentioning that "if you open this box you agree to the following..." or "if you continue to use the software you paid for you agree to the following..." constitutes a contract?

I don't think that German law allows the changing of a contract after the sale, not even with "I agree" buttons on a computer screen.

It also doesn't allow the modification of copyright law provisions by one party. What copyright forbids, in Germany, is the distribution of copies of copyrighted works without permission of the copyright holder. It does NOT prohibit using one's legal copy in any way one wants (even on a non-Apple computer) nor does it prohibit the selling of a legal copy to a third party (i.e. if I buy a newspaper I can give it to my neighbour, but I cannot make copies and distribute them).

A company who happen to own legal Mac OS X DVDs from somewhere do not necessarily have a contract with Apple that says that the software must not be installed on non-Apple machines. The EULA, in Germany, does NOT constitute a valid contract (I am surprised that it apparently does in the US, it just opens the door to so much fun). And selling people legal copies of Mac OS X DVD does NOT constitute a "distribution" of copyrighted material in the sense of having made illegal copies of such material and distributing those.

gnasher729

Jul 3, 2009, 09:01 AM

Psystar exists because someone/entity is injecting their fly-by-night operation with cash. Not because they're making sales.

If you look at their bankruptcy filing; #1 creditor is one of their directors, which means he personally lost lots of money (about $120,000). Paying back that loan would be very, very dodgy if they don't pay their lawyers as well and keep money around to pay damages to Apple. It is quite possible that these guys just don't have any business sense and you just can't make money selling cheap MacOS X compatible computers.

*LTD*

Jul 3, 2009, 09:08 AM

So professionals are the rear-end of the market...

I still wouldn't want to be the one to tell them that. :p

Pros who actually need the power of a Mac Pro workstation obviously do not represent the ghost-town at the Best Buy desktop aisle. We're not talking the average consumer here.

For Pros, a Mac Pro or similar workstation is what they need for work. It is an investment that is expected to get them returns. And a lot of them are getting their employers to pick up the cost, which is normal, or finding alternative ways of financing if they can't immediately pay out of pocket. It's always been this way.

gnasher729

Jul 3, 2009, 09:13 AM

What contract?

Are you saying that according to German law merely mentioning that "if you open this box you agree to the following..." or "if you continue to use the software you paid for you agree to the following..." constitutes a contract?

I don't think that German law allows the changing of a contract after the sale, not even with "I agree" buttons on a computer screen.

Remember that I am talking about contracts between companies. If Psystar was in Germany, this is what the law would expect them to do: Psystar CEO goes into an Apple store. He picks up a box with MacOS X. He doesn't see the exact license terms. He can't just say "I can't see the license terms, so I guess there are none". His first step would be to ask an employee. And that employee says "Mmmh, dunno, maybe it's somewhere on a web site". So the CEO should check the website to find the contract. If he can't find it, call Apple. If they don't answer, and if he can't find the contract terms, there are two things he can do: He can either not buy the box and not enter the contract. Or he can buy the box and accept a contract that he hasn't read, which is an utterly stupid thing to do - because he would be bound by that contract. What he cannot do is claim that he didn't know the contract and expect any German judge to be the least bit interested in that argument.

And of course you forget that the exact license for MacOS X is actually available on Apple's website and it shouldn't take anyone who wants to read it more than a minute to find it. I think it is available in German, but there is precedence that for a German company in the computer business, a contract written in English is just as acceptable (basically, a German company in the computer business can be expected to understand contracts written in English language; that came up in a case about GPL'd software).

macintoshtoffy

Jul 3, 2009, 09:15 AM

If you look at their bankruptcy filing; #1 creditor is one of their directors, which means he personally lost lots of money (about $120,000). Paying back that loan would be very, very dodgy if they don't pay their lawyers as well and keep money around to pay damages to Apple. It is quite possible that these guys just don't have any business sense and you just can't make money selling cheap MacOS X compatible computers.

Ah, you do realise that *gasp* someone could have given him money *gasp* Shock! Horror!

wheezy

Jul 3, 2009, 09:36 AM

The BK filing allowed them to get out of paying most, if not all, of those legal fees, as well as screwing all of their suppliers in the process. So now they get to start with a clean slate.

Exactly. I could never support someone who uses BK like that, as it seems they did. The lawsuit bankrupted them, so they screwed their debtors and started over. Dishonest and disgusting. They're violating Apple trademark laws etc, yet keep going. They have no morals. They shouldn't be in court, they should be in jail.

killerrobot

Jul 3, 2009, 09:52 AM

It's an obvious play on "Literati."

Technorati
Blogorati
Culturati
Glitterati, etc.

Yeah, I caught onto that. But the fact that you're calling people ignorant while making up words seems kind of backwards - whether its a play on words or not. :rolleyes:

You must see the irony there.

NoSmokingBandit

Jul 3, 2009, 10:02 AM

That's not the only problem for Microsoft. If Psystar were to win the argument that EULA's are invalid, then any company could buy the family versions of their software instead of the full commercial versions. I mean when Microsoft sells you a "Home User" version of Microsoft Office for three home users for $100, what gives Microsoft the right to tell a company that it can't use that $100 version for three of its employees? (The answer is of course: The same copyright law that gives Apple the right to limit use of MacOS X to Apple-labeled computers).

Psystar isnt arguing that all EULAs are useless, they are just arguing that parts of OSX's EULA aren't legally enforceable. Its not an all-or-nothing case, Psystar is just saying its illegal to tie OSX to a Mac. Licensing clauses wont be affected by this, so a copy of OSX will still only be allowed to run on one machine. They are just saying its not ok to force someone to buy overpriced hardware in order to use an OS.

Legolover64

Jul 3, 2009, 10:05 AM

*LTD*

Jul 3, 2009, 10:12 AM

Yeah, I caught onto that. But the fact that you're calling people ignorant while making up words seems kind of backwards - whether its a play on words or not. :rolleyes:

You must see the irony there.

"ignorati" is actually pretty clever, if i do say so myself.

And yes, when it comes to discussions about Apple + Psystar + IP, the amount of ignorance and downright stupidity that piles up around here is such that you need wings to stay above it.

Have a look at previous threads on this issue. There's a group of people who think that IP law itself is wrong (!) and that the legions of people who depend on its integrity have no rights to their product! And there are countless others around here who are teetering right on the edge of this insane view, ready to fall right over.

czachorski

Jul 3, 2009, 10:15 AM

*LTD*

Jul 3, 2009, 10:19 AM

Good! Psystar and other companies like it should be around. The Apple proprietary software game needs to end. I'm sorry to say, but there are nowhere near enough hardware options for OS X. It's tiring. Apple doesn't have the hardware all of its customers would want.

Go Psystar!

Reality seems to suggest otherwise.

Seems "customers" are just fine with what Apple is offering. Surges in mac sales, tops in customer satisfaction ratings year after year after year, glowing reviews, top spots in sales on Amazon.com, the smallest contraction in computer sales in the entire industry in this economy, and a strategy that seems to be paying off handsomely for Apple (hint: it means poeple are BUYING.) Apple seems to be offering EXACTLY what customers want. Unless of course your definition of "customer" begins and ends with what you see in the mirror. :rolleyes:

Or are you referring to some obscure minority that posts on internet Mac forums??

joro

Jul 3, 2009, 10:24 AM

Isn’t this one of those situations like as a kid how you learn not to touch a hot pan after you’ve been scolded by one? :D

killerrobot

Jul 3, 2009, 10:40 AM

"ignorati" is actually pretty clever, if i do say so myself.

I'll let you say so by yourself. ;)

I'll admit it has a nice ring to it, but since you don't care to admit any irony I'll spell it out some.

1. Applying an Italian suffix to a Latin based English word is quite redundant, especially when the plural form in English exists.

2. Adding the suffix is meant to sound elitist and create the illusion of expertise as well as professionalism in the field. Exactly the opposite of what you were trying to portray.

Flynnstone

Jul 3, 2009, 10:55 AM

Really? How's that? The Apple I and II had OSes that were "purchased" off-the-shelf? :confused:

Look into how Steve jobs made money while in college.

manhattanboy

Jul 3, 2009, 10:56 AM

Hopefully this will mean cheaper Macs. :rolleyes:

keep on dreaming

manhattanboy

Jul 3, 2009, 10:57 AM

Look into how Steve jobs made money while in college.

I thought Apple was against illegal activities...:D

iAlexG

Jul 3, 2009, 11:08 AM

I dont like Psystar

Flynnstone

Jul 3, 2009, 11:12 AM

it uses laptop components. so no, its not a desktop. its merely a mbp that isnt mobile

There isn't such things as "laptop" components" or desktop components or ...
There is only components. Like Lego.

The mini sits on a desk ... its a desktop. My iMac sits on my desk ... its a desktop. I guess I could put it on my lap and I could call it a laptop.

The G5 was in Power Macs. Could call it a desktop, but I think most are on the floor. So workstation is OK. A G5 in an iMac , I would call a desktop. Over 1000 Power Mac G5 in a cluster, I think supercomputer is reasonably accurate.

2.5 in hard drives tend to be in laptops. So people tend to call them a laptop component. But they're in the Mini too. So call it what you want, but its just a component.

I'm an electrical engineer and design computers. I only use "components".
Much ado about nothing.

Flynnstone

Jul 3, 2009, 11:16 AM

I thought Apple was against illegal activities...:D

Be careful in what ever you do.

It will come back one day to haunt you.

macintoshtoffy

Jul 3, 2009, 11:35 AM

I thought Apple was against illegal activities...:D

"Don't knock it till you try it first....you'll find it's a blessing and not a curse"

Or are we thinking of a different kind of illegal lol

PNW

Jul 3, 2009, 12:14 PM

There isn't such things as "laptop" components" or desktop components or ...
There is only components. Like Lego.

The mini sits on a desk ... its a desktop. My iMac sits on my desk ... its a desktop. I guess I could put it on my lap and I could call it a laptop.

I'd call them Desktops made up of laptop components. I look at it this way. When designing a chip you need to consider power consumption, speed, and price.
When designing chips for laptops power consumption is paramount and speed and price are 50/50.
For desktops You want the most speed for a reasonable price and have no regard to power consumption
For servers speed is paramount, power consumption is minor and price isn't considered.

Apple builds 'green' (i.e. low power consumption) desktops (iMac/ Mini) by using upper end laptop chip sets.
And power house desktops with server chip sets.

This is why I chose to go with a locked up upper end iMac over an expandable lower end Mac Pro a year ago. As long as I get 5 years out of it with no hardware failures I'll be happy with the decision.

As for Psystar, I believe using the EULA to couple software to hardware is a violation of fair use principles. i.e. if you're going to sell me something you are with in your rights to keep me from selling copies, but should not be allowed to dictate how I choose to use it otherwise or prevent me from adding value to it and reselling it. This will eventually be decided in court and I for one am glad Psystar is pushing this.

rickag

Jul 3, 2009, 12:25 PM

There isn't such things as "laptop" components" or desktop components or ...
There is only components. Like Lego.
....

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/index.htmIntel disagrees with you.

Please note the following categories that Intel lists:

Desktop processors
Notebook processors
Server and workstation processors
Internet device processors
Embedded and communications processors

*LTD*

Jul 3, 2009, 12:30 PM

I'd call them Desktops made up of laptop components. I l

Which is exactly right.

An iMac is a notebook on steroids.

With respect to "components", there's RAM and there's notebook/laptop RAM, for example. There is indeed a distinction.

Part of the reason Apple computers are more expensive is because they use notebook components.

hayesk

Jul 3, 2009, 12:34 PM

All these Psystar supporters conveniently ignore the fact that it takes more than $129 per copy to develop MacOS X. What do you think Apple is going to do if Psystar is allowed to continue?

Flynnstone

Jul 3, 2009, 12:47 PM

Which is exactly right.

An iMac is a notebook on steroids.

With respect to "components", there's RAM and there's notebook/laptop RAM, for example. There is indeed a distinction.

Part of the reason Apple computers are more expensive is because they use notebook components.

I guess I stand corrected.
I design a pipeline pig that weighs about 5000 lbs with apparently "laptop" components.
Anyone volunteer to try it on their lap?

deconstruct60

Jul 3, 2009, 01:14 PM

All these Psystar supporters conveniently ignore the fact that it takes more than $129 per copy to develop MacOS X.

What???? Do you remotely have any evidence what so ever to back that up?

Apple ships over 6 million Macs per year.

6 M * $129 is $774M a year. Let's cut it by 60% for taxes, marketing, markup, and some admin costs (being conservative, probably less than that). That is $309M. Let's say that the average Mac OS X Engineer makes/costs $280K per year (salary plus perks. that's conservatively an avg 'take home' salary of $140K which is high.). That pays for 1,103 engineers. You think there are more than 1,103 engineers with those kinds of costs on the project? ( also exclude all the non OS applications that are shared across OS X offerings (Mac OS X and iPhone OS). Safari , Calendar , etc. We are talking just mostly core OS. ) Those costs are quite high could be more but that is still a ton of software folks.

According to Apple's 10Q , the company spends about $319M every quarter on R&D.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000119312509085781/d10q.htm

So Mac OS X by itself brings enough money to pay for R&D (admin/marketing costs are elsewhere in the 10Q, so get back a bit of the $774 above ) for the whole company for a quarter. Hardware, other software products , operation development, the whole thing.

Still haven't counted the retail sales for upgrades and folks buying for "hacking". Nor counted the substantially higher Mac OS X server revenue. Nor associated OS X revenues percentages from sales of iPhones/Touches.

There is about 40M macs deployed. If only 10% of those buy upgrades then that's another 4 million units sold retail.
$10 an iPhone/Touch and 40M of those per year...... another $400M in gross. ( $774M + $400M => over $1B per year).

a Billion a year operation that isn't profitable. Really?

Jack Flash

Jul 3, 2009, 01:14 PM

All these Psystar supporters conveniently ignore the fact that it takes more than $129 per copy to develop MacOS X. What do you think Apple is going to do if Psystar is allowed to continue?

Make $300 profit on the iPhone?

freebooter

Jul 3, 2009, 02:28 PM

Competition. Free market. Kind of gone out of style these days.

I wish there was a hundred Psystars putting Apple's lock down to the test.

*LTD*

Jul 3, 2009, 02:38 PM

Competition. Free market. Kind of gone out of style these days.

I wish there was a hundred Psystars putting Apple's lock down to the test.

Except there's this little niggle called "Intellectual Property" that kind of complicates the issue.

gnasher729

Jul 3, 2009, 03:26 PM

"ignorati" is actually pretty clever, if i do say so myself.

"Ignoratus" would be the passive form of the latin "ignorare" = "to not know", meaning "somebody who is not known", and "ignorati" would be the plural - "those who are not known". Or something like that :-)

deconstruct60

Jul 3, 2009, 04:12 PM

Except there's this little niggle called "Intellectual Property" that kind of complicates the issue.

EULAs aren't IP.

Second the free market doesn't mean the "clone" vendors have to install Mac OS X, so can even skip around that if market demand was really high enough.

The specific approach that Psystar is using may have problems, but doesn't exclude the free market. If can/could install an unmodified copy of Mac OS X then takes practically all of the air out of any IP issue.

Once Apple resigned to building computers with industry standard parts then the "clone" market is open. The more industry standard the more clones are pragmatically given opportunity.

charlituna

Jul 3, 2009, 04:22 PM

They make a killer OS, now if they would fight on the PC's home turf. they would really slaughter Windows.

Apple has been up front about the issue of claiming the high market share. they have said they aren't all about that.

They don't want to have to support every possible hardware set up in the world. They can do the whole Genius thing because of the limited choices.

If they had the dominant share they legally wouldn't be able to tie hardware and software anymore. It would be abusive and a violation of anti-trust. that they have only like 7% of the market (personal computing systems) is why they are in the clear.

No they don't alter OSX in any way. They load a program before OSX boots to make OSX think that chip is there.

you might be correct, but it doesn't make Psystar in the right.

The Digital Copyright Millennium Act make it a criminal act to produce or spread any technology, device or service that circumvents protection measures to copyrighted works. This program, which is intended to get around the hardware checks in OSX, is certainly that type of technology. Psystar knew this and tried to argue that Apple legally couldn't tie hardware and software due to anti-trust laws. but the courts tossed the notion that there is such a thing as a "Macintosh Market" and that Apple is a small part of the personal computer system market which also includes machines running Windows, Unix, Linux etc. And as such a small part of the market, the tying was valid and non abusive. Making Psystar's argument void.

Now they are trying the whole EULA argument but we shall see if that works. Because the argument is "once I have PAID" and they can't even prove that they did that. they 'lost' the purchase records. so as far as anyone knows they shoplifted all those boxes.

deconstruct60

Jul 3, 2009, 04:47 PM

Apple has been up front about the issue of claiming the high market share. they have said they aren't all about that.

Apple is about high market share of the Personal Computer market.
It is "highest" that they have said they are not about.

If Apple's objective was 2-3% of the market they could probably be charging more and selling alot less. Fortunately, that is not a viable percentage for a company their size.

They don't want to have to support every possible hardware set up in the world. They can do the whole Genius thing because of the limited choices.

The limited hardware mantra sounds rather hollow when if someone uses the exact same set of major components (the ones that primarily matter) as Apple, but still doesn't want to allow that. I can see perhaps not support it because they didn't make it, but don't even want folks to do it.

Why doesn't the EULA exclude non qualified hardware replacement parts if that matters so much ???

If they had the dominant share they legally wouldn't be able to tie hardware and software anymore. It would be abusive and a violation of anti-trust.

That is all premised that can draw the boundary around the overall market.
( that the Mac OS X market isn't a distinct market. ) That would partially evaporate long before Apple got near 50%. of the overall market. (if they were to even try).

Is the users objective to have a computer or is the objective to have a computer that runs your Mac OS X only software?

As long as there is lots of cross platform offerings ( MS Office, games , Adobe CS, other major software packages ... another reason to put Safari and iTunes on Windows and for MS to keep Office on Mac OS; small anti-trust blanket for Windows. ) and keep the market share below 13-5% (or so), that whole "Windows PCs" are directly substitutable carries more weight.

Apple wants to be just large enough to get the volume to be profitable and competitive, but not going to drive past that. All long as there are large number of competitors in the overall market that are beating on each other as much as Apple, it is a reasonable status quo for them to settle for.

This is the standard anti-trust dodge these days. Try to loop in as many substitutable equivalents as can, to "grow" the market so that percentage doesn't look as bad.

However, all the mass marketing is geared toward exposing how it is a complete experience/segmentation from the Windows market that is worth the price premium.

It is the talking in forked tongue that bugs people.

device or service that circumvents protection measures to copyrighted works.

In the context of copying that applies. This work is a legal Mac OS X copy (presuming purchased), so there is no circumventing copies being made here. This is interoperability being respun as a copyright issue. Other than the normal for this media function of loading the program into memory, there is copying being done. So no circumvention.

Similarly a slippery slope whether the key itself is copyrightable. It is just a number/encoding of very limited length. There is no circumvention if just hand back the key value.

MattInOz

Jul 3, 2009, 07:29 PM

As for Psystar, I believe using the EULA to couple software to hardware is a violation of fair use principles. i.e. if you're going to sell me something you are with in your rights to keep me from selling copies, but should not be allowed to dictate how I choose to use it otherwise or prevent me from adding value to it and reselling it. This will eventually be decided in court and I for one am glad Psystar is pushing this.

End User Fair Use has never and is not likely to ever cover "value adding" as you call it.

If you brought a product to value add then you aren't the end user anyway. So the EULA doesn't apply to you and you'll need a distribution license to do what you want to do as a business.

*LTD*

Jul 3, 2009, 07:36 PM

macintoshtoffy

Jul 3, 2009, 07:39 PM

You actually think that?? :eek:

Mate, no use arguing with him - PNW sees himself as the online legal expert and all knowing guru; what ever you say to him will fall on deaf ears. One only needs to look at the 'oh so certainty' in the tone of his posts which speaks volumes for the mass delusion of self importance he has.

nookster

Jul 3, 2009, 08:27 PM

One only needs to look at the 'oh so certainty' in the tone of his posts which speaks volumes for the mass delusion of self importance he has.

Ironically, you've just summed up the average fanboy.

drsmithy

Jul 3, 2009, 09:02 PM

For Pystar to be a true competitor, it would have to develop its own software instead of essentially stealing the fruit of Apples labor.
By "stealing" you mean "paying the price Apple charges", right ?

Apple reinvests its profits in developing better hardware and software, and given Apples diminutive size it needs to charge more in order to develop its awesome technology.
By "develop better hardware" you mean "building cases to hold the components companies like Intel and Nvidia actually create, just like Dell, HP, IBM, and dozens of others", right ?

A company like Pystar simply cuts into Apples profits, giving Apple less capital in reinvest in new technology as the money they planned to make by selling their own product is being used to make a profit for someone else.
If Apple addressed the gaping holes in their lineup by selling the same sorts of machines Psystar does, and their customers want, Psystar would be legitimately and fairly out of business in 6 months.

Desktops are at the ass-end of the market. Portables/notebooks/handhelds are the way to go. This isn't 1998.
Right. Apple's laptops can't even drive two LCD screens like Dell's can, let alone the three (soon to be four) I have attached to my current desktop. Heck they don't even have docking stations - they're a non-starter as a serious business laptop.

Most business computer purchases are - and will remain - desktops. What possible reason would there be for a business to pay half again as much, for half the performance, on a thousand laptops for its cube farm workers ?

The only reason Apple don't sell a mid-range desktop is because they know it will slaughter their high-margin Mac Pro sales.

Wrong. The Mac Pro is BY FAR the cheapest workstation out there. Compare it to Dell's Xeon based Precision workstations. With equal specs on both, the Mac Pro is $1,600 CHEAPER than the Dell. This is true of EVERY Apple line. (Macbook Pro vs Dell Precision, all in one iMac vs all in one XPS 1 etc etc).
Funny. I just got a Precision T3500 of equivalent spec to a quad-core Mac Pro - at least as much as I care about - plus two 22" LCDs and a second video card, for less than the cost of a Mac Pro on its own.

Not to mention my machine comes with a 3 year warranty by default. It's flat-out insulting Apple's so-called "Pro" hardware only comes with a 12 month warranty.

What happened to ethics in this country? It isn't right to take a companies IP and sell it for profit without their permission. PERIOD!
You own any CDs ? If the company who owned the rights to that music decreed you could only listen to it while standing naked on a plastic chair, would you consider yourself unethical if you didn't do so ?

Why pay $1500 for a fake Mac when you could get an iMac for less?
Because the $1500 "fake Mac" is 3-4x as fast and twice as versatile.

There is nothing improper about what Apple did then as compensation was paid.
You mean like the way Psystar pays the price Apple asks for a copy of OS X ?

NoSmokingBandit

Jul 3, 2009, 09:36 PM

drsmithy, hit the button to the right of the quote button and you can quote multiple posts at once. Then you dont have to post 6 in a row (which is a record. at least from what i have seen) :P

-hh

Jul 3, 2009, 09:57 PM

Psystar isnt arguing that all EULAs are useless, they are just arguing that parts of OSX's EULA aren't legally enforceable. Its not an all-or-nothing case...

Unless the wedge that they find happens to be universal. Whereupon "All your EULAs belong to us" transpires.

As for Psystar, I believe using the EULA to couple software to hardware is a violation of fair use principles. i.e. if you're going to sell me something you are with in your rights to keep me from selling copies, but should not be allowed to dictate how I choose to use it otherwise or prevent me from adding value to it and reselling it...

What's in the License is what is in the license. You either agree to those terms or negotiate others ... and invariably pay a different amount.

The key question that gets overlooked is: "If not this way, then how?".

Consider how few PCs would exist in this world if no business licensed their Operating Systems and we all had to write our own OS from scratch.

-hh

macintoshtoffy

Jul 3, 2009, 10:30 PM

Funny. I just got a Precision T3500 of equivalent spec to a quad-core Mac Pro - at least as much as I care about - plus two 22" LCDs and a second video card, for less than the cost of a Mac Pro on its own.

Not to mention my machine comes with a 3 year warranty by default. It's flat-out insulting Apple's so-called "Pro" hardware only comes with a 12 month warranty.

But it is saddled with Windows - sorry, you can shout, scream and jump around all you want but until there is a viable alternative to Windows on the desktop that has all the same hardware and software support as Windows, Dell or any other PC vendor is not a viable option.

It isn't a choice of hardware, it is a choice of operating systems - do you want Mac OS X or Windows - end of story. The hardware you choose is merely window dressing.

MorphingDragon

Jul 3, 2009, 10:34 PM

But it is saddled with Windows - sorry, you can shout, scream and jump around all you want but until there is a viable alternative to Windows on the desktop that has all the same hardware and software support as Windows, Dell or any other PC vendor is not a viable option.

It isn't a choice of hardware, it is a choice of operating systems - do you want Mac OS X or Windows - end of story. The hardware you choose is merely window dressing.

The Holy Grail of Linux Distros which has yet to exist. It'll make coffee from thin air.

macintoshtoffy

Jul 3, 2009, 10:41 PM

The Holy Grail of Linux Distros which has yet to exist. It'll make coffee from thin air.

Having heard 'this is the year of the desktop' for 10 years - its not going to happen. Not because it is impossible but because of a lack of money, lack of focus and lack of leadership.

MorphingDragon

Jul 3, 2009, 10:53 PM

Having heard 'this is the year of the desktop' for 10 years - its not going to happen. Not because it is impossible but because of a lack of money, lack of focus and lack of leadership.

Fails to detect sarcasm.

*LTD*

Jul 3, 2009, 10:59 PM

Right. Apple's laptops can't even drive two LCD screens like Dell's can, let alone the three (soon to be four) I have attached to my current desktop. Heck they don't even have docking stations - they're a non-starter as a serious business laptop.

Most business computer purchases are - and will remain - desktops. What possible reason would there be for a business to pay half again as much, for half the performance, on a thousand laptops for its cube farm workers ?

The only reason Apple don't sell a mid-range desktop is because they know it will slaughter their high-margin Mac Pro sales.

What are you talking about???

The corporate sector is a completely different market.

The consumer desktop market is DYING. The numbers don't lie.

Funny. I just got a Precision T3500 of equivalent spec to a quad-core Mac Pro - at least as much as I care about - plus two 22" LCDs and a second video card, for less than the cost of a Mac Pro on its own.

Not to mention my machine comes with a 3 year warranty by default. It's flat-out insulting Apple's so-called "Pro" hardware only comes with a 12 month warranty.

Except that it runs Windows. Why would anyone here want to run the worst operating system ever conceived, no matter the hardware? Windows sufferers have been getting shafted with garbage operating systems since 2001, and XP wasn't anything to be proud of in the first place.

I'd rather pay DOUBLE for an OS X rig, which naturally means a Mac.

NoSmokingBandit

Jul 3, 2009, 11:12 PM

twoodcc

Jul 3, 2009, 11:51 PM

wow. i'm kinda surprised at this. i hope that they get to keep selling systems, so apple will have to do something about them, something like lower prices and upgrade their hardware sooner

Eidorian

Jul 3, 2009, 11:53 PM

Except that it runs Windows. Why would anyone here want to run the worst operating system ever conceived, no matter the hardware? Windows sufferers have been getting shafted with garbage operating systems since 2001, and XP wasn't anything to be proud of in the first place.

I'd rather pay DOUBLE for an OS X rig, which naturally means a Mac.OS X wasn't something to be proud of until 10.3. It was bearable and usable in 10.2 if you had a decent G3 and Quartz Extreme support. You might as well not use a Mac if you don't have Quartz Extreme.

Sadly I can't do everything that I want on OS X and I'm limited by Apple's choices on the hardware as well. Using Windows is the lesser of two evils for me.

RebootD

Jul 3, 2009, 11:56 PM

Until we get a case that goes to the Supreme Court and rules in favor of upholding a corporations EULA it will be up to vague interpretation (the pages of debating here is a prime example).

Isn't that why Psystar is still going after Apple's customers? Until they are told "Stop or face a jail sentence" I guess they are going to continue selling their 'products'.

Personally I don't care because I wouldn't buy one even at 50% cheaper than a comparable Mac Pro but if they are going to provide a solution for the small market that has been clamoring for a real desktop (iMacs don't count sorry) between the Mac Mini and the beastly Mac Pro have at it Psystar. Just stop before the Apple gets a bite out of you! (sorry couldn't' resist)

macintoshtoffy

Jul 4, 2009, 12:11 AM

Fails to detect sarcasm.

Where am I wrong - or are you just going to post snarky and pointless comments?

MorphingDragon

Jul 4, 2009, 01:21 AM

Where am I wrong - or are you just going to post snarky and pointless comments?

You're not wrong, you had to kill a joke though.

Eidorian

Jul 4, 2009, 01:22 AM

You're not wrong, you had to kill a joke though.Every year is the year of the Linux Desktop. :rolleyes:

Just like new Apple products Next Tuesday™ and ever so the desirable elevator spy shots.

MorphingDragon

Jul 4, 2009, 01:24 AM

Every year is the year of the Linux Desktop. :rolleyes:

Just like new Apple products Next Tuesday™ and ever so the desirable elevator spy shots.

:D :rolleyes:

gnasher729

Jul 4, 2009, 03:02 AM

By "stealing" you mean "paying the price Apple charges", right ?

Psystar is (or maybe is, since they first lost all invoices so they couldn't show Apple in discovery what they are paying, then when Apple got the court to tell Psystar that they _must_ deliver the information they went bankrupt, then when Apple got the court to tell Psystar that they _still_ must deliver the information even when they are bankrupt they suddenly don't find it convenient to be bankrupt anymore, in other words, nobody knows whether Psystar _has_ paid anything to Apple) paying the price that Apple charges to extra special customers who have already paid good money for Apple-labeled hardware, and who already have a previous version of the OS legally installed on their hardware.

Psystar is paying what Apple charges for MacOS X with a license that allows installation on a single Apple labeled computer. They are free to install every copy they paid for on a single Apple-labeled computer, and there is nothing that Apple could or would want to do to prevent that legally. They are not free to install MacOS X on their Psystar computers, and they haven't paid for that.

*LTD*

Jul 4, 2009, 05:47 AM

MorphingDragon

Jul 4, 2009, 06:23 AM

Do you honestly think Psystar is making enough sales to be a threat to Apple??

No one's buying their knockoffs.

Does anyone know where Steve Ballmer lives? I'll try get some money together, by one and taunt him about a PC without a windows license. :D;):rolleyes::apple: Hey it might put Phystar out of Business if I just said, "With Love, Phystar" But thats illegal here :( Or just "With Love"?

Seems like a good practical joke as he forces is families to use Zunes ETC. Because I don't live in the USA he can't sue me and posting a parcel isn't illegal here.

mdriftmeyer

Jul 4, 2009, 10:00 PM

What are you talking about???

The corporate sector is a completely different market.

The consumer desktop market is DYING. The numbers don't lie.

Except that it runs Windows. Why would anyone here want to run the worst operating system ever conceived, no matter the hardware? Windows sufferers have been getting shafted with garbage operating systems since 2001, and XP wasn't anything to be proud of in the first place.

I'd rather pay DOUBLE for an OS X rig, which naturally means a Mac.

The Consumer Market is not dying. The Planet's population isn't declining. There is a trough happening due to hardware transitions.

Markets will be moving forward again once people let go of their 5-8 year old PC and find a new system.

Believe you me, I have several relatives that are in that category.

smartalic34

Jul 4, 2009, 10:15 PM

The Consumer Market is not dying. The Planet's population isn't declining. There is a trough happening due to hardware transitions.

Markets will be moving forward again once people let go of their 5-8 year old PC and find a new system.

Believe you me, I have several relatives that are in that category.

I think, and I may be mistaken, that the poster you are responding to put emphasis on the consumer desktop market... to illustrate the shift of the consumer's preference from desktop to laptop. laptop sales are soaring, while desktop sales, well, aren't. people are continuing to upgrade, but are buying laptops instead.

the general trend the past few years has been towards laptops, especially with Apple. my guess is that now their notebooks have decent power, whereas in the past an Apple notebook was a performance compromise vs. a desktop. nowadays, even a white macbook adequately meets most users' needs

NoSmokingBandit

Jul 4, 2009, 10:31 PM

whereas in the past an Apple notebook was a performance compromise vs. a desktop.

Thats because in the past Apple built desktops with actual desktop parts. iMacs and Minis compare to the macbook/mbp line because they use most of the same hardware. This isnt because apple is making better laptops, its because they are making slower desktops.

Desktops may be dying, but they arent dead, and quite a few people are looking to a hackintosh to get a core2quad mac. If apple made a reasonably priced desktop, made of actual desktop components, then i might consider buying it, even thouhg i once vowed to never spend money on apple's hardware. This will never happen though, "reasonably priced" and "mac" arent synonymous by any means.

Mackilroy

Jul 4, 2009, 10:40 PM

Desktops may be dying, but they arent dead, and quite a few people are looking to a hackintosh to get a core2quad mac.
Do you have numbers, or are you talking out of the side of your mouth? Just because a lot of people on MacRumors might want a quad-core desktop Mac by no means reflects the general population.

smartalic34

Jul 4, 2009, 10:43 PM

Thats because in the past Apple built desktops with actual desktop parts. iMacs and Minis compare to the macbook/mbp line because they use most of the same hardware. This isnt because apple is making better laptops, its because they are making slower desktops.

a good point. portable laptop components vs. desk-bound laptop components... the former is vastly preferable

charlituna

Jul 4, 2009, 11:43 PM

wow. i'm kinda surprised at this. i hope that they get to keep selling systems, so apple will have to do something about them, something like lower prices and upgrade their hardware sooner

don't hold your breath. Apple does what Apple wants. it is very very rare that they listen to or act on outside pressure (firewire in the 13 inch laptops might be the first in a very long time). Which is why they only just now lowered prices though folks have been screaming at them to do it for years. which is why they haven't put in built in blu-ray despite the very vocal very small group that has been demanding they do it. which is why despite tons of analysts saying they should, they haven't gone for the majority market share. it's actually in their interest not to since that lack of majority is what makes their tying non abusive. if they had 50+% of the market it would probably been deemed anti-trust and they would be forced to allow cloning. which they don't want to do. even though some folks say they should.

Do you honestly think Psystar is making enough sales to be a threat to Apple??

No one's buying their knockoffs.

doesn't matter. current copyright law disregards profit in the equation, they could be giving the machines away and the punishments don't change.

also, if Psystar is allowed to get away with them, what is stopping me from doing it also. and you and every other person on this board. we could start the MacRumors Company and make a fortune selling our Mac clones. Going after Psystar gets it put in the books that Apple is in the right, it is copyright violation, they don't have to allow clones, it's wrong for anyone to do it, the EULA is solid etc. Even if Apple doesn't collect a dime in damages they have it in the books that they are right, Psytar and the like are wrong. so still a victory

*LTD*

Jul 5, 2009, 07:52 AM

don't hold your breath. Apple does what Apple wants. it is very very rare that they listen to or act on outside pressure (firewire in the 13 inch laptops might be the first in a very long time). Which is why they only just now lowered prices though folks have been screaming at them to do it for years. which is why they haven't put in built in blu-ray despite the very vocal very small group that has been demanding they do it. which is why despite tons of analysts saying they should, they haven't gone for the majority market share. it's actually in their interest not to since that lack of majority is what makes their tying non abusive. if they had 50+% of the market it would probably been deemed anti-trust and they would be forced to allow cloning. which they don't want to do. even though some folks say they should.

doesn't matter. current copyright law disregards profit in the equation, they could be giving the machines away and the punishments don't change.

also, if Psystar is allowed to get away with them, what is stopping me from doing it also. and you and every other person on this board. we could start the MacRumors Company and make a fortune selling our Mac clones. Going after Psystar gets it put in the books that Apple is in the right, it is copyright violation, they don't have to allow clones, it's wrong for anyone to do it, the EULA is solid etc. Even if Apple doesn't collect a dime in damages they have it in the books that they are right, Psytar and the like are wrong. so still a victory

Completely agree with all of this. Good post.

EDIT:

Actually, this is one of the better posts I've read in a while.

AtariKee

Jul 5, 2009, 03:36 PM

I'm happy with Apple's smaller OS marketshare.

And so are they...

Funny how pundits claim Macs won't sell because they're too expensive, then when Apple offers one well below $1,000, the same pundits clamor it doesn't have a larger screen (or some other nonsense). Let's face it, those that want a Mac for under $1,000 are just cheap, and would never be satisfied until they were paid to take it home. 

macintoshtoffy

Jul 5, 2009, 04:44 PM

And so are they...

Funny how pundits claim Macs won't sell because they're too expensive, then when Apple offers one well below $1,000, the same pundits clamor it doesn't have a larger screen (or some other nonsense). Let's face it, those that want a Mac for under $1,000 are just cheap, and would never be satisfied until they were paid to take it home. 

What I also find funny is how many of these pundits seem to be 'business experts' - so where are their billions in hardware sales to back up their 'claims' of expertise?

It reminds me of the debate how more people using Windows meaning more customers - but one must look at the quality of the customer based. Compare the quality of the Windows customer base when compared to Apple. Disposable income being the best example of this benchmark - if you're a producer, which would you rather have as your customer base - millions of cheap skates who can barely make ends meet or a smaller base who has disposable income and can purchase things when they want?

NoSmokingBandit

Jul 5, 2009, 04:59 PM

Compare the quality of the Windows customer base when compared to Apple. Disposable income being the best example of this benchmark - if you're a producer, which would you rather have as your customer base - millions of cheap skates who can barely make ends meet or a smaller base who has disposable income and can purchase things when they want?
This is the elitist attitude that drive people away from macs. My friend was looking for a laptop not too long ago and was on the fence about getting a 13" umbp, but told me he didnt buy it because he didnt want the world to think he was an "elitist douchebag."

gnasher729

Jul 5, 2009, 05:42 PM

This is the elitist attitude that drive people away from macs. My friend was looking for a laptop not too long ago and was on the fence about getting a 13" umbp, but told me he didnt buy it because he didnt want the world to think he was an "elitist douchebag."

Sad when people base their decision what computer to use on what they think what others will think of them. Sadder when anyone thinks that the purchase of a $1199 item indicates that someone is an "elitist douchebag".

Although in my experience, when people come up with weird and strange reasons like that one, usually there is a completely different reason. Like your friend might not have the cash :D

*LTD*

Jul 5, 2009, 06:23 PM

NoSmokingBandit

Jul 5, 2009, 06:33 PM

Sad when people base their decision what computer to use on what they think what others will think of them. Sadder when anyone thinks that the purchase of a $1199 item indicates that someone is an "elitist douchebag".

Although in my experience, when people come up with weird and strange reasons like that one, usually there is a completely different reason. Like your friend might not have the cash :D

He had plenty of cash, and actually went with a dell studio that would have cost the same as the 13" umbp. I dont buy apple hardware for a variety of reasons, one of which is the elitist factor. I dont want to slowly turn into a Jobs Zombie and lose all sense of reason.

Music_Producer

Jul 5, 2009, 07:43 PM

He had plenty of cash, and actually went with a dell studio that would have cost the same as the 13" umbp. I dont buy apple hardware for a variety of reasons, one of which is the elitist factor. I dont want to slowly turn into a Jobs Zombie and lose all sense of reason.

That 'elitist' factor has a story to it - it doesn't crop up right away. Once you convert from windows to mac - and the years go by and you hear your friends screaming about their computers crashing, etc - you start getting puffed up because your computer has never given you a problem.

And then you start walking around with your chest sticking out, proclaiming 'I have a mac' which basically means "haha, you losers can stick with your dlls and reformatting and bloatware and malware.. I keep churning out productivity on my mac'

At least that's how I feel :D

Uh, I'm not a Jobs zombie - stop making daft assumptions.

fef714

Jul 5, 2009, 07:46 PM

don't hold your breath. Apple does what Apple wants. it is very very rare that they listen to or act on outside pressure (firewire in the 13 inch laptops might be the first in a very long time). Which is why they only just now lowered prices though folks have been screaming at them to do it for years. which is why they haven't put in built in blu-ray despite the very vocal very small group that has been demanding they do it. which is why despite tons of analysts saying they should, they haven't gone for the majority market share. it's actually in their interest not to since that lack of majority is what makes their tying non abusive. if they had 50+% of the market it would probably been deemed anti-trust and they would be forced to allow cloning. which they don't want to do. even though some folks say they should.

doesn't matter. current copyright law disregards profit in the equation, they could be giving the machines away and the punishments don't change.

also, if Psystar is allowed to get away with them, what is stopping me from doing it also. and you and every other person on this board. we could start the MacRumors Company and make a fortune selling our Mac clones. Going after Psystar gets it put in the books that Apple is in the right, it is copyright violation, they don't have to allow clones, it's wrong for anyone to do it, the EULA is solid etc. Even if Apple doesn't collect a dime in damages they have it in the books that they are right, Psytar and the like are wrong. so still a victory

Yeah, it's more to send a message to any future Mac cloners, "Hey, I wouldn't go up against our legal team. Remember what happened to Psystar?"

*LTD*

Jul 5, 2009, 07:49 PM

I dont buy apple hardware for a variety of reasons, one of which is the elitist factor. I dont want to slowly turn into a Jobs Zombie and lose all sense of reason.

Whoa.

When I use my MBP the last thing that enters my mind is elitism of any kind, and I honestly don't think the person next to me (or anyone else who sees me) gives a sweet damn about what I'm using. And if they do, it's probably the very last thing I'm gonna worry about.

Choosing not to purchase something which you find nice, useful, and enjoyable because of something as abstract, unlikely, and completely nebulous as "elitism", makes no sense. Quite frankly, people who think like that have issues. :confused:

That 'elitist' factor has a story to it - it doesn't crop up right away. Once you convert from windows to mac - and the years go by and you hear your friends screaming about their computers crashing, etc - you start getting puffed up because your computer has never given you a problem.

And then you start walking around with your chest sticking out, proclaiming 'I have a mac' which basically means "haha, you losers can stick with your dlls and reformatting and bloatware and malware.. I keep churning out productivity on my mac'

At least that's how I feel :D

Uh, I'm not a Jobs zombie - stop making daft assumptions.

I don't think that sort of thing plays as central a role in our lives as people would like to think.

It's just on message boards where we let loose a bit. And really, the enthusiasm of the Apple community is more of a shared experience rather than something deliberately projected outward.

The key is not to care and keep using your Mac and enjoying it. If someone labels me an elitist, that'll be about as important to me as last week's weather. The term itself has no meaning to me. And if I have friends like that, I'll make it a point to start losing them. Start shortening my contact list. Time for better friends, and better yet, friends with Macs, if that's even a factor. If they can't grow up, then trade up.

Eidorian

Jul 5, 2009, 07:53 PM

Whoa.

When I use my MBP the last thing that enters my mind is elitism of any kind, and I honestly don't think the person next to me (or anyone else who sees me) gives a sweet damn about what I'm using. And if they do, it's probably the very last thing I'm gonna worry about.

Choosing not to purchase something which you find nice, useful, and enjoyable because of something as abstract, unlikely, and completely nebulous as "elitism", makes no sense. Quite frankly, people who think like that have issues. :confused:Elitism is frankly a very strong perception of Mac users by others.

That 'elitist' factor has a story to it - it doesn't crop up right away. Once you convert from windows to mac - and the years go by and you hear your friends screaming about their computers crashing, etc - you start getting puffed up because your computer has never given you a problem.

And then you start walking around with your chest sticking out, proclaiming 'I have a mac' which basically means "haha, you losers can stick with your dlls and reformatting and bloatware and malware.. I keep churning out productivity on my mac'

At least that's how I feel :D

Uh, I'm not a Jobs zombie - stop making daft assumptions.Sadly for most the comments about Windows make the "not a Jobs zombie" end fall on deaf ears.

AidenShaw

Jul 5, 2009, 10:18 PM

Sad when people base their decision what computer to use on what they think what others will think of them.

Come on - ya' gotta look good in the Starbucks with your glowing white Apple!

When I use my MBP the last thing that enters my mind is elitism of any kind...

Yes, sure.

http://media.macrumorslive.com/f/avatars/277390.gif

Your avatar betrays you.... :rolleyes:

macintoshtoffy

Jul 5, 2009, 10:44 PM

*LTD*

Jul 5, 2009, 11:06 PM

Elitism is frankly a very strong perception of Mac users by others.

Oh well.

Eidorian

Jul 5, 2009, 11:07 PM

I'm not particularly bothered by that. Should I be?That's entirely up to you and everyone else.

charlituna

Jul 5, 2009, 11:23 PM

This is the elitist attitude that drive people away from macs. My friend was looking for a laptop not too long ago and was on the fence about getting a 13" umbp, but told me he didnt buy it because he didnt want the world to think he was an "elitist douchebag."

buying a Mac might make folks think someone is an eLEETist but one would have to act like a douchebag to be seen as a douchebag.

walking around saying "I've got a Mac so I'm better than you with your pansy ass PeeCee" is a good start.

arjaosx

Jul 6, 2009, 03:33 PM

Competition. Free market. Kind of gone out of style these days.

I wish there was a hundred Psystars putting Apple's lock down to the test.

If your wish comes true we will be stuck with what we have right now. I'd be damn stupid to try to be clever if I know that my work will get stolen anyways.

arjaosx

Jul 6, 2009, 03:41 PM

Yeah, it's more to send a message to any future Mac cloners, "Hey, I wouldn't go up against our legal team. Remember what happened to Psystar?"

I'd tell future Mac cloners if they ever wanted a true competition for the Mac, build a better system and write a better OS. Linux is there for development, Macs now use PC components what's stopping you?

Oh wait...it's easier to feed on the success of others.

gnasher729

Jul 6, 2009, 04:08 PM

Come on - ya' gotta look good in the Starbucks with your glowing white Apple!

I must be missing something here. What would be the connection between Starbucks, looking good, and a glowing white Apple? Can you explain that?

Yeah, it's more to send a message to any future Mac cloners, "Hey, I wouldn't go up against our legal team. Remember what happened to Psystar?"

It seems that Psystar actually had a good legal team (as long as they paid them, that is). Their problem was that if your client has no case, then there isn't much that your legal team can do for you, except stretching out the case to delay the inevitable loss, which just costs you money. So the real message that Apple sends is "Don't do it. It is illegal, and we won't let you".

$ahil

Jul 6, 2009, 05:56 PM

if competition and business is considered feeding on success of others. then so be it. I hope these guys win in court.

racers

Jul 6, 2009, 05:58 PM

Their products suck, if I were to get a Hackintosh id just build my own.

rjohnstone

Jul 6, 2009, 06:30 PM

So the real message that Apple sends is "Don't do it. It is illegal, and we won't let you".
I'm still looking for the "illegal" part.
What laws have they actually broken?
If Apple can't prove they are using pirated copies, which I doubt they are, what law was broken?

The license agreement has never been settled in a court and it is a civil matter (lawsuit), not a criminal one. Again, no law broken. If Apple wins, fines can be levied, but nobody is going to jail over it.

MattInOz

Jul 6, 2009, 06:38 PM

if competition and business is considered feeding on success of others. then so be it. I hope these guys win in court.

It's only competition if they are a legitimate business.
It's only business if they offer a product by legal contract.

So they fail on both accounts.

Tallest Skil

Jul 6, 2009, 06:42 PM

I'm still looking for the "illegal" part.
What laws have they actually broken?
If Apple can't prove they are using pirated copies, which I doubt they are, what law was broken?

The intellectual property of Apple, OS X, is being modified by either the people at Psystar (as if), or they're using existing modifications from popular Hackintosh copies.

The modification of intellectual property for profit is illegal. Psystar is making a profit.

windywoo

Jul 6, 2009, 06:49 PM

But are they modifying OSX? They install a bootloader before OSX loads, or possibly some kexts. Installing kexts is no more modifying OSX than installing a printer driver. Or are all the hackintosh kexts based on existing OSX kexts?

gnasher729

Jul 6, 2009, 06:49 PM

I'm still looking for the "illegal" part.
What laws have they actually broken?
If Apple can't prove they are using pirated copies, which I doubt they are, what law was broken?

The license agreement has never been settled in a court and it is a civil matter (lawsuit), not a criminal one. Again, no law broken. If Apple wins, fines can be levied, but nobody is going to jail over it.

Actually, Apple is accusing Psystar of a DMCA violation, which makes the whole matter criminal. Circumvention of an effective technical method to prevent access to copyrighted information = DMCA violation. Of course Psystar claims that they are not circumventing an effective technical method to prevent access to copyrighted information, they just work around Apple's dastardly tricks to keep MacOS X from running on Psystar computers, which is somehow, magically, I don't quite know how, a different thing. Or so they say.

rjohnstone

Jul 6, 2009, 07:01 PM

Actually, Apple is accusing Psystar of a DMCA violation, which makes the whole matter criminal. Circumvention of an effective technical method to prevent access to copyrighted information = DMCA violation. Of course Psystar claims that they are not circumventing an effective technical method to prevent access to copyrighted information, they just work around Apple's dastardly tricks to keep MacOS X from running on Psystar computers, which is somehow, magically, I don't quite know how, a different thing. Or so they say.
If Psystar is actually overwriting Apple code to get past a legitimate prevention technique, yes, that is a DMCA violation.

Otherwise it's as others have stated. Nothing more than loading a proper driver to support the hardware. That isn't illegal.

The driver doesn't have to be supported by Apple to be legal.
One only needs to look at the Windows platform to see how that plays out.
The supplier of the driver is responsible, not the supplier of the OS.

If the OS vendor releases an update/patch that "breaks" the third party driver, it's not the OS vendors responsibility to fix it.

Apple has many avenues to attack any cloner if they chose to.

macintoshtoffy

Jul 6, 2009, 07:41 PM

pilotError

Jul 6, 2009, 08:08 PM

Can someone remind me where OS X came from? What was it built on top of? Who funded that original development?

I've got pretty mixed feelings about the whole deal. At least they haven't been messing with the Hackintosh community so far.

If they moved to a boot-132 like loader or an EFI-X (Similar) that allowed vanilla installs, would the anti-clone establishment have a different view of things?

Eidorian

Jul 6, 2009, 08:21 PM

Pystar did not use the Boot-132 method, they used a hacked up method which not only hacked up software but also they redistributed Apple updates with their own custom modifications. If that isn't a flagrant violation of the law - I don't know what the hell is!This part really bothers me.

windywoo

Jul 6, 2009, 08:27 PM

If they are using a hacked up method how can they advertise it as working with Apple's own update site?

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

Tallest Skil

Jul 6, 2009, 08:34 PM

If they are using a hacked up method how can they advertise it as working with Apple's own update site?

Advertisements are all lies, how do you not know this? It DOESN'T work with Apple's site.

windywoo

Jul 6, 2009, 08:35 PM

Excuse me for believing a company had to be truthful on their website. At least that's the case where I live.

Eidorian

Jul 6, 2009, 08:37 PM

Excuse me for believing a company had to be truthful on their website. At least that's the case where I live.Which is why I stick with technical specifications and developer notes. :rolleyes:

Tallest Skil

Jul 6, 2009, 08:37 PM

Excuse me for believing a company had to be truthful on their website. At least that's the case where I live.

So what if the entire website is a scam? :D

Just messing with you now. :)

NoSmokingBandit

Jul 6, 2009, 09:11 PM

Advertisements are all lies, how do you not know this? It DOESN'T work with Apple's site.

do you own a psystar?

windywoo

Jul 6, 2009, 09:18 PM

I know Tallest is just messing, but I imagine if I were trying to pull of what Psystar are, I would make sure everything else about my operation was correct, so Apple couldn't expose something else in the course of a trial.

If they blatantly just lie on the product description they are handing the case to Apple on a plate.

dejo

Jul 6, 2009, 09:22 PM

I know Tallest is just messing, but I imagine if I were trying to pull of what Psystar are, I would make sure everything else about my operation was correct, so Apple couldn't expose something else in the course of a trial.
Like, for example, keeping and being able to produce upon demand receipts for all the copies of OS X they purchased? ;)

charlituna

Jul 6, 2009, 11:19 PM

The modification of intellectual property for profit is illegal.

that is partly incorrect. Modification of intellectual property is illegal. profit is no longer required.

as for the DCMA, even if one bought the whole "they just loaded a driver" argument, that driver still had the purpose and end result of circumventing the lock on the tying validated as Apple's right in previous parts of this whole Psystar thing. thus it is still a violation. the law is ANY device or technology.

Can someone remind me where OS X came from? What was it built on top of? Who funded that original development?

if Psystar had only copied the open source elements, Apple couldn't do anything. they didn't create those parts thus they have no control over them.

but Psystar also copied Apple's parts of the software. which are not open source.

macintoshtoffy

Jul 7, 2009, 01:02 AM

If they are using a hacked up method how can they advertise it as working with Apple's own update site?

I doubt what they're saying - I'm looking at the website right now, not a single thing being said about Apple not supporting the hardware sold on the website, not a single thing being said as to support of the hardware or the fact that Pystar, and in turn the customer, is at the mercy of Apple who have no interest in bending over backwards to maintain compatibility with Pystars hardware.

Maybe if customers knew that they would be high and dry with no support from Apple then they would reconsider whether or not it is wise to waste $699 on a computer that is unsupported by the operating system vendor and the dubious legality by the company reselling it with the hardware.

The company might as well be saying, "it fell off the back of a truck....honestly...trust me...have I ever steered you wrong?"

MattInOz

Jul 7, 2009, 02:13 AM

if Psystar had only copied the open source elements, Apple couldn't do anything. they didn't create those parts thus they have no control over them.

but Psystar also copied Apple's parts of the software. which are not open source.

Copyleft is still copyright...
If they copied open source projects and distributed them as commercial work but didn't hold true to the License agreement that project is disturbed under then attempted to make profit without giving back as required they would still be having issues with the "copyleft" holder.

Open source rarely gives you free rain to make profit off their work without giving back.

Oh and those contracts have been tested in court, and the software foundation won.

gnasher729

Jul 7, 2009, 06:46 AM

If Psystar is actually overwriting Apple code to get past a legitimate prevention technique, yes, that is a DMCA violation.

Otherwise it's as others have stated. Nothing more than loading a proper driver to support the hardware. That isn't illegal.

The driver doesn't have to be supported by Apple to be legal.
One only needs to look at the Windows platform to see how that plays out.
The supplier of the driver is responsible, not the supplier of the OS.

If the OS vendor releases an update/patch that "breaks" the third party driver, it's not the OS vendors responsibility to fix it.

Apple has many avenues to attack any cloner if they chose to.

For a DMCA violation, it doesn't matter _how_ you get around the copy protection, as long as the material was protected by an _effective_ mechanism that is supposed to prevent you from accessing it. It seems quite clear that Apple's copy protection is _effective_, because in their bankruptcy filings Psystar valued their know-how to get around it at $3 million.

Pystar did not use the Boot-132 method, they used a hacked up method which not only hacked up software but also they redistributed Apple updates with their own custom modifications. If that isn't a flagrant violation of the law - I don't know what the hell is!

As I said, for a DMCA violation the method doesn't matter. Obviously modifying copyrighted software makes some things worse; it means Psystar created derived works without permission, Psystar distributed derived works without permission, it would kill any argument relating to first sale doctrine etc.

deconstruct60

Jul 7, 2009, 11:16 AM

For a DMCA violation, it doesn't matter _how_ you get around the copy protection, as long as the material was protected by an _effective_ mechanism that is supposed to prevent you from accessing it. It seems quite clear that Apple's copy protection is _effective_, because in their bankruptcy filings Psystar valued their know-how to get around it at $3 million.

This is not a copy protection mechanism!!! It is a tying mechanism. You would have a point if Apple was actually trying to stop people from illegally copying Mac OS X. That is not what this mechanism does.

Two quick cases to illustrate the point.

1. You buy some songs on iTunes. Your friends like several of your songs. You burn a copy of the songs onto a DVD and they pass around the DVD and install those files onto their Mac. When they go to play those sounds the DRM kicks in and says those machines are not licensed.
[ the DVD isn't necessary... however just so using same physical digital medium as next example. ]

2. You buy a retail copy of Mac OS X. Your friends like this new version. You give them the DVD and they install that onto their Macs. It works. Not legal, but it works. Those folks are violating basic copyright law. The mechanism does nothing to stop that. Everyone who wants to run a copy of Mac OS X should buy their own copy (hackintosh or not.); if you are running it you should pay for it.

The copy protection mechanism doesn't have to be "uncrackable" , but it has to even try. There is no even trying here. The only trying here by Apple is to recast tying as copyrights.

In the first half of this case, Apple pragmatically admitted that they are tying the software to the hardware. That is not an issue of copying. The aspects of the EULA that deal with copyrights is not what Apple putting a protection mechanism on. It is the tying aspects that they are protecting.

The DMCA allows for mechanism that provide interoperability so long as they do not subvert copyright management control. There are no basic copyright control being done here. The only thing here is the tying aspect that Apple has thrown on top and using the DMCA (whose principle purposes is copyright management) as a hammer to enforce their tying activities.

I'm not a lawyer but this has some similarities with Lexmark vs. SCC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_Int'l_v._Static_Control_Components
http://www.eff.org/cases/lexmark-v-static-control-case-archive

Apple's argument might be that the DMCA is a control mechanism for basic copyrights plus whatever other terms they choose to pile on top. That may work on some lower court judges. IMHO, letting business throw whatever truckload of conditions on top of copyright issues and applying DMCA to those too is a loophole that can drive a 18 wheel truck through. The interoperability escape clause is indicative DMCA isn't suppose to squash all interoperability. Nor is it intended to be the universal enforcer for companies for anything they want.

As I said, for a DMCA violation the method doesn't matter. Obviously modifying copyrighted software makes some things worse; it means Psystar created derived works without permission, Psystar distributed derived works without permission, it would kill any argument relating to first sale doctrine etc.

Modifying is a whole another matter. Once start screwing with the copies (even adding different ktext to the DVD image. You can't change two lines of 'War and Peace' and then ship it as your own derived work. ) then have brought aspects of the copyrighted work back into the issue. At that point the DMCA will certainly kick in because aspects of basic copyright law (not tangential issues that Apple wants to loop in) kicks in.

Apple hasn't been stripped bare here. They still have the EULA terms. They can make the case how folks have to agree to tie the software to the hardware. As said before, if Psystar shipped separately (copy of Mac OS X and the box), they'd be in better shape. By installing themselves they are hard pressed to make the argument they are not buying into the EULA terms.

dejo

Jul 7, 2009, 12:55 PM

HP's international sales account for 68% of their revenue. One third US, two thirds international is a rather typical ratio for anything from hi-tech products to box office (Titanic = 600 million US, 1200 million international).
Alright, so at which point between 46% and 66% will Apple's international sales stop sucking?

Companies like Microsoft, Dell and HP are pumping out ads and TV commercials in all corners of the world. I have yet to see a single Apple ad on Swedish TV. I think they do some local version of the Mac vs PC ads in the UK, but apart from that they don't seem to advertise on TV in the EU. Macs are still niche products here, they're extremely rare outside the offices of creative professionals.
Well, considering Apple doesn't really advertise overseas then, I would think 46% is pretty respectable.

gnasher729

Jul 7, 2009, 01:18 PM

This is not a copy protection mechanism!!! It is a tying mechanism. You would have a point if Apple was actually trying to stop people from illegally copying Mac OS X. That is not what this mechanism does.

Of course it is a copy protection mechanism. It did prevent, until it was circumvented, that people could copy MacOS X by installing it say on a Dell computer and run it. It clearly doesn't prevent all copying of MacOS X; it doesn't prevent you from making illegal copies by installing one MacOS X DVD on two dozen Macs. But it prevents, unless circumvented, making illegal copies by installing MacOS X on non Apple-labeled computers.

Does it say anywhere in the DMCA law that an effective copy protection mechanism must prevent _every_ copying? It doesn't. Apple created a copy protection mechanism that prevents copying in those cases that Apple cares about most, and that doesn't apply in those cases where false positives would be most annoying for legitimate customers.

Your argument would allow anyone to steal my car, just because a friend has my second set of car keys. Clearly the locks on my car are not an effective car-theft-prevention-mechanism since my friend can just drive away at any time. :confused:

NoSmokingBandit

Jul 7, 2009, 01:37 PM

Of course it is a copy protection mechanism. It did prevent, until it was circumvented, that people could copy MacOS X by installing it say on a Dell computer and run it.
Thats not copying, its installing. If i use boot-132 with efi partition i can install a completely unmodified leopard disc on my pc. Assuming i went to the apple store and paid my $130 for that leo disc, i have not illegally circumvented any copyright mechanisms, i just installed it on my pc. I could even go so far as to install leopard on a hard drive using a real mac, then put that hard drive in my pc and run leo on it without changing a single thing.
Tying is not the same as a copyright, ergo installing osx on a pc is not breaking a copyright.

*LTD*

Jul 7, 2009, 01:41 PM

Alright, so at which point between 46% and 66% will Apple's international sales stop sucking?

How are their international sales sucking?

chris200x9

Jul 7, 2009, 02:21 PM

all this EULA talk reminds me of a great line "If I want to manufacture biological weapons with my copy of iTunes, I will, fascists." (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant)

Mal

Jul 7, 2009, 04:10 PM

Thats not copying, its installing. If i use boot-132 with efi partition i can install a completely unmodified leopard disc on my pc. Assuming i went to the apple store and paid my $130 for that leo disc, i have not illegally circumvented any copyright mechanisms, i just installed it on my pc. I could even go so far as to install leopard on a hard drive using a real mac, then put that hard drive in my pc and run leo on it without changing a single thing.
Tying is not the same as a copyright, ergo installing osx on a pc is not breaking a copyright.

To install software on a computer is to make a copy of it onto the hard drive of that computer. Thus, breaking any methods of preventing the installation of the software onto a computer which it is not allowed to be installed onto, is breaking the copy protection.

jW

drsmithy

Jul 7, 2009, 07:26 PM

To install software on a computer is to make a copy of it onto the hard drive of that computer. Thus, breaking any methods of preventing the installation of the software onto a computer which it is not allowed to be installed onto, is breaking the copy protection.
By your definition, anyone who provides hardware drivers for Windows is breaking the law.

Apple not making any effort to support non-Apple hardware is not the same thing - in either intent or practice - as Apple deliberately seeking to break OS X on non-Apple hardware.

pdjudd

Jul 7, 2009, 08:10 PM

By your definition, anyone who provides hardware drivers for Windows is breaking the law.

Your being obtuse. Microsoft does have exceptions to allow for manufacturers to use drivers with their OS. Part of the whole psystar case is that they are distributing OSX in a modified state - the only way that MS allows for that is to be an OEM.. Psystar does not have any authority to sell OSX unless is it is in an unmodified, non derivative fashion.

Tallest Skil

Jul 7, 2009, 08:16 PM

Apple's intellectual property is being modified for profit.

That's all you need to understand here. It's no more complicated than that.

NoSmokingBandit

Jul 7, 2009, 08:23 PM

To install software on a computer is to make a copy of it onto the hard drive of that computer. Thus, breaking any methods of preventing the installation of the software onto a computer which it is not allowed to be installed onto, is breaking the copy protection.

jW

This kinda brings us full circle because we are back at the question "is it legal for apple to synthetically restrict osx to mac hardware?" which the courts will decide whenever they get to it.

*LTD*

Jul 7, 2009, 08:39 PM

Fun facts.

According to Apple's arguments, Psystar committed the following acts:

Copyright infringement (unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or display of
Apple's copyrighted works; i.e. OSX)

Contributory or induced copyright infringement
(inducing, causing, or materially contributing to copyright infringement on the part of their customers)

Breach of contract (violating multiple parts of Apple's user agreement by installing or aiding others in installing OSX on a non-Apple machine
and modifying Apple's code for Psystar-friendly updates)

Inducing breach of contract (inducing breach of contract on the part of their customers)

2 counts of trademark infringement

Trade dress infringement

Brand dilution

Unfair competition (state law)

Unfair competition (common law)

All of these are said to have been committed
with full knowledge and intent, as well as for
profit exceeding $75,000.

pdjudd

Jul 7, 2009, 09:00 PM

This kinda brings us full circle because we are back at the question "is it legal for apple to synthetically restrict osx to mac hardware?" which the courts will decide whenever they get to it.

Well we have Judge Allsup (who is hearing this case) has concluded that Apple is entitled to sell its operating system as it sees fit. The only thing that would change that is some sort of anti-competitive action by Apple. That was the first thing that Psystar tried and failed.

OSX is tied to hardware, but again, as it has been stated multiple times on this forum, tying - especially when the items are related - is perfectly legal. A great example of this is Pro-Tools. You have to have the Pro tools board to legally use their software.

troy.w.banther

Jul 7, 2009, 11:02 PM

"Pystar is not an Apple competitor in the true sense of the word, Pystar is a parasite that takes what Apple has developed to make a profit and gives nothing in return."

As much as I despise Micro$oft, I am wondering if PyStar is paying for the OEM licenses for Windows? If not, Apple is the least of its concerns.

pdjudd

Jul 7, 2009, 11:05 PM

As much as I despise Micro$oft, I am wondering if PyStar is paying for the OEM licenses for Windows? If not, Apple is the least of its concerns.
Well they haven't been able to show that they legitimately purchased retail copies of Leopard (not that it matters) so I wonder about that too. OEM copies of Windows can be gotten cheaply though...

charlituna

Jul 7, 2009, 11:21 PM

Open source rarely gives you free rain to make profit off their work without giving back.

yes but that wouldn't be Apple's problem. or at least not just Apple's problem.

This kinda brings us full circle because we are back at the question "is it legal for apple to synthetically restrict osx to mac hardware?" which the courts will decide whenever they get to it.

The courts got to it. And declared that the market is Personal Computers (not Mac Computers as Psystar tried to argue) that Apple lacks a level of market share to make the tying abusive. so they could restrict the hardware being used by their software as much as they want.

This is not a copy protection mechanism!!! It is a tying mechanism.

sorry but you are wrong.

Copyright is literally the right to control making copies of a work. that includes the copy made when you install software onto a computer.

Apple has a right to control who can make a copy of OSX. this was validated by the courts when they tossed the whole anti-trust thing. And Apple has, under those rights, restricted copying of the OS to only those folks using a computer configured by them with the parts of their choosing. They created their little lock to ensure that the restriction is honored.

Psystar's technology to make the OS install on configurations of their choosing breaks that lock and thus allows the creating of a copy outside of Apple's rules. which makes it an illegal, and copyright violating copy and the technology a DCMA violation.

Just wait and in the fall the courts will be repeating the same thing. unless of course Psystar gives up and apologizes before then.

dejo

Jul 7, 2009, 11:25 PM

How are their international sales sucking?

Anuba claimed they were:
Either way, Apple's international sales must suck right now.

*LTD*

Jul 8, 2009, 07:39 AM

Anuba claimed they were:

Ahh, ok. ;)

Pigumon

Jul 10, 2009, 04:27 AM

Anyone remember power computing? Better, Faster, Cheaper Macs than Apple could make at that time?

The PowerTowerPro was the mac I used longer than any others I've owned.

So I am considering one of these Psystars. $1,499 for all that, are you kidding? That's amazing.

The EULA may be illegal, just like exclusivity contracts for phone companies. It's all in the judges lap. Psystar is forcing the issue. GOOD FOR THEM (and maybe us).

I think the main point here is Psystar has been NOTICED now, they have machines that will run OSX. SO even if they are told they can't pre-install OSX, nothing will keep them from selling a system that will accept a clean install of OSX.

shadow1

Jul 10, 2009, 04:29 AM

Yes I hope Pystar expands all over the world including to Australia. No $1999 imac a nice $1000 Pystar rig will make Apple rethink their rip off currency rates.

CWallace

Jul 10, 2009, 10:23 AM

Anyone remember power computing? Better, Faster, Cheaper Macs than Apple could make at that time?

That is what has Apple worried.

Apple remains first and foremost a hardware vendor. Computers, media players, cellular phones, what have you.

OS X exists to sell Apple Macintoshes.

The iTunes Store exist to sell iPods and :apple:tv's.

The App Store exists to sell iPhones.

Apple makes their money off the hardware. Things like OS X and iTunes make Apple hardware more attractive and increase the perceived value of that hardware in the mind of consumers which is why they will pay a not-insignificant premium for that hardware.

If Apple offers OS X as a "generic OS" like Linux that will run on any x86-based platform, then Macintoshes become less-attractive and have less value. Yes, an aluminum MacBook Pro looks nicer then a plastic Dell, but does it look $500 nicer when both are running OS X?

I expect Apple has a pretty big annual R&D bill and that bill is funded in no small part thanks to Apple consumers paying an "Apple Tax". It's just like government R&D laboratories around the world are funded by taxes those governments impose on their citizens.

My worry is that if Apple products become a commodity product in price, they will become a commodity product in style and performance. Many of us laugh at the Zune and the Android G1 for how "lame" they are compared to the iPod and iPhone, but those are commodity products built on the cheap with an emphasis on getting them to market, not polishing the design and user experience.

charlituna

Jul 10, 2009, 11:19 PM

SO even if they are told they can't pre-install OSX, nothing will keep them from selling a system that will accept a clean install of OSX.

Actually DCMA will. If they lose all the legal arguments they will be found guilty of a massive digital copyright violation. And if they continue to sell machines with this 'driver' that circumvents the hardware check in the OS X installer, they will still be violating DCMA

gnasher729

Jul 11, 2009, 07:15 AM

Users still facing software issues while running the most current version of Mac OS X Leopard may take kindly to word that Mac OS X 10.5.7 is moving swiftly through its development cycle. Apple as early as this weekend is expected to equip its vast developer community with a new build of the maintenance and security release.(Apple)

??? I've had 10.5.7 on my home machine installed through software update for ages, and so have many MacRumors readers.

pdjudd

Jul 11, 2009, 10:13 AM

The EULA may be illegal, just like exclusivity contracts for phone companies. It's all in the judges lap. Psystar is forcing the issue. GOOD FOR THEM (and maybe us).

Except Apple is suing primarily based on copyright infringement (amongst other things) - not the EULA. Apple doesn't need to worry about EULA claims (as unlikely as having them held as invalid are). Psystar is claiming the EULA being invalid as a defense for their crime to claim that what they do is illegal, but that defense is very shaky. Here are the claims specifically (http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/).

Amongst the many accusations that Apple is making, they talk about EULAs in the context of this case:

Contrary to what you may have read elsewhere, EULAs in general have been tested in courts many times and have been held enforceable in several states, including Florida, where Psystar is located. In addition, EULAs are currently valid in the federal Ninth circuit, where Apple's brought suit. It's true that there are some cases holding that EULAs are unenforceable and the Apple's Leopard EULA has never been litigated specifically, but this claim isn't nearly as shaky as it's been made out to be -- it's just not a big money-winner like a copyright claim.

Emphasis mine. The case is summarized by Engadget as follows:

Like we've been saying all along, the suit is more about copyright infringement than EULA violations, since Psystar was distributing a modified version of Apple's copyrighted code outside the terms of the EULA

THe EULA is just a secondary claim to add further hurt to their primary accusations regarding copyright and trademark infringement - arguments that are really strong.