Psystar Exits Bankruptcy, Launches New Xeon-Based Systems Running OS X

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/02/psystar-exits-bankruptcy-launches-new-xeon-based-systems-running-os-x/)

Psystar (http://www.psystar.com), manufacturer of unauthorized Mac clones currently involved in a legal battle with Apple, reports (http://psystar.cmail1.com/t/r/e/itdlih/vyhdlfd/) that it has exited Chapter 11 bankruptcy and is again prepared to take on Apple. Psystar filed for bankruptcy (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/05/26/psystar-files-for-bankruptcy/) just over one month ago.As you all may already be aware in late May, Psystar filed for Chapter 11 protection. Although this was critical to our continued daily operations, we now are ready to emerge and again battle Goliath.

More information will be available in the coming days when we will be formally discharged by the Bankruptcy court.

When life gives you apples, make applesauce.Psystar also announced the release of the Open(7), a new high-end system based on Intel's Nehalem Xeon platform. The new system is available in desktop (http://store.psystar.com/featured/open7-osx.html) and rackmountable (http://store.psystar.com/featured/open7r-osx.html) models, with pricing for both versions beginning at $1499 with OS X Leopard preinstalled.

Article Link: Psystar Exits Bankruptcy, Launches New Xeon-Based Systems Running OS X (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/02/psystar-exits-bankruptcy-launches-new-xeon-based-systems-running-os-x/)

[P-Worm]

Wow, never say die.

P-Worm

[flopticalcube]

yesterday's news

[quagmire]

Convenient that shortly after the judge gave permission for Apple to continue its lawsuit, Psystar exits Chapter 11...... Anyone else think Chap. 11 was a ploy to try to stop the lawsuit?

[EnderTW]

Awesome!

Go psystar!

[macintoshtoffy]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/02/psystar-exits-bankruptcy-launches-new-xeon-based-systems-running-os-x/)

Psystar (http://www.psystar.com), manufacturer of unauthorized Mac clones currently involved in a legal battle with Apple, reports (http://psystar.cmail1.com/t/r/e/itdlih/vyhdlfd/) that it has exited Chapter 11 bankruptcy and is again prepared to take on Apple. Psystar filed for bankruptcy (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/05/26/psystar-files-for-bankruptcy/) just over one month ago.Psystar also announced the release of the Open(7), a new high-end system based on Intel's Nehalem Xeon platform. The new system is available in desktop (http://store.psystar.com/featured/open7-osx.html) and rackmountable (http://store.psystar.com/featured/open7r-osx.html) models, with pricing for both versions beginning at $1499 with OS X Leopard preinstalled.

Article Link: Psystar Exits Bankruptcy, Launches New Xeon-Based Systems Running OS X (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/02/psystar-exits-bankruptcy-launches-new-xeon-based-systems-running-os-x/)

Damn, Pystar is getting as bad as SCO.

[Alan S]

People were speculating, we would find out who was the money behind this company when it entered Chapter 11. So, now that it has exited Chapter 11, did anyone find out?

[zombitronic]

Boo. Piles of legal fees and suddenly they're out of bankruptcy? Who is behind this offensive attack?

[xIGmanIx]

Here come the haters

[robindahlia789]

the desktop version seems pretty boss

[LanPhantom]

Free publicity? Once Apple gets them to stop selling OSX preinstalled they can just sell Windows and Linux and everyone will know them. Not sure if I'd buy one, but at least their name will be out there in a big way.

I would say nice move Pystar but Apple is going to be like a ton of bricks on your little company.

[Eidorian]

Hopefully this will mean cheaper Macs. :rolleyes:

[capoeirista]

Only one FW400 port as standard? Fail.

Seriously though, hooray for competition!

[Cynicalone]

They seem to like picking a fight they know they can't win. If nothing else they are going to go down swinging.

[talkingfuture]

Well there nothing if not persistent. I think Apple legal will take them down soon enough though.

[actorkid]

beginning at $1499? the prices are right up there with macs...why not just buy a mac?

[RoboCop001]

You fools! I'm behind this! MUAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaaaaa! HAHAhahaahAHAAA!! Hahaaaaa!

Next up? The Freeze Ray.

But first.... first I'll take Apple down after creating PsystarBot, powered by MegaLeopard (the next-next OS X, which I took from the future with my time machine).

It has a chainsaw for a hand, and laser beams for eyes. And in the middle... in the middle it has the MegaCloner. Anything the beam touches is instantly cloned at cheaper prices.

MUAHAHAhahaha!

[wilycoder]

beginning at $1499? the prices are right up there with macs...why not just buy a mac?

you can get a quad core nehalem mac pro for $1499?

Ok...

[charlituna]

Hopefully this will mean cheaper Macs. :rolleyes:


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.

in the end, I suspect that the bankruptcy was an attempt to call off the Apple dogs and it failed. but even if it was legit, they are idiots for not conceding that Apple has won all the possible legal battles and moving on. Heck, most of the OS is open source so they could probably create their own interface and the 3rd party apps would still work. and apple couldn't do a thing if they didn't touch the non open bits of the software. heck maybe they could be uber geniuses and figure out a way to have one OS that runs both Mac and Windows apps. if they weren't so dang lazy that is

[wheelhot]

Aargh, just as I thought this pile of **** is over with and someone seem to spray a can of revive this pile of ****.

[Cartoonkid]

Boo. Piles of legal fees and suddenly they're out of bankruptcy? Who is behind this offensive attack?

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.

[gkarris]

LOL...

They should come out with a laptop and a "nano" computer to make their lineup complete... :eek:

:D

[Cartoonkid]

Free publicity? Once Apple gets them to stop selling OSX preinstalled they can just sell Windows and Linux and everyone will know them. Not sure if I'd buy one, but at least their name will be out there in a big way.

Can you say "Napster"?

[nick9191]

Shame Apple whacked up their margins so high on the Mac Pro. Until March you could buy nor build the specs of the Mac Pro anywhere else for less.

[Anuba]

beginning at $1499? the prices are right up there with macs...why not just buy a mac?
What do you mean "up there with macs"? Mac Pro starts at $2499. You can't compare it to an iMac. It's a Nehalem Xeon based system... it runs circles around iMac. Heck, it runs circles around 3-4 iMacs.

[LiquidSpikes]

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.

[windywoo]

I hope if I ever become bankrupt I am back on my feet so quickly.

[quagmire]

Only one FW400 port as standard? Fail.

Seriously though, hooray for competition!

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.

[Mark Booth]

I want to know how they can legitimately offer the combined iLife and iWork for only $60 with CPU purchase. Are they using official licensed packages?

Also, when you configure the Open7 to as close to a low-end Mac Pro specs as you can get, it's about $2000, not $1500.

Mark

[SnowLeopard2008]

Wow... Does Pystar or the company(s) supporting it have any dignity at all? Stop picking on a company that is the backbone of the computer industry. Who abandoned SCSI for USB? Who abandoned floppies? Who gave professionals FireWire? Who is the main driving force behind DisplayPort? Who is the creator of OpenCL? And which company poked a huge stick up the mobile industry rear end and pushed them to create better smartphoness (ex. iPhone, Instinct, Touch Diamond, Vu, Viewty, Dare)?

[nick9191]

I want to know how they can legitimately offer the combined iLife and iWork for only $60 with CPU purchase. Are they using official licensed packages?

Also, when you configure the Open7 to as close to a low-end Mac Pro specs as you can get, it's about $2000, not $1500.

Mark

I believe the cost of Leopard ($129) is included in the price of the computer, so it costs them $40 to bump you up to the Mac Box Set ($169) + a $20 profit.

[Eidorian]

Good pick with that P183 case as well. Quiet, solid construction on that monster.

[xIGmanIx]

Wow... Does Pystar or the company(s) supporting it have any dignity at all? Stop picking on a company that is the backbone of the computer industry.

Um.. i wouldn't consider it picking on Apple. And to be honest, not sure where your getting the idea that apple is the backbone of the industry

[roland.g]

It sure is a Box.

[dejo]

They make a killer OS, now if they would fight on the PC's home turf. they would really slaughter Windows.
And themselves in the process! It would likely be a suicide move.

[i.mac]

Only one FW400 port as standard? Fail.

Seriously though, hooray for competition!

dude, what competition?

[crees!]

Only one FW400 port as standard? Fail.

Seriously though, hooray for competition!

You're mistaken as this is not competition. Dell and Gateway were, but not this.

[MWPULSE]

no matter if it does bring apple to come across a financial conscience (not that im complaining about the gear being too expensive, i pay for what i get which is a laptop/computer which works!) what pystar is doing illegal in quite a few different ways! lol its ridiculous!

PTP

[sushi]

Mixed emotions about this.

I wonder who the financiers are? That might provide some insight as to Psystar's future plans.

[Sehnsucht]

How is 12 gigabytes of DDR3 RAM only a $170 add-on? :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Tilpots]

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

I'd hold these "illegal" remarks until there's a verdict. Let the judge decide what's illegal and what's not.

[deputy_doofy]

While I think it's ok for an individual to hack their machine in an attempt to install OS X, I have a problem with a (supposed) business doing the same. Don't we expect companies to be ethical? Psystar is hardly ethical here.

If they win, I guess I can:
- Go out and buy the 6+ packs of Tic-Tacs
- Buy really cheap plastic containers
- Empty the Tic-Tacs from the original containers that say "not for individual resale" and move them to my own plastic containers
- Sell them for less than a normal individual pack, yet more than the discount for buying bulk

Can someone tell me why that's not legal? If Psystar can do it, despite the EULA, then so can I. For that matter, who else out on MacRumors sells stuff that I can buy, repackage, and manage to sell at a profit? "Competition is good," remember? I will compete with you using YOUR product, since you think it's ok.

Anyone who supports Psystar is clueless (or the criminals behind the operation).

[Anaxarxes]

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.


That would kill OSXs "killer" feature. There'll be millions of drivers and it'll suck if it goes for all the PCs out there.

[Pika]

Oh my ****ing god, there back!

[phatcat]

Awesome for Psystar! This is about the same level of competition as when Steve Jobs stole Xerox's graphical user interface.

[rick3000]

This company is ridiculous. They certainly have a lot of fight but they're going to lose. To be able to stand up against Apple like this they have to have someone backing them. I think Michael Dell is behind Psystar, he has said he would love to sell OSX on his computer in the past.

[Mousse]

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.

Ah...but now that they're out of bankruptcy, Apple can demand damages. Before, they'd have to get permission from the bankruptcy courts before getting any money out of Psystar. IMO, not a bright move by Psystar and it's silent partners. They should have waited to see what the results of the initial lawsuit. If they lose, they pay nothing. If they win, come out of bankruptcy and start making oodles of moolah.

[macJC50640]

"When life gives you apples, make applesauce"

Bahaha.
But seriously, I really don't know quite what they are thinking with their whole idea of "taking on Apple". I seriously dought they are going to get any more market share then they already have, but we'll see I suppose. :p

[Ironduke]

thats the style psystar thats the style:cool:

[quagmire]

I'd hold these "illegal" remarks until there's a verdict. Let the judge decide what's illegal and what's not.

Seeing how Macs have a chip that the OS scans to look for when booting up, Psystar will have to do something to OS X in order to remove that coding or trick it to think the chip is there, but is not.

[Eidorian]

How is 12 gigabytes of DDR3 RAM only a $170 add-on? :eek: :eek: :eek:6 x 2 GB isn't that expensive.

Oh my ****ing god, there back!Yes I'm sure that Microsoft has won with Windows 7 and it's over Apple is finished now on the hardware side too. :rolleyes:

[gcmexico]

you can get a quad core nehalem mac pro for $1499?

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

[eastcoastsurfer]

While I think it's ok for an individual to hack their machine in an attempt to install OS X, I have a problem with a (supposed) business doing the same. Don't we expect companies to be ethical? Psystar is hardly ethical here.

If they win, I guess I can:
- Go out and buy the 6+ packs of Tic-Tacs
- Buy really cheap plastic containers
- Empty the Tic-Tacs from the original containers that say "not for individual resale" and move them to my own plastic containers
- Sell them for less than a normal individual pack, yet more than the discount for buying bulk

Can someone tell me why that's not legal? If Psystar can do it, despite the EULA, then so can I. For that matter, who else out on MacRumors sells stuff that I can buy, repackage, and manage to sell at a profit? "Competition is good," remember? I will compete with you using YOUR product, since you think it's ok.

Anyone who supports Psystar is clueless (or the criminals behind the operation).

Tictacs? Like this (http://cgi.ebay.com/100-PERSONALIZED-TIC-TACS-Mints-30th-40th-50th-BIRTHDAY_W0QQitemZ350216735292QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item518a8b4a3c&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A12%7C66%3A2%7C39%3A1%7C72%3A1205%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50) you mean?

If you can buy my product, repackage it, and manage to sell it at a profit be my guest. For every one that you sell, it means that it's also one that I sell. Now, if I was smart I would see what you are doing and realize that I'm missing some market with my original product (if changing the package is all you really need to do in order to net a profit). I would then change my product to capture that market.

[ryanasimov]

You know, I can see buying a Psystar for the novelty factor of owning an inexpensive, powerful OSX machine, but it would be impractical otherwise. Apple will surely put out updates that break functionality and cripple it; keeping your OS updated with the latest patches and security fixes would be a constant headache.

[Cabbit]

That would kill OSXs "killer" feature. There'll be millions of drivers and it'll suck if it goes for all the PCs out there.

This is not 100% true, if you limit it to the last 5 years or to 64Bit only then you have 3 chipsets that Apple already have the drivers for 2 of them.

That leaves 1 chipset and expanding the GPU drivers to include more of Nvideas and Ati's GPU's than currently supported and these are made with a universal architecture per generation so its essentially the same driver per family or family's of GPU.

Finally there is the rather prominent base of Creative sound cards. The other items are irrelevant, as these would be usb devises and such that will work or won't or specialist devices be it pci, pci x or pcie that the manufactures would provide drivers if there is a large enough user base such as present with 3G wireless devices and pen tablets.

The millions of configurations you speak of is a miss conception, it is usually a family of products that share the same driver. Intel, Nvidea, and AMD will not go out of there way to make a requirement for the need of thousands of different drivers. And the people who would be buying OSX would do so under the same premise there used to with Windows which is expecting some hardware not to work out of the box but also expecting USB devices to work out of the box.

These users once roped in with OSX will be more willing to continue to buy only OSX and related products and this is where you would see a mass uptake in the buying of real Mac's and many more device manufactures jumping on board.

[Cartoonkid]

Ah...but now that they're out of bankruptcy, Apple can demand damages. Before, they'd have to get permission from the bankruptcy courts before getting any money out of Psystar. IMO, not a bright move by Psystar and it's silent partners. They should have waited to see what the results of the initial lawsuit. If they lose, they pay nothing. If they win, come out of bankruptcy and start making oodles of moolah.

Actually, BK wouldn't have any bearing on Apple's ability to demand damages. Only on their ability to collect if they're awarded.

If Prystar ultimately loses, they'll just file BK again and go out of business so that they won't have to pay Apple anything. That being said, Apple isn't suing them for money, so that doesn't matter. They just want them to stop making Apple clones, and they don't care how that happens, as long as it does.

[rorschach]

And what happens to Psystar when Apple stops selling full-install retail OS X boxes?

OS X already comes with every Mac, the only reason why you'd need a retail copy is to upgrade to a newer version. And Apple can simply sell upgrade-only discs for that and require a your Mac serial number to upgrade.

Or if you lose your disc. But again, when you call Apple to get those replacement discs you already need your serial # for that right now.

Or am I missing something?

[jessica.]

I considered a small desktop as a media center pc. When I was ready to buy they were out of business ... or on vacation rather.

[corinhorn]

They make a killer OS, now if they would fight on the PC's home turf. they would really slaughter Windows.I'm happy with Apple's smaller OS marketshare.

[Xtremehkr]

Pystar is not exactly competition for Apple as Pystar doesn't spend any money to develop OSX, it simply uses OSX to sell it's own configurations.

Microsoft is a competitor to Apple, as it spends its own money to develop its own software, even if it does not sell the software on its own hardware.

For Pystar to be a true competitor, it would have to develop its own software instead of essentially stealing the fruit of Apples labor.

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.

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.

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.

I like the low price of Pystar products, but I also realize that I am not helping Apple any by essentially rewarding Pystar for something that Apple developed.

[Anaxarxes]

This is not 100% true, if you limit it to the last 5 years or to 64Bit only then you have 3 chipsets that Apple already have the drivers for 2 of them.

That leaves 1 chipset and expanding the GPU drivers to include more of Nvideas and Ati's GPU's than currently supported and these are made with a universal architecture per generation so its essentially the same driver per family or family's of GPU.

Finally there is the rather prominent base of Creative sound cards. The other items are irrelevant, as these would be usb devises and such that will work or won't or specialist devices be it pci, pci x or pcie that the manufactures would provide drivers if there is a large enough user base such as present with 3G wireless devices and pen tablets.

The millions of configurations you speak of is a miss conception, it is usually a family of products that share the same driver. Intel, Nvidea, and AMD will not go out of there way to make a requirement for the need of thousands of different drivers. And the people who would be buying OSX would do so under the same premise there used to with Windows which is expecting some hardware not to work out of the box but also expecting USB devices to work out of the box.

These users once roped in with OSX will be more willing to continue to buy only OSX and related products and this is where you would see a mass uptake in the buying of real Mac's and many more device manufactures jumping on board.

You're forgetting about gazillions of no name/generic usb devices from taiwan, honk kong, china...etc. Their horrific drivers screw up any OS.

Of course big players will properly adn carefully release drivers, it's the little players that suck.

[ULFoaf]

Barely took a standing 8 count before they get knocked silly. Fools. They have no legal leg to stand on.

[myamid]

open(7) for 1499$?? At that price it doesn't even include Wifi, Bluetooth, FW800 (let alone a decent number of FW400 ports). Heck, by the time I had put in the minimal specs I was already at 2000$... And at that price, you still have no guarantee you'll be able to update the OS in the future? Thanks but no thanks... A high-end iMac or low-end Mac Pro looks WAY more attractive.

This is almost as shameful as those Dell adds that promote prices on the back of you local papers... Not sure you'd ever want to buy the machines they advertise "as-is".

[Cartoonkid]

Seeing how Macs have a chip that the OS scans to look for when booting up, Psystar will have to do something to OS X in order to remove that coding or trick it to think the chip is there, but is not.

Palm made iTunes think the Pre is an iPod, so I'm guessing it probably won't be all that tough for Prystar to fool OS X...at least until Apple releases a patch to fix it.

[jb1280]

incredible and audacious.

[zombitronic]

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

Again, they make the majority of their profits on hardware, which pays for the R&D that goes into that OS you love. Eliminate hardware profits and you eliminate Apple.

[ULFoaf]

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

I bet Apple is glad you don't work for them!

[Cabbit]

You're forgetting about gazillions of no name/generic usb devices from taiwan, honk kong, china...etc. Their horrific drivers screw up any OS.

Of course big players will properly adn carefully release drivers, it's the little players that suck.

These gazillion generic/no name usb devices are already open to a real mac so the issue would not be any different and many are built on the generic usb profiles.

[jknight8907]

Pystar is not exactly competition for Apple as Pystar doesn't spend any money to develop OSX, it simply uses OSX to sell it's own configurations.

Microsoft is a competitor to Apple, as it spends its own money to develop its own software, even if it does not sell the software on its own hardware.

For Pystar to be a true competitor, it would have to develop its own software instead of essentially stealing the fruit of Apples labor.

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.

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.

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.

I like the low price of Pystar products, but I also realize that I am not helping Apple any by essentially rewarding Pystar for something that Apple developed.

They're buying copies of OS X.....how is that giving nothing in return?

[dejo]

They're buying copies of OS X.....
And we know this how? When asked to provide evidence of this, suddenly the records had been "lost".

[petedskier]

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.

I couldn't find that information. Given the debt Psystar owed and the creditors, it is surprising that Psystar could have sold enough computers to emerge on their earnings alone. This is just speculation, but I wonder if another backer has offered up cash to allow them to emerge from chapter 11? After all, the issues are pretty clear. Will the court allow Apple to use the EULA for its operating system to control hardware over which they have no intellectual property rights? If Psystar were selling shares in a damage suit against Apple and its billions in the bank, I'd buy.

[windywoo]

Its not "illegal" but it is against the EULA. The legality of the EULA was in dispute and the court case didn't finish.

I don't see how a company as tiny as Psystar is can be seen to be "picking" on Apple. More like the other way around tbh.

Who was the idiot claimed they should write their own OS? Thats completely missing the point, and not as easy as you seem to think it is. If you want to see Apple's real attitude to Open Source look at the OpenDarwin project which shutdown because they felt it was "a mere hosting facility for Mac OS X related projects". There's another project and its command line only.

A healthy internet requires a diversity of operating systems to prevent the easy spread of viruses. Fact is, a large proportion of internet users simply can't afford Apple's prices, and aren't technically minded enough to install Linux. Apple should be forced to license their OS and then we would see if the Apple experience of tightly integrated harware and OS is really all its fans think it is. Let other manufacturers make their own machines, and let the customer decide if they want to pay for Apple's "high grade" hardware or hardware that just does its job.

[MacAerfen]

This is not 100% true, if you limit it to the last 5 years or to 64Bit only then you have 3 chipsets that Apple already have the drivers for 2 of them.

That leaves 1 chipset and expanding the GPU drivers to include more of Nvideas and Ati's GPU's than currently supported and these are made with a universal architecture per generation so its essentially the same driver per family or family's of GPU.

Finally there is the rather prominent base of Creative sound cards. The other items are irrelevant, as these would be usb devises and such that will work or won't or specialist devices be it pci, pci x or pcie that the manufactures would provide drivers if there is a large enough user base such as present with 3G wireless devices and pen tablets.

The millions of configurations you speak of is a miss conception, it is usually a family of products that share the same driver. Intel, Nvidea, and AMD will not go out of there way to make a requirement for the need of thousands of different drivers. And the people who would be buying OSX would do so under the same premise there used to with Windows which is expecting some hardware not to work out of the box but also expecting USB devices to work out of the box.

These users once roped in with OSX will be more willing to continue to buy only OSX and related products and this is where you would see a mass uptake in the buying of real Mac's and many more device manufactures jumping on board.

Um you really do not seem to understand hardware. There are thousands of products they would have to include support for drivers for and millions of configurations that would be possible. You can not sell a operating system for a non closed hardware platform without considering all the different vendors. You list creative labs sound cards as an example. Do you know how many different brands of sound cards are out there? And yes a lot of them will use similar drivers but you can not as a company pick and choose. If your product is going to work on a clone that allows people to pick whatever brand they want you have to support EVERY brand or face anti-trust violations since you can not say "only supports creative labs sound cards". It would be the equivalent of Microsoft releasing the next version of Windows and saying only works on AMD processors. They would be in court so fast your head would still be spinning. You write off PCI cards and such without realizing that yes the drivers do come from the company that makes those cards but the average consumer is not going to see that when they install that card and their system crashes, they will call the OS manufacturer because they don't think of the individual cards. If Apple releases for general PC market the quality of the OS will end up the same as Windows because they will have to make it to be stable with thousands of drivers and configurations (and we have seen how wonderful Microsoft has been able to do that) and they will have to deal with calls from customers who don't realize that just because it can be installed in their computer running OS X doesn't mean that Apple has anything to do with it. After all if its a popular item surely Apple would have people trained in it.

[kamiboy]

I'll be cheering on goliath on this one. The reason why I like apple is exactly because they control hardware and software so their products are not sheit, like the PC's I was idiotic enought to endure for so long out of pure ignorance.

You know, I bet Uncle Billy is somehow involved in this behind the scenes.

[CWallace]

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

Not unless they gave it away for free to the OEMs. The OEMs are so enslaved to Microsoft via contractual agreements to ship Windows that even if you chose OS X, you'd still have to pay for a Windows license since it is effectively part of every system sold just like the CPU or HDD.

It's why the HP workstations we buy cost more with Linux then they do with Windows.

[smartalic34]

I'm looking forward to Apple legal pounding Psystar into the ground. and shoveling 10 feet of dirt on top. what a scummy company

[MegaMillions]

*sigh*

Just die Psystar. Die. Apple can kill them can't they? How hard can this be?:confused:

[Pugpuppydude]

lol is there website down??

[sbarton]

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.


The EULA used by Apple and most every other software company is unethical to start with. If you pay for a piece of software you own it and should be able to use it as you see fit. Just because someone can write something stupid on a piece of paper, does not mean it is a.) ethical or b.) legal. And BTW, the jury is most definitely still out as to whether EULAs as they exist today are legal. It is about as ethical as Apple charging you $450 for a graphics card that all but identical to the $150 PC version. And yes, that is an Apples to Apples comparison.

There are mechanisms in our commercial laws that Apple can use to do what they are trying to do with OSX. It's called a lease. But I'm sure you can guess what kind of stink that would cause.

[Skika]

They certainly are rebellious:D.

Props for that.

[Xtremehkr]

They're buying copies of OS X.....how is that giving nothing in return?

That doesn't begin to cover the development costs of the hardware and software that Apple spends.

OSX was developed to sell Apple hardware. If that weren't the case, OSX would be openly available on any platform. However, that's not Apples business model, that's Microsofts business model. Apple plays an active role in both software, and hardware design.

[capoeirista]

Firstly, these are in no way meant to come across as flame-bait, they are genuine queries....

Why is this such a bad thing for apple really? Macs are (seen as) expensive, if 'customer A' cannot afford a mac they aren't going to buy one and therefore Apple gets no money. But if they can afford a cheaper machine which does the same job but for less money AND includes a fee for OSX then Apple would surely gain a sale they wouldn't have and be better off?

If enough people did this, would apple not potentially lower their prices accordingly, which would be better for us, the consumer?

[troller]

Awesome, maybe they will be also able to create something like the mini but with good specs because apple seems not to be able to do the job.

Go psystar

[nick9191]

Awesome for Psystar! This is about the same level of competition as when Steve Jobs stole Xerox's graphical user interface.

And by stole you of course mean Steve saw a pre-alpha version of a GUI and decided to make his own which looked and acted nothing like Xerox's and contained none of their code.

I guess Ubuntu stole from Vista since they are both GUI's and an Ubuntu programmer used a Vista machine once.

[myamid]

This is not 100% true, if you limit it to the last 5 years or to 64Bit only then you have 3 chipsets that Apple already have the drivers for 2 of them.

That leaves 1 chipset and expanding the GPU drivers to include more of Nvideas and Ati's GPU's than currently supported and these are made with a universal architecture per generation so its essentially the same driver per family or family's of GPU.

Finally there is the rather prominent base of Creative sound cards. The other items are irrelevant, as these would be usb devises and such that will work or won't or specialist devices be it pci, pci x or pcie that the manufactures would provide drivers if there is a large enough user base such as present with 3G wireless devices and pen tablets.

The millions of configurations you speak of is a miss conception, it is usually a family of products that share the same driver. Intel, Nvidea, and AMD will not go out of there way to make a requirement for the need of thousands of different drivers. And the people who would be buying OSX would do so under the same premise there used to with Windows which is expecting some hardware not to work out of the box but also expecting USB devices to work out of the box.

These users once roped in with OSX will be more willing to continue to buy only OSX and related products and this is where you would see a mass uptake in the buying of real Mac's and many more device manufactures jumping on board.

Let me just say this... If you've ever tried building a hackingtosh with specs you think are VERY close to actual Apple hardware (same graphics, broadcom Wifi, etc), you'll quickly notice the theory of "generic" drivers to be a bad one. 2 examples come to mind... Though OSX does have drivers for many Broadcom chipsets, it doesn't mean all will work. Same can be said for Marvell Ethernet controllers... Or trackpads!! Though there are often ways to get unsupported hardware working, it's a real pain, and not always possible (those Marvell ethernet controllers were a dead-end).

so the trouble isn't in what you know about, it's in the little things you assume won't be a problem. For those there can be hundreds and hundreds of potential issues.

[Dagless]

How did they go and afford that then?

[DipDog3]

Why pay $1500 for a fake Mac when you could get an iMac for less?

[AlexisV]

The EULA used by Apple and most every other software company is unethical to start with. If you pay for a piece of software you own it and should be able to use it as you see fit. Just because someone can write something stupid on a piece of paper, does not mean it is a.) ethical or b.) legal

Not really. It's unethical to take product X made by somebody else, alter bits of it, and flog it on to make a profit but without having paid to produce it, as well as piggybacking off the brand built up by the other company.

[bedifferent]

I believe this is great news. The issue I take with Apple is there lack of a "true" desktop system. Since Apple dropped the PPC chip in lei of Intel chipsets, the iMac has used a mobile processor, leaving a huge gap between the iMac and Mac Pro (which utilizes a server grade chip). A consumer had the option of purchasing a PowerMac G5 for ~$1500 (or was that PowerMac G4, I forget) and the lampshade iMac for roughly the same price. They were both comparable in performance, the PowerMac slightly faster, and had different aspects to satisfy different needs. Apple needs to produce a reasonable desktop for its consumers. Perhaps competition, legal or not, from such companies as Psystar will force Apple's hand (highly doubtful, but it can't hurt).

Why pay $1500 for a fake Mac when you could get an iMac for less?

The "fake mac" is much faster than the iMac. It is about on par with the Mac Pro, which is thousands more (for a comparable system). The iMac uses a mobile Core 2 Duo processor compared to the quad core "fake mac" or Mac Pro.

[Achiever]

Awesome for Psystar! This is about the same level of competition as when Steve Jobs stole Xerox's graphical user interface.

Incorrect all around. Putting aside the "same level of competition" comment, Apple didn't steal anything from Xerox PARC. They PURCHASED the technology from a company (Xerox) which did not want to utilize, implement or distribute the technology its engineers had developed. There is nothing improper about what Apple did then as compensation was paid. This is analogous to when Apple the Apple clones used to legitimately license the Mac OS; it wasn't improper because there was compensation. Here, there is none; simply utilization and distribution for Apple's OS. Whether or not that is a legal violation of Apple's EULA is an interesting legal question and the ultimate decision may have far reaching implications in the industry.

[ULFoaf]

Only one FW400 port as standard? Fail.

Seriously though, hooray for competition!

How do you consider buying someone's software, altering it and putting it on alternate hardware, both of which you agreed NOT to do when you bought it, and THEN selling it as legitimate "competition?" I just don't understand.

This is as legitimate as scalping tickets outside a stadium.

[Peace]

Any company reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. Apple knows the name of the ones that owe them $50,000 for buying Leopard. It seems to me all Apple has to do is not sell that "entity" any licenses. And if Psystar uses a different name to purchase Leopard Apple will know for a fact that there is indeed other people behind psystars motives.

Dumb move on psystars part.

[dejo]

If you pay for a piece of software you own it and should be able to use it as you see fit.
Ah, the naiveté of intellectual property ignorance. What about Apple's right to determine how their creation is used? Or are they just a charity?

[windywoo]

Seeing how Macs have a chip that the OS scans to look for when booting up, Psystar will have to do something to OS X in order to remove that coding or trick it to think the chip is there, but is not.

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

[rorschach]

Firstly, these are in no way meant to come across as flame-bait, they are genuine queries....

Why is this such a bad thing for apple really? Macs are (seen as) expensive, if 'customer A' cannot afford a mac they aren't going to buy one and therefore Apple gets no money. But if they can afford a cheaper machine which does the same job but for less money AND includes a fee for OSX then Apple would surely gain a sale they wouldn't have and be better off?

If enough people did this, would apple not potentially lower their prices accordingly, which would be better for us, the consumer?

Because Mac OS X exists to sell Mac hardware. Someone buying OS X and then running off and buying a PC doesn't benefit Apple, it actually costs them more money. For them to officially support this, they would have to spend massive amounts of money on developing drivers, etc. for thousands of different configurations, as well as much more money on support costs.

All of that for something that doesn't even bring them much profit. In fact, you'd likely see the price of OS X go UP, not down, because of that, in order to cover the increased costs for the software development.

So Apple would gain a sale, but they'd be losing money unless costs SOMEWHERE went up. And OS X would probably become less stable all around because of all the extra drivers, etc. needed.

[AlexisV]

Why is this such a bad thing for apple really? Macs are (seen as) expensive, if 'customer A' cannot afford a mac they aren't going to buy one and therefore Apple gets no money. But if they can afford a cheaper machine which does the same job but for less money AND includes a fee for OSX then Apple would surely gain a sale they wouldn't have and be better off?

If enough people did this, would apple not potentially lower their prices accordingly, which would be better for us, the consumer?

You've got to look at the bigger picture - Apple don't want to or need to dominate the market. If it tried to do that, its value would plummet.

People buy expensive luxury goods because they come with extras which cheap and cheerful products can't offer.

Macs are seen as expensive, which makes people want one.

[MacAerfen]

Its not "illegal" but it is against the EULA. The legality of the EULA was in dispute and the court case didn't finish.

I don't see how a company as tiny as Psystar is can be seen to be "picking" on Apple. More like the other way around tbh.

Who was the idiot claimed they should write their own OS? Thats completely missing the point, and not as easy as you seem to think it is. If you want to see Apple's real attitude to Open Source look at the OpenDarwin project which shutdown because they felt it was "a mere hosting facility for Mac OS X related projects". There's another project and its command line only.

A healthy internet requires a diversity of operating systems to prevent the easy spread of viruses. Fact is, a large proportion of internet users simply can't afford Apple's prices, and aren't technically minded enough to install Linux. Apple should be forced to license their OS and then we would see if the Apple experience of tightly integrated harware and OS is really all its fans think it is. Let other manufacturers make their own machines, and let the customer decide if they want to pay for Apple's "high grade" hardware or hardware that just does its job.

Apple should be forced to license its OS?? Why on earth should a company be forced to sell it's product in a manner other than it sees fit to. Too bad for the people that can't afford Apple products. That is not Apple's fault. And if they are too non-tech savvy to install Linux than that is also their own laziness and problem. They could always hire a consultant to do it for them if they don't want Windows but cant afford Mac systems. While we are talking about forcing companies to sell products cheap for the masses lets start with car companies. I cant afford $80k for a Hummer but they are much safer and better utility vehicles so I should have the right to own one at the price I can afford right? That's your logic isn't it? After all if more people were driving safer vehicles that's better for the road system since it means less fatal accidents. Or how about we start forcing Ferarri to sell their engines to GM and Toyota since their engines are far superior products and well people should have the right to choose which engine they want in their car right?

And your comment about the person who suggested they create their own OS is completely wrong. If Psystar wanted to compete with Apple that is what they would have to do. And you are right. It is not easy and it is not cheap to do. But that's what competition is and that is what makes companies produce products. Why should Psystar make any profit off of Apple's research and development. Apple wrote their own OS and they support it. They spend the cash and should be the ones reaping the benefit of it.

Basically you are promoting a system where hey if the product is a benefit to the public it should be ripped from the company that produced its' hands and made available to people to install however they want to ensure it is affordable to all. Guess what. That thinking will lead to an industry where no one develops anything new and beneficial because no company will be willing to fork over money for charity basically since if it is a revolutionary or superior product it will be taken for them and forcibly sold cheap.

So stop being cheap. You want Apple quality products save up and buy them and stop trying to get the government to help you rip off the company that put the effort and money to develop it.

[windywoo]

Ah, the naiveté of intellectual property ignorance. What about Apple's right to determine how their creation is used? Or are they just a charity?

No they aren't a charity, thats why you pay money for the copy of OSX you would like to do with as you please. What if the makes of photoshop started saying you weren't allowed to put your friends heads on porn stars bodies?

[guzhogi]

Nothing like a little friendly competition. :p [/sarcasm]

I don't think I'd buy a computer from Psystar. Having to hack Mac OS X, not my idea of a good time.

[rorschach]

Perhaps competition, legal or not, from such companies as Psystar will force Apple's hand (highly doubtful, but it can't hurt).

Actually, it can hurt. In that

-Apple will be forced to waste money on these lawsuits

-Even if Psystar wins, it just means that either (a) OS X costs more or (b) OS X isn't sold retail period

-If Apple is somehow forced to officially allow OS X on other platforms, they still couldn't be forced to write drivers for 3rd party hardware themselves, they just couldn't prevent others from doing it. That means OS X becomes less stable the more configurations it's sold on, which means increased support costs for Apple, which means higher prices all around.

[bedifferent]

Actually, it can hurt. In that

-Apple will be forced to waste money on these lawsuits

-Even if Psystar wins, it just means that either (a) OS X costs more or (b) OS X isn't sold retail period

-If Apple is somehow forced to officially allow OS X on other platforms, they still couldn't be forced to write drivers for 3rd party hardware themselves, they just couldn't prevent others from doing it. That means OS X becomes less stable the more configurations it's sold on, which means increased support costs for Apple, which means higher prices all around.

I'm not stating Apple should release OS X for other machines as Microsoft. I am stating that perhaps selling a "Mac Pro" desktop system that is cheaper may (unlikely) force Apple's hand into producing an actual desktop processor system. As for cost, Apple literally has billions of dollars burning a hole in its pocket, I doubt this lawsuit will hurt them financially.

[mac jones]

It amuses me when people take sides with a corp that is enemies with Apple on an Apple enthusiast site. :D

[dejo]

No they aren't a charity, thats why you pay money for the copy of OSX you would like to do with as you please.
No, you pay money for a copy of OS X that comes with certain restrictions from Apple as to what you can do with it. If you don't agree, don't purchase it.

What if the makes of photoshop started saying you weren't allowed to put your friends heads on porn stars bodies?
Look, what the purveyors of intellectual property can and cannot do is covered by laws of IP and copyright. They certainly cannot put restrictions that are illegal (such as giving up your first-born son). And if there are clauses that someone finds should be illegal, they have a right to challenge that in court. That's kinda what Psystar is doing, isn't it? But this whole attitude of "I paid for it, I can do what I want with it" is just over-inflated self-entitlement poppycock.

[quagmire]

No they aren't a charity, thats why you pay money for the copy of OSX you would like to do with as you please. What if the makes of photoshop started saying you weren't allowed to put your friends heads on porn stars bodies?

Uhh.... when you buy OS X you agree to the EULA.... So no, you may not do what you please with OS X.

What if Ford wanted to use Chevy's Small Block V8 and GM said no, but Ford went ahead and bought the Small Block and sold it in the Mustang.... I think GM would be suing Ford......

[michael.lauden]

It amuses me when people take sides with a corp that is enemies with Apple on an Apple enthusiast site. :D

MacRumors: mac community discussion forums.

nevertheless, to me, if i had a hackintosh, i don't see how i wouldn't still be an 'Apple Enthusiast'. Running their OS+Software.

Technically the only thing does is make their own towers on the Mac Pro line... Everything else is from different manufacturers.

[petedskier]

Again, they make the majority of their profits on hardware, which pays for the R&D that goes into that OS you love. Eliminate hardware profits and you eliminate Apple.

This type of argument is silly. Auto manufacturers make most of their money on accessories. However, if they didn't sell cars, they wouldn't have a profit.

Apple sells computers. It is up to them to market them to make a profit as they see fit. Users believe most of their profit comes from the hardware because they can calculate the price differential from purchasing a copy of the operating system. When Apple gave the OS away, did that mean all of their profit came from the hardware?

If Apple is selling OS X as a loss leader, that is their prerogative. A purchaser is not obligated to buy other groceries if a store lures customers with cheap milk.

[mac jones]

MacRumors: mac community discussion forums.

nevertheless, to me, if i had a hackintosh, i don't see how i wouldn't still be an 'Apple Enthusiast'. Running their OS+Software.

Technically the only thing does is make their own towers on the Mac Pro line... Everything else is from different manufacturers.

Nothing wrong with buying the stuff. It's selling it that is very bad.

users vs dealers :D

[sbarton]

Ah, the naiveté of intellectual property ignorance. What about Apple's right to determine how their creation is used? Or are they just a charity?

Hardly. How is Apples "intellectual property" different than any other product that requires "intellect" to create? Thats like saying BMW can sell me a car, but dictate how I might choose to use said car once I take "ownership". Do you see the kit car industry getting brow beat by Ford or GM for designs that require specific engine types? So, do engines not contain intellectual property?

Ok, sure Ford can't start buying GM small blocks and ship them in their cars. But Joe consumer absolutely can go buy a GM motor and shove it is Mustang if he so desires. Now, this is territory that PsyStar is skating on thin ice to be sure....but the underlying EULA issue doesn't get settled with this argument.

Like I said, if Apple wants absolute control over how an end user must use OSX then they need to make it a lease. Only then does it take care of the ownership issue.

[dejo]

Users believe most of their profit comes from the hardware because they can calculate the price differential from purchasing a copy of the operating system
I believe most of their profits come from hardware because it says so in every quarterly report they release.

[quagmire]

Hardly. How is Apples "intellectual property" different than any other product that requires "intellect" to create? Thats like saying BMW can sell me a car, but dictate how I might choose to use said car once I take "ownership". Do you see the kit car industry getting brow beat by Ford or GM for designs that require specific engine types? So, do engines not contain intellectual property?

Like I said, if Apple wants absolute control over how an end user must use OSX then they need to make it a lease. Only then does it take care of the ownership issue.

Uhh, yeah BMW does have control what you do to the car even when bought outright. Modify a car and they can void your 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!

[Darkroom]

I hope if I ever become bankrupt I am back on my feet so quickly.

it's easy, you just need to find some mystery investor who is desperate not to be named as an investor if you go bankrupt

[xIGmanIx]

Hardly. How is Apples "intellectual property" different than any other product that requires "intellect" to create? Thats like saying BMW can sell me a car, but dictate how I might choose to use said car once I take "ownership". Do you see the kit car industry getting brow beat by Ford or GM for designs that require specific engine types? So, do engines not contain intellectual property?

Like I said, if Apple wants absolute control over how an end user must use OSX then they need to make it a lease. Only then does it take care of the ownership issue.

I think this speaks more and more to the idea of total ownership going to the wayside. Especially in the digital age, ownerships isn't absolute anymore, which i think is the few ruining it for the masses but in the end, consumers and companies both lose.

[dejo]

Hardly. How is Apples "intellectual property" different than any other product that requires "intellect" to create? Thats like saying BMW can sell me a car, but dictate how I might choose to use said car once I take "ownership". Do you see the kit car industry getting brow beat by Ford or GM for designs that require specific engine types? So, do engines not contain intellectual property?
Software (and other "soft" goods) and manufactured products have different laws covering what you can and cannot do with them. Going to the old "car analogy" proves nothing, other than your ignorance in this subject.

[designaholic]

idiots, they will be filing for bankruptcy again soon. :apple:

[sbarton]

Let me just say this... If you've ever tried building a hackingtosh with specs you think are VERY close to actual Apple hardware (same graphics, broadcom Wifi, etc), you'll quickly notice the theory of "generic" drivers to be a bad one. 2 examples come to mind... Though OSX does have drivers for many Broadcom chipsets, it doesn't mean all will work. Same can be said for Marvell Ethernet controllers... Or trackpads!! Though there are often ways to get unsupported hardware working, it's a real pain, and not always possible (those Marvell ethernet controllers were a dead-end).

so the trouble isn't in what you know about, it's in the little things you assume won't be a problem. For those there can be hundreds and hundreds of potential issues.

Yeah but 90% of the driver issue you refer to aren't really "technical" issues. Most of those examples have issues because they don't get a vendor match at the BIOS level, not because the drivers won't work.

[mac jones]

edit because i'm lost

[rorschach]

I'm not stating Apple should release OS X for other machines as Microsoft. I am stating that perhaps selling a "Mac Pro" desktop system that is cheaper may (unlikely) force Apple's hand into producing an actual desktop processor system. As for cost, Apple literally has billions of dollars burning a hole in its pocket, I doubt this lawsuit will hurt them financially.

No I know you weren't, I'm just saying that those are ways in which Apple could be hurt, b/c you said it can't hurt.

[dreadkid08]

Its not "illegal" but it is against the EULA. The legality of the EULA was in dispute and the court case didn't finish.

I don't see how a company as tiny as Psystar is can be seen to be "picking" on Apple. More like the other way around tbh.

Who was the idiot claimed they should write their own OS? Thats completely missing the point, and not as easy as you seem to think it is. If you want to see Apple's real attitude to Open Source look at the OpenDarwin project which shutdown because they felt it was "a mere hosting facility for Mac OS X related projects". There's another project and its command line only.

A healthy internet requires a diversity of operating systems to prevent the easy spread of viruses. Fact is, a large proportion of internet users simply can't afford Apple's prices, and aren't technically minded enough to install Linux. Apple should be forced to license their OS and then we would see if the Apple experience of tightly integrated harware and OS is really all its fans think it is. Let other manufacturers make their own machines, and let the customer decide if they want to pay for Apple's "high grade" hardware or hardware that just does its job.

There would be no OS X without Apple's hardware sales. You wanna make Apple license their OS you can kiss that OS good bye. They make money by selling Macs not by selling OS X

[tbrinkma]

No, you pay money for a copy of OS X that comes with certain restrictions from Apple as to what you can do with it. If you don't agree, don't purchase it.

When I purchased my copy of OS X I agreed to all restrictions which were presented prior to the *sale*. (That is, those actually present in copyright law.)

Uhh.... when you buy OS X you agree to the EULA.... So no, you may not do what you please with OS X.

I bought my own copy of Leopard at the local Apple store, and did not see the EULA until several *days* after the sale took place. You cannot (legally) modify the term of a sale after the fact without the consent of both parties. Because I did not agree to the terms of the EULA, I cannot be bound by those terms. Therefore, I am left with the rights allotted to my by copyright law, which include the right to make any copies and/or adaptations necessary to *use* the software. This is exactly what Psystar is doing.

What if Ford wanted to use Chevy's Small Block V8 and GM said no, but Ford went ahead and bought the Small Block and sold it in the Mustang.... I think GM would be suing Ford......

If they did, they'd lose. Once Ford buys the engine, it belongs to Ford, and Ford can do with it what they please. (Now, reproducing the engines would likely cause Ford to run into patent issues, but that's a different matter entirely.)

Very likely, Chevy would make a killing being able to charge Ford the after-market price for an engine, and then go ahead and use the obvious superiority of their engines as a selling point in their ads.

[danny_w]

Link is not working (merged?).

[LaDirection]

Shame Apple whacked up their margins so high on the Mac Pro. Until March you could buy nor build the specs of the Mac Pro anywhere else for less.


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).

Macs are incredible cheap for the level of hardware offered.

[leandromp]

for 1,499 i just get a mac, easier to buy, apple's warranty, etc.

they won't last long.

[petedskier]

Because Mac OS X exists to sell Mac hardware. Someone buying OS X and then running off and buying a PC doesn't benefit Apple, it actually costs them more money. For them to officially support this, they would have to spend massive amounts of money on developing drivers, etc. for thousands of different configurations, as well as much more money on support costs.

All of that for something that doesn't even bring them much profit. In fact, you'd likely see the price of OS X go UP, not down, because of that, in order to cover the increased costs for the software development.

So Apple would gain a sale, but they'd be losing money unless costs SOMEWHERE went up. And OS X would probably become less stable all around because of all the extra drivers, etc. needed.

Hardware company? Check the Apple store, iWork, Final Cut Pro, etc., are software programs.

The sole issue is whether Apple can use its EULA to limit purchasers to Apple branded hardware. It does not mean Apple must support non-Apple branded hardware unless they chose to do so.

[rorschach]

I bought my own copy of Leopard at the local Apple store, and did not see the EULA until several *days* after the sale took place. You cannot (legally) modify the term of a sale after the fact without the consent of both parties. Because I did not agree to the terms of the EULA, I cannot be bound by those terms. Therefore, I am left with the rights allotted to my by copyright law, which include the right to make any copies and/or adaptations necessary to *use* the software. This is exactly what Psystar is doing.

Um, actually you could have read them just fine right here:

http://www.apple.com/legal/

And according to the "Sales Policies" linked there:

"Note that, as an exception, you may return Apple branded software within the 14-day return period, and not be subject to a restocking fee, if you do not agree to the licensing terms, provided you do not retain any copies, including copies stored on a computer or other device. However, if your software includes a license that you can read before you break the seal or sticker on the software media packaging, you may not return the software once you break the software media packaging seal or sticker."

[sbarton]

Uhh, yeah BMW does have control what you do to the car even when bought outright. Modify a car and they can void your 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!

Voiding the warranty is alot different than telling me I cant drive the car anymore don't ya think?

Nothing unethical about buying a product and doing with it as I wish. Your trying to make it an ethics issue when it really is a consumer rights debate. Seems like your the one that is confused.

[Artofilm]

Competition is great, but there is a reason they are less expensive...

[djellison]

How is 12 gigabytes of DDR3 RAM only a $170 add-on? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Because that's what it should ACTUALLY cost.

You DO know that Apple charges 3x too much for Ram and HDD upgrades, right?

[-hh]

If you pay for a piece of software you own it and should be able to use it as you see fit.

Agreed, if what your purchase contract said that you were purchasing the Full and Unlimited rights.

And for the right price price, they'll even include the source code too.


Hardly. How is Apples "intellectual property" different than any other product that requires "intellect" to create? Thats like saying BMW can sell me a car, but dictate how I might choose to use said car once I take "ownership". Do you see the kit car industry getting brow beat by Ford or GM for designs that require specific engine types? So, do engines not contain intellectual property?

Try an analogy with a book, or a CD with a song on it. When you spend $15 to purchase either one, are you also buying the rights for you to make unlimited copies that you have a right to redistribute, etc?

Like I said, if Apple wants absolute control over how an end user must use OSX then they need to make it a lease. Only then does it take care of the ownership issue.

That's effectively what they're doing when they sell you a license _of_ the product.


Software (and other "soft" goods) and manufactured products have different laws covering what you can and cannot do with them. Going to the old "car analogy" proves nothing, other than your ignorance in this subject.

Simplistically, the reason why IP protection laws exist is because the product's value is in the "abstract" in a medium that is easy/cheap to copy once the successful-in-the-marketplace variation has been identified. Thus, the IP laws provide the book publisher from protection from having the printing press next store run off their own copies, etc.

The basic reason why the old car analogies fail on this one is that it takes a far greater expense set up all the tooling to copy a BMW engine than merely to photocopy its blueprints, which represents a higher natural barrier to competition through the inappropriate "apporpriation" of a mechanical design.


-hh

[rorschach]

Hardware company? Check the Apple store, iWork, Final Cut Pro, etc., are software programs.

The sole issue is whether Apple can use its EULA to limit purchasers to Apple branded hardware. It does not mean Apple must support non-Apple branded hardware unless they chose to do so.

They are software programs that drive sales of Mac hardware. Just like iTunes/the iTunes Store are meant to drive iPod and iPhone sales.

There's no reason why Apple should not be able to use a license agreement to do that. There's plenty of competition; nobody is preventing Psystar from creating an operating system and selling it on their computers to compete with Apple.

[djellison]

Macs are incredible cheap for the level of hardware offered.

Are you drunk?

[windywoo]

Wow... just wow. Thats about the lamest and most idiotic thing I have ever read... which is a talent I must commend you on. You have officially raised the bar for the position of mayor of stupidville.

Apple should be forced to license its OS?? Why on earth should a company be forced to sell it's product in a manner other than it sees fit to. Too bad for the people that can't afford Apple products. That is not Apple's fault. And if they are too non-tech savvy to install Linux than that is also their own laziness and problem. They could always hire a consultant to do it for them if they don't want Windows but cant afford Mac systems. While we are talking about forcing companies to sell products cheap for the masses lets start with car companies. I cant afford $80k for a Hummer but they are much safer and better utility vehicles so I should have the right to own one at the price I can afford right? That's your logic isn't it? After all if more people were driving safer vehicles that's better for the road system since it means less fatal accidents. Or how about we start forcing Ferarri to sell their engines to GM and Toyota since their engines are far superior products and well people should have the right to choose which engine they want in their car right?

And your comment about the person who suggested they create their own OS is completely wrong. If Psystar wanted to compete with Apple that is what they would have to do. And you are right. It is not easy and it is not cheap to do. But that's what competition is and that is what makes companies produce products. Why should Psystar make any profit off of Apple's research and development. Apple wrote their own OS and they support it. They spend the cash and should be the ones reaping the benefit of it.

Basically you are promoting a system where hey if the product is a benefit to the public it should be ripped from the company that produced its' hands and made available to people to install however they want to ensure it is affordable to all. Guess what. That thinking will lead to an industry where no one develops anything new and beneficial because no company will be willing to fork over money for charity basically since if it is a revolutionary or superior product it will be taken for them and forcibly sold cheap.

So stop being cheap. You want Apple quality products save up and buy them and stop trying to get the government to help you rip off the company that put the effort and money to develop it.

Typical Apple fan using the word cheap as a criticism, as if people on lower incomes should shut up and accept their place. I notice you suggest that people who can't afford Windows hire a consultant to install Linux for them, completely eliminating the benefit of Linux free nature, and costing more than Windows anyway. Apple inflate their prices ridiculously, their margins are well above average for a PC manufacturer, and well above what the actual hardware is worth. They use their OS to sell underpowered hardware for more.

We aren't talking car engines here, where there are parts to be made and those have a cost, we are talking an operating system, which is easy to reproduce and install. Apple's products should be cheaper, full stop. And btw I do think most "luxury" items have an exorbitant price tag and these bastards should be forced to reduce their prices too.

The car industry is not a valid comparison here anyway, since cars cannot become infected with viruses and there is a far greater diversity of products there. But if you want to take that analogy, what if there were many cars but 97% of them used the same engine, and that engine had flaws but it was the only engine apart from one other. Then someone came along and polluted the petrol for those engines so the engines started breaking down. Wouldn't you then think the people who made the other engine should be forced to make that engine run in other cars?

Big greedy companies often have to be forced to do whats best for a technology in the long run, not just whats best for their profits in the short run.

[sbarton]

Software (and other "soft" goods) and manufactured products have different laws covering what you can and cannot do with them. Going to the old "car analogy" proves nothing, other than your ignorance in this subject.

Proves everything. Your ignorant.

See I can do that too. :)

[myamid]

Are you drunk?

he's not... if you compare it to comparable models (not with budget models), they usually compare favorably to Dell or HP...

[bedifferent]

Big greedy companies often have to be forced to do whats best for a technology in the long run, not just whats best for their profits in the short run.

I agree, but tell that to the Pharmaceutical companies. Just replace "technology" with "medicine", and bam, there ya go. I wish it were that simple. :o

[mactonight]

Uhh.... when you buy OS X you agree to the EULA.... So no, you may not do what you please with OS X.

What if Ford wanted to use Chevy's Small Block V8 and GM said no, but Ford went ahead and bought the Small Block and sold it in the Mustang.... I think GM would be suing Ford......

I agreed to no such EULA when I purchased OS X. One was presented to me after I had already purchased it, though. According to the Uniform Commercial Code, a post-sale contract cannot be forced on me. Unfortunately, courts have consistently decided against consumers in such situations, because corporations' lobbyists have convinced them that we did not really buy anything at all, we merely licensed it. What if, *after* you bought a Chevy, GM told you that you must only buy GM-branded accessories for it, or you must return the vehicle with a 15% restocking fee? You would laugh at them! Just because a company or person says something doesn't mean it is legal. Convincing the courts is another matter.


Also, check out the First Sale Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine). I'm pretty sure that if Ford legally purchased a GM engine, they could legally put it in a Ford vehicle. It would be stupid to validate a competitor's product like that, but they could do it.

[goodcow]

How is 12 gigabytes of DDR3 RAM only a $170 add-on? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Because they're not using Apple's fantasy math for hardware pricing?

[sbarton]

Try an analogy with a book, or a CD with a song on it. When you spend $15 to purchase either one, are you also buying the rights for you to make unlimited copies that you have a right to redistribute, etc?

Simplistically, the reason why IP protection laws exist is because the product's value is in the "abstract" in a medium that is easy/cheap to copy once the successful-in-the-marketplace variation has been identified. Thus, the IP laws provide the book publisher from protection from having the printing press next store run off their own copies, etc.

The basic reason why the old car analogies fail on this one is that it takes a far greater expense set up all the tooling to copy a BMW engine than merely to photocopy its blueprints, which represents a higher natural barrier to competition through the inappropriate "apporpriation" of a mechanical design.
-hh

I agree with your points, but no one suggested using the products and not paying for them nor copying them to resell for profit. To my knowledge PsyStar didn't do that either, but because they preloaded and resold (even if it was at the exact price) I'm not going to argue on their behalf because in that scenario there are other trade issues to contend with.

[rorschach]

I agreed to no such EULA when I purchased OS X. One was presented to me after I had already purchased it, though. According to the Uniform Commercial Code, a post-sale contract cannot be forced on me. Unfortunately, courts have consistently decided against consumers in such situations, because corporations' lobbyists have convinced them that we did not really buy anything at all, we merely licensed it. What if, *after* you bought a Chevy, GM told you that you must only buy GM-branded accessories for it, or you must return the vehicle with a 15% restocking fee? You would laugh at them! Just because a company or person says something doesn't mean it is legal. Convincing the courts is another matter.

You most certainly can read the EULA before you buy:

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/

And you can return it if you disagree:

http://www.apple.com/legal/sales_policies/retail.html

"you may return Apple branded software within the 14-day return period, and not be subject to a restocking fee, if you do not agree to the licensing terms, provided you do not retain any copies, including copies stored on a computer or other device"

[petedskier]

Um you really do not seem to understand hardware. There are thousands of products they would have to include support for drivers for and millions of configurations that would be possible. You can not sell a operating system for a non closed hardware platform without considering all the different vendors. You list creative labs sound cards as an example. Do you know how many different brands of sound cards are out there? And yes a lot of them will use similar drivers but you can not as a company pick and choose. If your product is going to work on a clone that allows people to pick whatever brand they want you have to support EVERY brand or face anti-trust violations since you can not say "only supports creative labs sound cards". It would be the equivalent of Microsoft releasing the next version of Windows and saying only works on AMD processors. They would be in court so fast your head would still be spinning. You write off PCI cards and such without realizing that yes the drivers do come from the company that makes those cards but the average consumer is not going to see that when they install that card and their system crashes, they will call the OS manufacturer because they don't think of the individual cards. If Apple releases for general PC market the quality of the OS will end up the same as Windows because they will have to make it to be stable with thousands of drivers and configurations (and we have seen how wonderful Microsoft has been able to do that) and they will have to deal with calls from customers who don't realize that just because it can be installed in their computer running OS X doesn't mean that Apple has anything to do with it. After all if its a popular item surely Apple would have people trained in it.

This is a good analysis of the business decisions that Apple must face. As an alternate (assuming Psystar wins the right to sell OS X), Apple could simply state they only support Apple branded hardware. If you buy Brand X and put a Brand Y peripheral in it, who would be so naive to think Apple would support it? It is true that sales of those peripherals would decline greatly. In fact, Apple could essentially kill third party development. Killing third party peripherals would also hinder sales of Apple hardware. However, that would simply be part of the choices Apple must make all the time.

[jzuena]

Palm made iTunes think the Pre is an iPod, so I'm guessing it probably won't be all that tough for Prystar to fool OS X...at least until Apple releases a patch to fix it.

Palm has the advantage of employing actual engineers, some of which used to work for Apple.

[NoNameBrand]

Seeing how Macs have a chip that the OS scans to look for when booting up, Psystar will have to do something to OS X in order to remove that coding or trick it to think the chip is there, but is not.

There's no such thing. The original Intel Mac dev kits used Intel's Trusted Computing chip, but the production Macs didn't, and after the first group of Intel Macs, the chips aren't even included anymore.

If you mean EFI, that's Intel's replacement for BIOS that the rest of the PC industry could be using but isn't.

[dreadkid08]

Typical Apple fan using the word cheap as a criticism, as if people on lower incomes should shut up and accept their place. I notice you suggest that people who can't afford Windows hire a consultant to install Linux for them, completely eliminating the benefit of Linux free nature, and costing more than Windows anyway. Apple inflate their prices ridiculously, their margins are well above average for a PC manufacturer, and well above what the actual hardware is worth. They use their OS to sell underpowered hardware for more.

We aren't talking car engines here, where there are parts to be made and those have a cost, we are talking an operating system, which is easy to reproduce and install. Apple's products should be cheaper, full stop. And btw I do think most "luxury" items have an exorbitant price tag and these bastards should be forced to reduce their prices too.

The car industry is not a valid comparison here anyway, since cars cannot become infected with viruses and there is a far greater diversity of products there. But if you want to take that analogy, what if there were many cars but 97% of them used the same engine, and that engine had flaws but it was the only engine apart from one other. Then someone came along and polluted the petrol for those engines so the engines started breaking down. Wouldn't you then think the people who made the other engine should be forced to make that engine run in other cars?

Big greedy companies often have to be forced to do whats best for a technology in the long run, not just whats best for their profits in the short run.

That which is worth having is worth working/saving up for

[Nicolasdec]

Its so obvious that Dell and Michael Dell are behind Psystar. Its well know that Steve J and Michael Dell dont get along well. Its a win for Dell if they are allowed to have OSX on their ****** machines. And if they loose, its not their problem because they are not officially pushing for it.

Lets just hope that Apple can find the link between Psystar and Dell, and then slam Dell with a very expensive legal team.

[FlintAlt2]

Awesome for Psystar! This is about the same level of competition as when Steve Jobs stole Xerox's graphical user interface.

I think you have mistaken "stole" with "bought for an undisclosed amount".

[TurboSC]

hahaha, applesauce. They've got some balls :)

[sterlingindigo]

:confused:

[Anuba]

he's not... if you compare it to comparable models (not with budget models), they usually compare favorably to Dell or HP...
It depends. In the 'weird form factor' categories, i.e. SFF (Mac Mini), all-in-ones (iMac) and ridiculously thin portables (MacBook Air), companies like Dell and HP are trying to get a piece of the premium action by offering mediocre hardware in a "sexy" (everything's relative...) disguise.

But if you look at Mac Pro -- which is what PsyStar are targeting here -- you can get a Dell Precision with the same specs for 50-60% of the price of a Mac Pro. Especially if you throw in some useful BTO options and 3 year warranty. The price gap grows even more if you live outside the U.S, because Apple have jacked up their international prices like crazy over the last 7-8 months, but Dell haven't.

Apple deserve a big fat kick in the teeth and their eyeballs ripped out for their unwarranted ripoff pricing on the Mac Pro. PsyStar's comeback may not be enough, but it's a good start.

[Eidorian]

Its so obvious that Dell and Michael Dell are behind Psystar. Its well know that Steve J and Michael Dell dont get along well. Its a win for Dell if they are allowed to have OSX on their ****** machines. And if they loose, its not their problem because they are not officially pushing for it.

Lets just hope that Apple can find the link between Psystar and Dell, and then slam Dell with a very expensive legal team.I'd back off from that conspiracy.

There's no such thing. The original Intel Mac dev kits used Intel's Trusted Computing chip, but the production Macs didn't, and after the first group of Intel Macs, the chips aren't even included anymore.

If you mean EFI, that's Intel's replacement for BIOS that the rest of the PC industry could be using but isn't.MSI should have a few boards that support EFI now after a BIOS update of course. :rolleyes:

Typical Apple fan using the word cheap as a criticism, as if people on lower incomes should shut up and accept their place. I notice you suggest that people who can't afford Windows hire a consultant to install Linux for them, completely eliminating the benefit of Linux free nature, and costing more than Windows anyway. Apple inflate their prices ridiculously, their margins are well above average for a PC manufacturer, and well above what the actual hardware is worth. They use their OS to sell underpowered hardware for more.

We aren't talking car engines here, where there are parts to be made and those have a cost, we are talking an operating system, which is easy to reproduce and install. Apple's products should be cheaper, full stop. And btw I do think most "luxury" items have an exorbitant price tag and these bastards should be forced to reduce their prices too.

The car industry is not a valid comparison here anyway, since cars cannot become infected with viruses and there is a far greater diversity of products there. But if you want to take that analogy, what if there were many cars but 97% of them used the same engine, and that engine had flaws but it was the only engine apart from one other. Then someone came along and polluted the petrol for those engines so the engines started breaking down. Wouldn't you then think the people who made the other engine should be forced to make that engine run in other cars?

Big greedy companies often have to be forced to do whats best for a technology in the long run, not just whats best for their profits in the short run.The high prices lead to the perception of prestige and entitlement. The same goes for what others think of Mac users.

[mdriftmeyer]

you can get a quad core nehalem mac pro for $1499?

Ok...

It's the 2.66GHz Quad-Core Xeon Nehalem W3520 (Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem 2.66GHz Bloomfield).

Thermal Power Design (TPD) is 130W.

BFD.

The Mac Pro is the Intel Xeon X5550 Nehalem 2.66GHz. That CPU alone costs one > $1k.

Thermal Power Design is 90W.

[Durendal]

It depends. In the 'weird form factor' categories, i.e. SFF (Mac Mini), all-in-ones (iMac) and ridiculously thin portables (MacBook Air), companies like Dell and HP are trying to get a piece of the premium action by offering mediocre hardware in a "sexy" (everything's relative...) disguise.

But if you look at Mac Pro -- which is what PsyStar are targeting here -- you can get a Dell Precision with the same specs for 50-60% of the price of a Mac Pro. Especially if you throw in some useful BTO options and 3 year warranty. The price gap grows even more if you live outside the U.S, because Apple have jacked up their international prices like crazy over the last 7-8 months, but Dell haven't.

Um, no. Try speccing out an identical model (or as close as you can get). The Dell is a little cheaper, but 50-60%? You're doing it wrong. Make sure you're getting Nehalem Xeons and not earlier Xeons with a 1333/1600 FSB.

On top of that, anyone who buys a Hackintosh server/workstation for serious, mission-critical work (which is generally why people pay extra for Xeons) is an utter moron. Psystar can't hold out forever. Apple is going to squash them, like it or not. There goes your support. Oops, you sure as hell can't get support from Apple, either.

[Eidorian]

It's the 2.66GHz Quad-Core Xeon Nehalem W3520 (Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem 2.66GHz Bloomfield).

Thermal Power Design (TPD) is 130W.

BFD.

The Mac Pro is the Intel Xeon X5550 Nehalem 2.66GHz. That CPU alone costs one > $1k.

Thermal Power Design is 90W.The X5550 is the dual socket one though. The prices on those are killer compared to the single socket processors.

[nick9191]

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).

Macs are incredible cheap for the level of hardware offered.

Dell Precision, 2.66ghz Quad Nehalem comes at around $2800. Thats $300 more than a Mac Pro, however it also comes with a Quadro and much more RAM expandability (8gb vs. 48gb).

I'm not denying that the Mac Pro is well stacked up against Dell. That doesn't change the fact that Apple (and Dell) are making a ridiculous (well over 100%) profit margin. And since the new Psystar tops out at $2000 for better than Mac Pro specs (double memory, tb hdd), then "The Mac Pro is BY FAR the cheapest" is wrong isn't it.

And this all started with the nehalem models. The old harpertown models were extremely well priced. $2799 would get you dual 2.8ghz quad xeons (dual processor, each processor cost >$700 each). Now $2499 gets you a single quad, which costs <$400. So >$1400 worth of processors, down to <$400, yet the machine is only $300 cheaper. Is it still faster? Yes. But going by the old pricing, we should be looking at the dual quad 2.66ghz model for around $2999, instead of it's current $4699.

[Eidorian]

Apple is competitive in the dual socket Xeon space. Anything with a single socket you're better off getting elsewhere. This has been the case since the original Mac Pro.

[Bregalad]

Only one FW400 port as standard? Fail.

Seriously though, hooray for competition!

Because the single FW800 port offered by Apple's similarly priced desktop is SO much better than having 4 internal HD bays, two optical bays and PCIe slots for upgradeable video and the addition of virtually any interface you want.

[mactonight]

You most certainly can read the EULA before you buy:

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/

And you can return it if you disagree:

http://www.apple.com/legal/sales_policies/retail.html

"you may return Apple branded software within the 14-day return period, and not be subject to a restocking fee, if you do not agree to the licensing terms, provided you do not retain any copies, including copies stored on a computer or other device"

Able to read it, yes. Agreed to it when I bought it, most certainly not.

The restocking fee was part of a hypothetical car EULA, but it's not like a 14-day qualifier refutes the fact that a potential restocking fee does exist.

By replying to this post, you agree to address me as "The Most Awesomest and Always Right mactonight." :)

[smartalic34]

I bought my own copy of Leopard at the local Apple store, and did not see the EULA until several *days* after the sale took place. You cannot (legally) modify the term of a sale after the fact without the consent of both parties. Because I did not agree to the terms of the EULA, I cannot be bound by those terms. Therefore, I am left with the rights allotted to my by copyright law, which include the right to make any copies and/or adaptations necessary to *use* the software. This is exactly what Psystar is doing.

Pleading ignorance is not a legal defense. The EULA is attached to the use of the product. This assumes the EULA is legally binding, which a court will decide...

Dell Precision, 2.66ghz Quad Nehalem comes at around $2800. Thats $300 more than a Mac Pro, however it also comes with a Quadro and much more RAM expandability (8gb vs. 48gb).

I'm not denying that the Mac Pro is well stacked up against Dell. That doesn't change the fact that Apple (and Dell) are making a ridiculous (well over 100%) profit margin. And since the new Psystar tops out at $2000 for better than Mac Pro specs (double memory, tb hdd), then "The Mac Pro is BY FAR the cheapest" is wrong isn't it.

And this all started with the nehalem models. The old harpertown models were extremely well priced. $2799 would get you dual 2.8ghz quad xeons (dual processor, each processor cost >$700 each). Now $2499 gets you a single quad, which costs <$400. So >$1400 worth of processors, down to <$400, yet the machine is only $300 cheaper. Is it still faster? Yes. But going by the old pricing, we should be looking at the dual quad 2.66ghz model for around $2999, instead of it's current $4699.

just a minor point... Apple's overall profit margin is ~34%. Yes, it is high on the Mac Pro, but far fewer of these machines are sold.

One must remember that there is no price at which Macs HAVE to be sold. If Apple is selling well at current prices, then obviously they are operating at a nice point on the demand curve. If you think it's too expensive, then it's simple, don't buy it. You want Mac OS X, you pay the price Apple has deemed appropriate for its machines. If I want a PS3 but it's too expensive, it doesn't mean I can't get a console. It's just that I have to get a different, cheaper one, like the Wii. You don't want to pay for a Mac? Get a Windows or Linux machine.

Apple only sells retail versions of Mac OS X to allow current users to upgrade. Imagine if Apple made upgrading online, software-based only...

[kingtj]

You do stand a chance of getting a somewhat *close* price if you bid on used systems on eBay - actually. Regardless, the point is, if you buy the real Apple system, you're in the clear legally-speaking. You bought the whole thing from the people who actually MADE the operating system, instead of from somebody who feels they should have the right to resell said OS without the permission of the rights-holders, and is doing so despite pending legal actions against them in court.

I'm not sure it's such a great deal, owning a Psystar machine that stands a pretty good chance of becoming unsupported in the next year or two.


you can get a quad core nehalem mac pro for $1499?

Ok...

[Anuba]

Um, no. Try speccing out an identical model (or as close as you can get). The Dell is a little cheaper, but 50-60%? You're doing it wrong. Make sure you're getting Nehalem Xeons and not earlier Xeons with a 1333/1600 FSB.
Um, yes. I always make sure to get the exact same CPU model. BTW, I said the Dell costs 50-60% of what the Mac costs, I didn't say it was 50-60% cheaper.

Mac Pro 2.93 GHz quad (Nehalem Xeon W3540)
OS X 10.5.7
6 GB RAM 1066 MHz DDR3
2x NVidia GT120 512 MB
2x 1 TB 7200 RPM hard drives
1x Superdrive
3Y AppleCare

SEK 42,900 incl. VAT (USD 5,500)

(Double-check the price by configuring one here (http://store.apple.com/se_smb_65756/configure/MB871S/A?mco=NDE4NDM0OA). It's in Swedish obviously, but you'll recognize the options)

Dell Precision T3500 2.93 GHz quad (Nehalem Xeon W3540)
Vista Ultimate 64-bit
6 GB RAM 1066 MHz DDR3
2x NVidia Quadro FX580 512 MB
2x 1 TB 7200 RPM hard drives
1x 16X DVD+/-RW
3Y warranty included in price

SEK 27,816 incl. VAT (USD 3,566)

(Configure here (http://configure.euro.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?b=&c=se&cs=sebsdt1&kc=D4XT3501&l=sv&oc=W05T3501&rbc=W05T3501&s=bsd). Note that the prices are ex. VAT while Apple's are incl. VAT, so you need to add 25% to the price on the Dell, like I did)

So, the Dell costs 64% of what the Mac Pro costs. The Quadro cards are better than the old GT120's, but I'll throw that in as compensation for losing the aluminum case and the FW800 ports.

I could stop there, but I know from experience that Dell's prices are very much negotiable. The last time I ordered from them, the business sales rep gave me over 10% off on the two machines I bought. They weren't on sale or anything, they just love giving rebates if you call them instead of ordering online. So make that SEK 25,000 for the Dell T3500.

I haven't tried haggling with Apple, but I have a hunch it wouldn't do any good.

[Andrew Henry]

Its so obvious that Dell and Michael Dell are behind Psystar. Its well know that Steve J and Michael Dell dont get along well. Its a win for Dell if they are allowed to have OSX on their ****** machines. And if they loose, its not their problem because they are not officially pushing for it.

Lets just hope that Apple can find the link between Psystar and Dell, and then slam Dell with a very expensive legal team.

Seriously I almost spit out my drink when I read this nonsense. Are you high? :rolleyes:

And if Dell is so ****** why doesn't your beloved Apple have a bigger market share then Dell ?

[Nermal]

I do just wish that Apple would take the easy way out. Produce a motherboard with no CPU or RAM that fits in a regular case, bundle a licensed copy of OS X with it, and let the savvy users build up their own systems based on that board. Why is that so hard? :confused:

[dieselpounder]

Just Ordered two, can't wait to get my hands on the Rack-mount

[RebootD]

I'd never buy one but I always like to root for the underdog. :D

But yeah anything that could possibly force Apple to make something expandable but not starting at nearly $3k (like my $800 overpriced Quad MP) I'd be a future happy-camper.

[RebootD]

I do just wish that Apple would take the easy way out. Produce a motherboard with no CPU or RAM that fits in a regular case, bundle a licensed copy of OS X with it, and let the savvy users build up their own systems based on that board. Why is that so hard? :confused:

Amen to that! Let the rest of us who know how to build computers have a cheaper DIY option for cheaper. (Just like in the windows world).

[Durendal]

Um, yes. I always make sure to get the exact same CPU model. BTW, I said the Dell costs 50-60% of what the Mac costs, I didn't say it was 50-60% cheaper.

Mac Pro 2.93 GHz quad (Nehalem Xeon W3540)
OS X 10.5.7
6 GB RAM 1066 MHz DDR3
2x NVidia GT120 512 MB
2x 1 TB 7200 RPM hard drives
1x Superdrive
3Y AppleCare

SEK 42,900 incl. VAT (USD 5,500)

(Double-check the price by configuring one here (http://store.apple.com/se_smb_65756/configure/MB871S/A?mco=NDE4NDM0OA). It's in Swedish obviously, but you'll recognize the options)

Dell Precision T3500 2.93 GHz quad (Nehalem Xeon W3540)
Vista Ultimate 64-bit
6 GB RAM 1066 MHz DDR3
2x NVidia Quadro FX580 512 MB
2x 1 TB 7200 RPM hard drives
1x 16X DVD+/-RW
3Y warranty included in price

SEK 27,816 incl. VAT (USD 3,566)

(Configure here (http://configure.euro.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?b=&c=se&cs=sebsdt1&kc=D4XT3501&l=sv&oc=W05T3501&rbc=W05T3501&s=bsd). Note that the prices are ex. VAT while Apple's are incl. VAT, so you need to add 25% to the price on the Dell, like I did)

So, the Dell costs 64% of what the Mac Pro costs. The Quadro cards are better than the old GT120's, but I'll throw that in as compensation for losing the aluminum case and the FW800 ports.

I could stop there, but I know from experience that Dell's prices are very much negotiable. The last time I ordered from them, the business sales rep gave me over 10% off on the two machines I bought. They weren't on sale or anything, they just love giving rebates if you call them instead of ordering online. So make that SEK 25,000 for the Dell T3500.

I haven't tried haggling with Apple, but I have a hunch it wouldn't do any good.

I don't know what kind of prices you're getting, but speccing a base model Precision 3500 comes out to just under $2k. However, take into account that the Precision 3500 doesn't have ANY kind of Firewire unless you toss in the $50 card, does not come with Bluetooth (or even a BTO option for it!), no optical audio options, and one ethernet port, then you're looking at further upgrades and a couple of occupied PCIe slots to get a closer equivalent. About the only thing the Dell has going for it is the Quadro, but we're looking at a lower-end Quadro in the base model. Even without that, the Dell is still not 50-60% cheaper by a long shot. I don't know what things are like in the Swedish store, but the US store doesn't show that at all.

That and it looks like you went for the build with the widest difference in price. It seems that the prices are closer with any other basic configuration, especially if you shoot for a dual CPU rig. In fact, a dual 2.26ghz quad Xeon Dell is only a few hundred shy of a Mac Pro with the closest specs.

[smartalic34]

I do just wish that Apple would take the easy way out. Produce a motherboard with no CPU or RAM that fits in a regular case, bundle a licensed copy of OS X with it, and let the savvy users build up their own systems based on that board. Why is that so hard? :confused:

because there would always be the idiots who put in the wrong CPU or screw something up. then it takes away from the aura of the :apple:Mac Experience:apple::D (I'm suggesting Apple's thinking, not mine)

apple is all about providing the entire ecosystem, which is what makes their products so appealing. most of their users don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of doing their own systems. I see exactly where you're coming from and agree to a point, but you represent a miniscule minority that Apple doesn't see as part of their agenda. I'm guilty of this as well, but it's hard to remember that informed communities like MacRumors represent a very small fraction of the total potential and actual Mac user base.

[nick9191]

just a minor point... Apple's overall profit margin is ~34%. Yes, it is high on the Mac Pro, but far fewer of these machines are sold.

One must remember that there is no price at which Macs HAVE to be sold. If Apple is selling well at current prices, then obviously they are operating at a nice point on the demand curve. If you think it's too expensive, then it's simple, don't buy it. You want Mac OS X, you pay the price Apple has deemed appropriate for its machines. If I want a PS3 but it's too expensive, it doesn't mean I can't get a console. It's just that I have to get a different, cheaper one, like the Wii. You don't want to pay for a Mac? Get a Windows or Linux machine.

Apple only sells retail versions of Mac OS X to allow current users to upgrade. Imagine if Apple made upgrading online, software-based only...
On the old Mac Pro the margins were also around 30%. Apple knows its pro market will stick, so they can bump up the margins to what they like. Then again, now that a Mac Pro costs the same as a PC, Apple have left their pro software (FCS, Aperture) in the dark ages, Windows 7 is looking good, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of professionals move.

Would I still buy a Mac Pro? Yes, it's priced well in comparison to its competitors, plus OS X is worth a lot to me. I'm still going to moan about its shortcomings however.

[igorleandro]

They're buying copies of OS X.....how is that giving nothing in return?

Hehe, ok, so, instead of a combo hardware + software where Apple can profit from both, they could just sell the software... riiiiight... Hey wait! Someone already did that on the market! Yes, and the software costs 3 times what a Mac OS X costs... it is buggy, unstable, hum....

Where is the deal here again?

[iAlexG]

old news. Go Apple!!!!

[Flynnstone]

I find this all a bit amusing because of the parallel to how Steve Jobs got started.

[dejo]

I do just wish that Apple would take the easy way out. Produce a motherboard with no CPU or RAM that fits in a regular case, bundle a licensed copy of OS X with it, and let the savvy users build up their own systems based on that board.
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?

[markm49uk]

Awesome for Psystar! This is about the same level of competition as when Steve Jobs stole Xerox's graphical user interface.

What a load of crap - why don't you read up on this stuff before posting ?

If you did look up how Apple worked with Xerox you would see how foolish you sound. I quote from Steve Wozniak - from a question regarding the film Pirates of Silicon Valley:

Q From e-mail: Did Apple "steal" the GUI from Xerox (at PARC), or did they develop it themselves? And a personal question; how do you think the MacOS is better than Windows? What about MacOS X (any future?)? Sorry to be intrusive, but I am naturally inquisitive, and I figure if anyone would know the answers to these questions, it would be you. Thanks for your time. John

WOZ: Apple worked with Xerox openly to bring their developments to a mass audience. That's what Steve portrayed Apple as being good at. Xerox got a lot of Apple stock for it too, it was an agreement.

Microsoft just took it from Xerox or Apple or whomever. It took them a long time to get it halfway right.

I just hope Apple wipes them out sooner rather than later.

[NoSmokingBandit]

Well there nothing if not persistent. I think Apple legal will take them down soon enough though.

I thought Apple was going to take them down a year ago?
:confused:

Im not a fan of Psystar, maily because they dont give credit to the fellows that actually make this possible, but i kinda respect what they are doing. They arent afraid to stand toe-to-toe with a giant corporation, and that takes balls.

[dejo]

I find this all a bit amusing because of the parallel to how Steve Jobs got started.
Really? How's that? The Apple I and II had OSes that were "purchased" off-the-shelf? :confused:

[ocyrus]

I just cant wait to see what Apple Does.
Although I do care that Apple is abel to continue supporting pure hardware and software together.

Hell, I wouldnt care if they only sold OSX with a machine. I agree with everyone using the fine jewelry or fashion as an analogy.

[Eidorian]

because there would always be the idiots who put in the wrong CPU or screw something up. then it takes away from the aura of the :apple:Mac Experience:apple::D (I'm suggesting Apple's thinking, not mine)I don't think the people that would be buying it would be the ones to make those kinds of mistakes.

[MidiMonk]

Great news, I fully support Psystar and their wild applesauce escapade.We need choice and better offerings.Apple is way too high on their Iphone horse right now, with 10.5.7 a mess, phones overheating , and MBP's cheapened lets get something new for once.Clones are not bad when put in perspective.People can still buy the Ikea based Apples if they want and feel all superior while others can buy more utilitarian machines for their needs.Win Win

[killerrobot]

The courts will decide if what Psystar is doing is legal or not. They're the experts in IP.
For me personally, I could careless. It's cheaper, but if they go under you lose support. Who knows, when I start looking for another computer they might be an option.

As far as the EULA goes, in my opinion, it takes away from consumers' rights.
It reminds me a lot of credit card companies that used to be able to raise interest for no reason at all until government stepped in a few months ago finally trying to protect the consumer.

[*LTD*]

This is perfect. Now Apple can bury them, no excuses, and no premature bow-outs by Psystar.

[Anuba]

I don't know what kind of prices you're getting, but speccing a base model Precision 3500 comes out to just under $2k. However, take into account that the Precision 3500 doesn't have ANY kind of Firewire unless you toss in the $50 card, does not come with Bluetooth (or even a BTO option for it!), no optical audio options, and one ethernet port, then you're looking at further upgrades and a couple of occupied PCIe slots to get a closer equivalent.
If you look at the prices I got, you'll find a $2,000 discrepancy. Your list of trinkets there is worth $200 at best. I can't even begin to explain how many firewire 800 PCIx cards, advanced audio cards and additional Ethernet ports I can get for $2K. I can get a friggin' MacBook Pro 15" 2.66 w/ 9600M for the difference in profit margin between Dell's W3540 and Apple's W3540. For the difference in profit margin!

About the only thing the Dell has going for it is the Quadro, but we're looking at a lower-end Quadro in the base model. Even without that, the Dell is still not 50-60% cheaper by a long shot. I don't know what things are like in the Swedish store, but the US store doesn't show that at all.
I didn't say it was 50-60% cheaper. I said it costs 50-60% of the Mac. I've explained that twice already. What the US store shows is irrelevant to me since I don't live there. I gave you the Swedish links so that you can check the prices for yourself. The argument I made was that not only are Apple charging busloads of money more for the same components, they've also added an extra ripoff tax for the international market, something that Dell hasn't done. Obviously you're not going to see that in their US stores.

That and it looks like you went for the build with the widest difference in price.
No. The build I went for is the one I would get if I ordered one, since that's the most relevant example to me. If I wanted the widest possible difference I would have gone for a fully decked out configuration, since Apple charge much more for CTO options that Dell do (e.g. Dell wants SEK 4,425 for upgrading from 2.66 GHz to 2.93, Apple wants SEK 5,350). I could easily work up a $3,000 difference that way.

It seems that the prices are closer with any other basic configuration
It most certainly doesn't. If you start looking at basic configurations the difference becomes even more jarring since the Mac starts at mid-level and goes up from there, while the Dell starts at rock bottom -- the cheapest T3500 I can possibly get costs SEK 9,500 ($1,217), the cheapest MP I can possibly get costs SEK 26,995 ($3,460). They're by no means comparable, but you did say 'basic configurations'...

[Durendal]

On the old Mac Pro the margins were also around 30%. Apple knows its pro market will stick, so they can bump up the margins to what they like. Then again, now that a Mac Pro costs the same as a PC, Apple have left their pro software (FCS, Aperture) in the dark ages, Windows 7 is looking good, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of professionals move.

Would I still buy a Mac Pro? Yes, it's priced well in comparison to its competitors, plus OS X is worth a lot to me. I'm still going to moan about its shortcomings however.
I doubt Apple will let this year go by without a substantial upgrade package for Final Cut Studio. I'd expect to see some very nice Grand Central and OpenCL optimizations where applicable, and hopefully we'll see Blu-Ray authoring support. I realize that Blu-Ray isn't hugely popular at this point in time, but Apple needs to dive into that sooner or later.

[BaldiMac]

Apple should be forced to license their OS and then we would see if the Apple experience of tightly integrated harware and OS is really all its fans think it is. Let other manufacturers make their own machines, and let the customer decide if they want to pay for Apple's "high grade" hardware or hardware that just does its job.

Should you be forced to give up the fruits of your labor as well?

Like I said, if Apple wants absolute control over how an end user must use OSX then they need to make it a lease. Only then does it take care of the ownership issue.

How is a lease different from a license in your context?

When I purchased my copy of OS X I agreed to all restrictions which were presented prior to the *sale*. (That is, those actually present in copyright law.)

I bought my own copy of Leopard at the local Apple store, and did not see the EULA until several *days* after the sale took place. You cannot (legally) modify the term of a sale after the fact without the consent of both parties. Because I did not agree to the terms of the EULA, I cannot be bound by those terms. Therefore, I am left with the rights allotted to my by copyright law, which include the right to make any copies and/or adaptations necessary to *use* the software. This is exactly what Psystar is doing.

First, courts in the US do not see it that way.

Second, in Psystar's case, even if that argument may apply for the first copy they installed, how can they claim to be ignorant of the terms of the license after that?

Voiding the warranty is alot different than telling me I cant drive the car anymore don't ya think?

Nothing unethical about buying a product and doing with it as I wish. Your trying to make it an ethics issue when it really is a consumer rights debate. Seems like your the one that is confused.

If becomes an ethics issue when you agree to the license.

just a minor point... Apple's overall profit margin is ~34%. Yes, it is high on the Mac Pro, but far fewer of these machines are sold.

Apple's gross margins are around 34%. Their profit margins are around 12%.

[gnasher729]

Ah...but now that they're out of bankruptcy, Apple can demand damages. Before, they'd have to get permission from the bankruptcy courts before getting any money out of Psystar. IMO, not a bright move by Psystar and it's silent partners. They should have waited to see what the results of the initial lawsuit. If they lose, they pay nothing. If they win, come out of bankruptcy and start making oodles of moolah.

Apple can _demand_ damages. Apple can demand lots of damages. As soon as a judge decides for Apple and it comes to paying, Psystar will be straight back to bankruptcy. But I'd just like to point out that the two biggest creditors to Psystar are one of its directors and its lawyers. So for creditor number one: Tough, that many is gone. For creditor number two: I am just curious who is going to defend Psystar in court against Apple.

[Durendal]

If you look at the prices I got, you'll find a $2,000 discrepancy. Your list of trinkets there is worth $200 at best. I can't even begin to explain how many firewire 800 PCIx cards, advanced audio cards and additional Ethernet ports I can get for $2K. I can get a friggin' MacBook Pro 15" 2.66 w/ 9600M for the difference in profit margin between Dell's W3540 and Apple's W3540. For the difference in profit margin!
Like I said, I'm not getting the same numbers that you are. The difference I'm seeing is maybe $1k with the trinkets. That almost hits your 60% difference.
I didn't say it was 50-60% cheaper. I said it costs 50-60% of the Mac. I've explained that twice already. What the US store shows is irrelevant to me since I don't live there. I gave you the Swedish links so that you can check the prices for yourself. The argument I made was that not only are Apple charging busloads of money more for the same components, they've also added an extra ripoff tax for the international market, something that Dell hasn't done. Obviously you're not going to see that in their US stores.
Again, as far as US markets are concerned, Apple isn't charged "busloads" more for components. International markets are a different thing. I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing the weak dollar is why Apple is cranking prices. They want to maintain margins. Dell doesn't seem to have the same problem with that. Maybe Apple should take a hint.
No. The build I went for is the one I would get if I ordered one, since that's the most relevant example to me. If I wanted the widest possible difference I would have gone for a fully decked out configuration, since Apple charge much more for CTO options that Dell do (e.g. Dell wants SEK 4,425 for upgrading from 2.66 GHz to 2.93, Apple wants SEK 5,350). I could easily work up a $3,000 difference that way.
Again, not what I'm seeing at all. Putting a Precision 5500 up to a dual 2.93 puts it at just about the same price as the Mac Pro. Other BTO options vary, but some are awful, like Dell only giving you hugely expensive RDIMMs above 6GB. Hard drive upgrades are a bigger ripoff than Apple as well. Hell, maxing them out makes the Mac Pro look even better.
It most certainly doesn't. If you start looking at basic configurations the difference becomes even more jarring since the Mac starts at mid-level and goes up from there, while the Dell starts at rock bottom -- the cheapest T3500 I can possibly get costs SEK 9,500 ($1,217), the cheapest MP I can possibly get costs SEK 26,995 ($3,460). They're by no means comparable, but you did say 'basic configurations'...
Pardon me, basic comparable configurations. I'm not going to compare a bottom-of-the-barrel cheapie with the low end Mac Pro.

Perhaps your point would be better if you said that the Mac Pro is more expensive in some international markets.

[corinhorn]

Apple should be forced to license their OS and then we would see if the Apple experience of tightly integrated harware and OS is really all its fans think it is.You should be forced to give us your hard earned money so that we can see if socialism is all it's hyped up to be.

[gnasher729]

Palm made iTunes think the Pre is an iPod, so I'm guessing it probably won't be all that tough for Prystar to fool OS X...at least until Apple releases a patch to fix it.

There is one enormous difference between Palm and Psystar. To see the difference, you have to read the license for the iTunes application, and the license for using the iTunes Music Store, just to be sure, and the license for MacOS X. Palm doesn't make any copies of iTunes, and the license for iTunes doesn't seem to mention anything that would make it illegal in the first place to use iTunes with a Palm Pre (it seems to me it might have been illegal to install music with DRM bought from the Apple Store on a Palm Pre, but first, it doesn't work anyway, and second, it doesn't matter much anymore. But the MacOS X license clearly says that copying MacOS X is illegal.

I can imagine that Apple isn't happy about what Palm is doing, but to prevent it, they would have had to take some legal measures earlier, exactly as they did with MacOS X.

Firstly, these are in no way meant to come across as flame-bait, they are genuine queries....

Why is this such a bad thing for apple really? Macs are (seen as) expensive, if 'customer A' cannot afford a mac they aren't going to buy one and therefore Apple gets no money. But if they can afford a cheaper machine which does the same job but for less money AND includes a fee for OSX then Apple would surely gain a sale they wouldn't have and be better off?

If enough people did this, would apple not potentially lower their prices accordingly, which would be better for us, the consumer?

From Apple's point of view, it seems you answered your own question. If anyone in the world does anything that forces Apple to lower their prices, whether legal or illegal, then this is very obviously a bad thing for Apple, really.

But what you really have to keep in mind is how competition works: There are dozens of big computer manufacturers in the world, all competing, all in their own way. Each of them tries to find its own way of competing. Dell for example tries to compete by building the worlds most efficient supply chain, getting the cheapest suppliers, building highly configurable computers and selling them directly without giving money away to resellers. Apple competes in a completely different way: Apple paid $400 million for NeXT and with that it got the first version of MacOS X; then it spent hundreds of hundreds of millions of dollars to improve that operating system.

Dell's strategy gives Dell certain advantages over Apple, just as Apple's strategy gives Apple certain advantages over Dell. This is Dell's and Apple's choice; obviously Apple could have done what Dell did, and Dell had enough money back in 2000 or 2001 or so to outbid Apple on the NeXT sale. But the important thing is: Competition only works when there are laws that protect the competing companies. For example, copyright law is there to give people or companies an incentive to create new works; in this case copyright law is what gives Apple the protection that nobody can copy their software except to Apple's conditions and with Apple's permission. Without that protection, you wouldn't have Dell copying MacOS X. You would have a world where Apple would have never created MacOS X.

[*LTD*]

The regular crew of the IP Law ignorati show up whenever there is Psystar news, and continue to display little no no knowledge of What IP law is and how Psystar's actions are not just wrong, but detrminetal to the entire industry, not to mention those that depend on the integrity of IP law in order to make a living.

Never mind that, let's talk about something as simple as the EULA. No one, that is, NO ONE, selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principal of the EULA. And that's just the EULA.

Psystar will lose, and lose big, if this does gor forward. And I'm going to love posting here in November to see the reactions of the IP Law ignorati. It'll be priceless.

[NYLawTalkingGuy]

"More information will be available in the coming days when we will be formally discharged by the Bankruptcy court"

Apparently, people have not read Psystar's release closely enough. It is still in bankruptcy. All it did was file a motion to dismiss its case. TOTALLY different thing then getting a discharge of debt through a bankruptcy. There is no discharge of any debt, and if the motion to dismiss is granted, there will be no discharge of any debt through the bankruptcy.

But, whatever. I'll continue to buy my Apple products, not knockoffs

[bobr1952]

Interesting, but over the 18 months I have owned my iMac, I really do see the benefits of matched hardware/software. I suppose there is a need by some to be able to buy something other than Apple hardware and be able to run OS-X but I also think there are a lot of folks like me who are happy to have something that works.

[Anuba]

International markets are a different thing. I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing the weak dollar is why Apple is cranking prices. They want to maintain margins. Dell doesn't seem to have the same problem with that. Maybe Apple should take a hint.
Yes, the USD has recovered a bit from its rock bottom value at the end of the Bush era, but not that much. Dell is an American company too. Apple must be using exchange rates that a pink Christina Aguilera monster whispered to Steve while he was under narcosis, I don't know where they're getting these numbers. It's not just the EU, I've heard the same complaints from Aussies, Kiwis and others.

It might have something to do with the fact that Dell's BTO machines are assembled in Ireland, while Apple's are assembled in China. I don't know. Either way, Apple's international sales must suck right now. Mac is like the Star Wars franchise, disproportionately successful on the home market. Internationally they're still struggling with a 3-4% market share, despite the recent Mac boom in the US.

Interesting, but over the 18 months I have owned my iMac, I really do see the benefits of matched hardware/software.
Depends on the OS manufacturer though. Windows 7 installed almost perfectly on my Mac (which Win7 certainly wasn't built for), the only stuff that wasn't correctly identified were the Realtek soundchip and the proprietary Apple stuff like the keyboard and trackpad. OS X, on the other hand, only ships with the handful of drivers required to work with Apple's hand picked components. I wouldn't say it's "better" matched, it's just that it isn't matched with anything else.

[dejo]

Either way, Apple's international sales must suck right now
"International sales accounted for 46 percent of the quarter’s revenue." (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/04/22results.html) I.E. they don't suck.

[Jack Flash]

I love my Hackintosh. 100% identical operationally to my old iMac, just well over twice as fast.

[kas23]

This is good news for the customer. Maybe our OS X netbook will be coming out after all.

[dukebound85]

Seeing how Macs have a chip that the OS scans to look for when booting up, Psystar will have to do something to OS X in order to remove that coding or trick it to think the chip is there, but is not.

um wrong. there is no such chip

[markm49uk]

Just Ordered two, can't wait to get my hands on the Rack-mount

Of course you did......

[Anuba]

"International sales accounted for 46 percent of the quarter’s revenue." (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/04/22results.html) I.E. they don't suck.
If 4.5% of the world's population accounted for 54% of the sales, and 95.5% of the world's population accounted for 46%, I'd argue that their international sales do suck.

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).

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.

[dukebound85]

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).

Macs are incredible cheap for the level of hardware offered.


for a workstation....not a desktop
Are you drunk?

he's not... if you compare it to comparable models (not with budget models), they usually compare favorably to Dell or HP...
i dont want a workstation, i want a desktop

and no, the imac is not a desktop in any form of the word

[markm49uk]

This is good news for the customer. Maybe our OS X netbook will be coming out after all.

Please explain why you think this is a good thing ????

[*LTD*]

Please explain why you think this is a good thing ????

LOL, it isn't.

And it's potentially horrible news for the industry at large.

[killerrobot]

The regular crew of the IP Law ignorati show up whenever there is Psystar news, and continue to display little no no knowledge of What IP law is and how Psystar's actions are not just wrong, but detrminetal to the entire industry, not to mention those that depend on the integrity of IP law in order to make a living.

Never mind that, let's talk about something as simple as the EULA. No one, that is, NO ONE, selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principal of the EULA. And that's just the EULA.

Psystar will lose, and lose big, if this does gor forward. And I'm going to love posting here in November to see the reactions of the IP Law ignorati. It'll be priceless.

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.

[BaldiMac]

If 4.5% of the world's population accounted for 54% of the sales, and 95.5% of the world's population accounted for 46%, I'd argue that their international sales do suck.

How about we at least stick to only counting people whose annual income is above the price of a Mac! :D And who live in a country where Macs are sold.

HP's international sales account for 68% of their revenue. One third US, two thirds international is a rather typical ratio.

Much more reasonable comparison.

[Cartoonkid]

Palm has the advantage of employing actual engineers, some of which used to work for Apple.

And how do we know that Prystar doesn't employ some disgruntled former Apple engineers? :eek:

[schalkse]

How about we at least stick to only counting people whose annual income is above the price of a Mac! :D And who live in a country where Macs are sold.

My income is not above the price of the mac i want. But that's does not stop me from buying one. ;)

[supmango]

*sigh*

Just die Psystar. Die. Apple can kill them can't they? How hard can this be?:confused:

Apple doesn't want to just kill them. They plan to exact revenge for all the revenue that has been lost, and all the legal fees they had to pay. I'm all for competition, but this is the wrong way to go about it. I would rather see competition in a version of Windows that can actually compete. This will only help to increase prices as more legal fees pile up. But I am sure it will be over soon.

[supmango]

And how do we know that Prystar doesn't employ some disgruntled former Apple engineers? :eek:

no doubt they do. whats your point?

[Cartoonkid]

There is one enormous difference between Palm and Psystar. To see the difference, you have to read the license for the iTunes application, and the license for using the iTunes Music Store, just to be sure, and the license for MacOS X. Palm doesn't make any copies of iTunes, and the license for iTunes doesn't seem to mention anything that would make it illegal in the first place to use iTunes with a Palm Pre (it seems to me it might have been illegal to install music with DRM bought from the Apple Store on a Palm Pre, but first, it doesn't work anyway, and second, it doesn't matter much anymore. But the MacOS X license clearly says that copying MacOS X is illegal.

Whoa! Slow down there, tiger. I'm not saying Prystar should be allowed to do it, and I fully support Apple squashing them like a bug.

All I'm saying that it shouldn't be hard for Prystar to fool OS X into thinking their hackintoshes are genuine Apple products, so that the OS will work...ala Palm and the Pre.

[nick9191]

and no, the imac is not a desktop in any form of the word
Strangely enough, the definition of a desktop doesn't stretch to it being upgradeable, or it being separate from its monitor. The iMac is a desktop, in every sense of the word. It is a personal computer, it sits on your desk.

[Cartoonkid]

no doubt they do. whats your point?

My point was to be funny/sarcastic. Dude, lay off the caffeine and take a breath. Not everybody here is posting flame-bait.

[quagmire]

Why are people even arguing about this anymore? Members here don't have any ethics( just look at the iPhone forum where people are trying to help others commit fraud because they feel Apple is screwing them over and that since they make billions in profits, they won't feel a thing.......).

[dukebound85]

Strangely enough, the definition of a desktop doesn't stretch to it being upgradeable, or it being separate from its monitor. The iMac is a desktop, in every sense of the word. It is a personal computer, it sits on your desk.

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

[markfc]

Only one FW400 port as standard? Fail.

Seriously though, hooray for competition!

Better than none on my Unibody MacBook!

[gnasher729]

um wrong. there is no such chip

That chip and its exact function are actually quite well documented by Amit Singh, who I believe is today the manager for MacOS X development at Google:

http://osxinternals.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/

[Xenious]

1. Apple makes high end desktop.
2. People want it on cheaper hardware.
3. Mom and Pop shop builds cheap hardware and pre-hacks it to run OS X
4. Mom and Pop shop goes Chapter 11
5. Mom and Pop shop re-opens with high end hardware pre-hacked to run OS X

What is the point when you can just go back to step one and have better hardware anyway????

[Eidorian]

1. Apple makes high end desktop.
2. People want it on cheaper hardware.
3. Mom and Pop shop builds cheap hardware and pre-hacks it to run OS X
4. Mom and Pop shop goes Chapter 11
5. Mom and Pop shop re-opens with high end hardware pre-hacked to run OS X

What is the point when you can just go back to step one and have better hardware anyway????You might want to take a look at number one again.

[dukebound85]

That chip and its exact function are actually quite well documented by Amit Singh, who I believe is today the manager for MacOS X development at Google:

http://osxinternals.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/

did you even read your link......


In the summer of 2006, when the Mac Pro was introduced, x86-based Macs stopped having onboard TPMs altogether.

Around the same time in 2006, I also wrote about kernel-level binary protection in Mac OS X. As that article explains, it is actually binary protection that ties Mac OS X to a specific class of hardware. The mechanism is partly implemented as a special-purpose virtual memory (VM) pager that is interposed between the kernel's higher layer and the vnode pager.

kinda supports my statement saying there is no such chip..

i never said there wasnt such a chip in the past but currently there is no such chip and it certainly isnt what hackintoshes have to get around today

[sn00pie]

What do you mean "up there with macs"? Mac Pro starts at $2499. You can't compare it to an iMac. It's a Nehalem Xeon based system... it runs circles around iMac. Heck, it runs circles around 3-4 iMacs.
The sad reality is that your right. Its a great bargain for $1499.

As for discussion in regards to the "chip". I heard that Snow Leopard will utilize this type of feature, so that it can only be run on legitimate Macs, so goodbye to hackintosh, is this true?

[nick9191]

it uses laptop components. so no, its not a desktop. its merely a mbp that isnt mobile
Again, the definition of a desktop does not specify in detail the components required. It sits on your desk, it's not portable, it has no battery, it can't be used on your lap. It's a desktop.

[gnasher729]

And how do we know that Prystar doesn't employ some disgruntled former Apple engineers? :eek:

I don't think anyone who is good enough in his profession to have been an Apple employee at some point in time would start with no-hopers like Psystar. Revenge is a weak motive; a paycheck every month is much stronger.

And it's not as if there are any secrets needed that only Apple employees would know to get MacOS X running on a non-Apple computer. You need some decent engineering, which people in the Hackintosh community have done, that is all.

[Jack Flash]

The sad reality is that your right. Its a great bargain for $1499.

As for discussion in regards to the "chip". I heard that Snow Leopard will utilize this type of feature, so that it can only be run on legitimate Macs, so goodbye to hackintosh, is this true?

Nope. Snow Leopard is running nicely on Hackintosh parts right now.

[dukebound85]

Again, the definition of a desktop does not specify in detail the components required. It sits on your desk, it's not portable, it has no battery, it can't be used on your lap. It's a desktop.

again. there is such a thing as dektop components vs laptop components vs worstation components

ill define a desktop by the components it uses

if i want laptop performance, ill buy a laptop

[Drag'nGT]

Psystar sells really good open OSX computers. I'd like to know what's inside a little more but they aren't giving out that info. Sorry Psystar, I don't need another desktop at the moment.

[gnasher729]

did you even read your link......



kinda supports my statement saying there is no such chip..

i never said there wasnt such a chip in the past but currently there is no such chip and it certainly isnt what hackintoshes have to get around today

I read the link. You only read the first few lines. To quote the article: "The key (actually, a pair of 32-byte values) comes from the System Management Controller (SMC). Unlike in the case of a TPM, accessing this key involves no cryptography, no random numbers, no hardware security—it's merely obfuscation. Just as you can use I/O Kit interfaces to retrieve motion sensor data and numerous other readings from the SMC, you can retrieve the key—no number crunching involved. You don't even need superuser privileges. In fact, assuming you know how to access hardware from user-space, a program to do this would be quite straightforward to write on Mac OS X—perhaps around 50 lines of C. "

Yes, there is a chip in each modern Apple Macintosh containing a 64 bit key that is needed to make some parts of the operating system work. It is not particularly well hidden; not hidden enough to keep any hacker from copying it, but hidden enough to make that a DMCA violation.

Psystar sells really good open OSX computers.
Since it is unlikely that Psystar has suddenly become a reseller for Apple Inc., could you try to give us any justification for your statement? I mean "really cheap" I could understand, as long as you exclude build quality and service and forget about that zero percent probability of getting warranty repairs, but "really good" and "open"?

[Cartoonkid]

I don't think anyone who is good enough in his profession to have been an Apple employee at some point in time would start with no-hopers like Psystar. Revenge is a weak motive; a paycheck every month is much stronger.

And it's not as if there are any secrets needed that only Apple employees would know to get MacOS X running on a non-Apple computer. You need some decent engineering, which people in the Hackintosh community have done, that is all.

You're joking, right? Do you think that Apple only employs rocket scientists and brain surgeons? I'm sure they've got their fair share of mediocre employees who would jump at the chance to make more money.

And it isn't just about revenge. Greed is a powerful motivator for some.

[dukebound85]

I read the link. You only read the first few lines. To quote the article: "The key (actually, a pair of 32-byte values) comes from the System Management Controller (SMC). Unlike in the case of a TPM, accessing this key involves no cryptography, no random numbers, no hardware security—it's merely obfuscation. Just as you can use I/O Kit interfaces to retrieve motion sensor data and numerous other readings from the SMC, you can retrieve the key—no number crunching involved. You don't even need superuser privileges. In fact, assuming you know how to access hardware from user-space, a program to do this would be quite straightforward to write on Mac OS X—perhaps around 50 lines of C. "

Yes, there is a chip in each modern Apple Macintosh containing a 64 bit key that is needed to make some parts of the operating system work. It is not particularly well hidden; not hidden enough to keep any hacker from copying it, but hidden enough to make that a DMCA violation.




let me point this out again

In the summer of 2006, when the Mac Pro was introduced, x86-based Macs stopped having onboard TPMs altogether.

in fact let me allow to contradict you with your own post

"The key (actually, a pair of 32-byte values) comes from the System Management Controller (SMC). Unlike in the case of a TPM, accessing this key involves no cryptography, no random numbers, no hardware security—it's merely obfuscation."

how you went from that to this (note the bold)

Yes, there is a chip in each modern Apple Macintosh containing a 64 bit key that is needed to make some parts of the operating system work. It is not particularly well hidden; not hidden enough to keep any hacker from copying it, but hidden enough to make that a DMCA violation.

is baffling

a key is not a TPM chip

the article even says clearly there has been no TPM chips since 2006

[Justinf79]

Hmm, Psystar comes with a 3-year warranty...but who's to say they'll be around that long to honor it? :rolleyes:

[Cartoonkid]

Hmm, Psystar comes with a 3-year warranty...but who's to say they'll be around that long to honor it? :rolleyes:

No kidding! Anybody who buys from them might as well consider their computer as having no warranty at all.

[PVguy]

"And what happens to Psystar when Apple stops selling full-install retail OS X boxes?

OS X already comes with every Mac, the only reason why you'd need a retail copy is to upgrade to a newer version. And Apple can simply sell upgrade-only discs for that and require your Mac serial number to upgrade."

And that is the easy way for Apple to end this, regardless of how the court case comes out. Apple put themselves in this pickle by selling full-install OS X packages at retail, and with NO external warning that they were "upgrade only." If they claim that now, they get in trouble for false advertising, so you may have noticed that they are not making that legal claim. ;)

And of course they switched to Intel chips, and commodity PC parts. The second side of the pickle. So you have an operating system that runs on PC hardware, and is available off the shelf, protected only by the EULA. And only one line in the EULA at that.

AND there are two court cases, Digidyne vs Data General, and Vernor Vs Autodesk that could imply that that line in the EULA is invalid and unenforcable. So here we are.

[nick9191]

again. there is such a thing as dektop components vs laptop components vs worstation components
Intel's mobile chips are branded as such because they are designed for use in systems that cannot support the heat and power requirements of a normal chip. These systems are normally laptops, hence the branding. If a manufacturer wants to use these chips in a desktop because of there heat and power properties, it doesn't become a laptop. It may use mobile components, but it's still a desktop. Not to mention the iMac uses a desktop hard drive, screen etc. I have yet to find a laptop with no battery, a 24" screen and a desktop hard drive.


ill define a desktop by the components it uses
Then your definition would be wrong.


if i want laptop performance, ill buy a laptop

Many desktops (and by desktop I mean your definition of a desktop) are slower than an iMac.

[MattInOz]

I think they must be hoping to hang on to the film rights after they go down in a blaze of glory.

[NoSmokingBandit]

As for discussion in regards to the "chip". I heard that Snow Leopard will utilize this type of feature, so that it can only be run on legitimate Macs, so goodbye to hackintosh, is this true?

Where did you hear this? It seems highly implausible because these ships would have to be in all x86 macs, before SL was in development.
Regardless, there is nothing in the world that cant be hacked. I see it all the time, when a company updates it stuff people run around in a panic thinking it cant be hacked, then a month later someone hacks it.

[dukebound85]

Then your definition would be wrong.


wrong. I am not computer illiterate and I know what a desktop entails.

[deconstruct60]

l
....
how you went from that to this (note the bold)
...


perhaps should have been looking at the part not in bold from the document.

The key (actually, a pair of 32-byte values) comes from the System Management Controller (SMC)




is baffling


Baffling is how the System Management Controller is not a "chip".
Your are fixated that TPM was Apple's control mechanism. That whole article is about how it
never was Apple's control mechanism. That the whole TPM spin that it was (or going to be) is a myth.



The bigger stumbling block is that Mac OS X needs EFI to boot up. Most PCs don't have it. Once you start to uncork that problem and jam EFI into the box, SMC/key solution is likely to slide right in. When the funky memory page probe comes through, trap it and send back the key. Have to do similar things for EFI.

It doesn't specially have to be that specific SMC chip, if can be trapped and redirected, but some chip has the data value to pass back when probed.

[gnasher729]

let me point this out again



in fact let me allow to contradict you with your own post



how you went from that to this (note the bold)



is baffling

a key is not a TPM chip

the article even says clearly there has been no TPM chips since 2006

There was a post by quagmire where he wrote: Seeing how Macs have a chip that the OS scans to look for when booting up, Psystar will have to do something to OS X in order to remove that coding or trick it to think the chip is there, but is not.

to which you replied:
um wrong. there is no such chip

The article that I linked to explains clearly and beyond any doubt that 1. There is no "TPM" chip in a modern Macintosh (which is irrelevant to this discussion), and that 2. There is a chip whose existence the operating system tests, exactly as I claimed. Nobody in this thread has every claimed the existence of a TPM chip in Macs, so when you cite that article you don't disprove anything that anyone has actually claimed. The second part of the article makes it very, very clear that quaqmire's original statement was correct and your reply to it was incorrect.

To recount this:
Quamire said: "There is a chip".
You said: "There is no chip".
I said: "Here is a link to an article that says there is a chip".
Article says: "There is no chip of type A and anyone who claims it is stupid, but there is a chip of type B".
You say: "You didn't read the article, it says there is no chip of type A".

and so on.

I think you are concentrating too much on what you believe people are writing, and not what they _are_ actually writing.

[EarthDawn]

If I was Apple I would want to teach Plystar a lesson and set an example,,,

How ???

Well i dont know exactly but something on the lines of making there OS work only on Macs. Giving time moving forward to set the OS up with a way to make an upgrade that would lock down systems that were NOT operating on Macs. Meaning as people who had a Plystar did the newest updates to there OS X it would lock the the OS down :D


Hey its just a thought

[sheepopo39]

Damn, Pystar is getting as bad as SCO.

indeed, especially their lawsuits

[NoSmokingBandit]

Well i dont know exactly but something on the lines of making there OS work only on Macs. Giving time moving forward to set the OS up with a way to make an upgrade that would lock down systems that were NOT operating on Macs. Meaning as people who had a Plystar did the newest updates to there OS X it would lock the the OS down :D


They did this back in Tiger, right when osx86 was taking off. Apple sent out an update that broke hackinstosh installs. A week or two later it was fixed and everyone could update. The next day apple released another update. A little while later it was hacked, and everyone was back to normal. There is nothing apple can do to stop this. They can try, but why would the spend a ton of time/money on a security system that will inevitably be broken, especially considering how many incredibly talented people there are in the hackintosh scene.

Apple may stop Psystar, but the can never stop the individuals. I have 2 hacs at my house, i installed leo on my friend's laptop, and i plan on building another soon (if i can sell one of my current rigs). I dont car either way if Psystar dies, because one company is not the face of a hacking community, the nameless individual is.

[myamid]

for a workstation....not a desktop



i dont want a workstation, i want a desktop

and no, the imac is not a desktop in any form of the word

Frankly, I've owned a G5 Powermac several years (as a desktop...). Slightly expensive as a desktop I agree, but that's not it's market. But you know what, after 3 years, I had only upgraded the RAM and I was starting to contemplate either updating the GFX card or buying a new computer. In the end, as a desktop, I realized that the benefits I got from having an upgradable tower were practically non-existant. Macs are so well equiped out of the box that that I have trouble justifying updates. In then end, I ended up buying a new iMac a little over 2 years ago, and again juste upgraded the RAM.... So the money I saved was quite worth it ;)

So I disagree, the iMac is a great desktop. the clunkiness of a tower really can't be justified just for the sake of upgrades. I think apple's got it's product mix right.

[Bregalad]

apple is all about providing the entire ecosystem, which is what makes their products so appealing. most of their users don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of doing their own systems. I see exactly where you're coming from and agree to a point, but you represent a miniscule minority that Apple doesn't see as part of their agenda. I'm guilty of this as well, but it's hard to remember that informed communities like MacRumors represent a very small fraction of the total potential and actual Mac user base.

I agree that the build-your-own market is insignificant, but the consumer priced desktop market is still huge.

When Apple started their Intel migration the market for standard desktop towers was several times the size of the entire OS X market. Apple decided they didn't want to sell towers except to "pros" and have stood by that decision even though it could have dramatically increased the number of switchers.

Today the demand for desktops is dropping, although I still believe a powerful desktop plus a handheld is the best possible computing combo, so Apple has less incentive to produce a desktop computer than they had in 2006. However, leaving an easily filled hole in their lineup has opened up the specter of commercial cloners like Psystar. Even a victory in US court won't stop cloners from operating in other countries. As we're seeing, Psystar has moved beyond simply filling the consumer desktop hole to actively targeting Apple's most valuable customers, those buying Mac Pros.

I am shocked that Steve Jobs didn't see this day coming. After all, Power Computing was doing the same thing back in 1997 when Steve rejoined Apple. They actually had to compete against Apple whereas Psystar and the other cloners today have been handed an entire market category so they could get a running start. Had Apple simply turned off it's arrogance engine for a few minutes and shipped a boring desktop tower, none of this would be happening.

I would gladly pay the usual Apple premium but they simply don't make what I want.

[Mark Booth]

The "fake mac" is much faster than the iMac. It is about on par with the Mac Pro, which is thousands more (for a comparable system). The iMac uses a mobile Core 2 Duo processor compared to the quad core "fake mac" or Mac Pro.

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

[Hugh]

Just Ordered two, can't wait to get my hands on the Rack-mount

You actually bought two of their computers? :eek: If Apple wins the case you will get no support or warranty. Not to mention that Apple is asking Psystar to buy back all the systems they sold. :confused:

Hugh

[albusseverus]

Psystar have been going easy on Apple, so far. What if they made a product Apple's customers have been demanding, like a mini-tower or a netbook? Apple has repeatedly and publicly stated that they are not interested in these customers.

Apple needs to think differently on this one. If they don't want these customers, let Psystar sell Apple's software to an untapped market. Apple is under no obligation to support other manufacturer's hardware. Let Psystar handle support for Psystar's customers. Neither should Apple impede other manufacturers if they are creating additional markets for Apple software.

Apple is totally anti-DRM when they're selling other people's intellectual property (music for example). How about they take their own advice? The entire industry should be behind Psystar and ensure this one gets to court. Free the majority from Windows' monopoly. "Would you like Vista or Mac OS with that?" After buying crap hardware and seeing how good Mac OS is, the next computer they will buy will be from the best manufacturer - Apple.

As Steve Jobs told the music industry - removing DRM is good for everybody.

[Anuba]

You actually bought two of their computers? :eek: If Apple wins the case you will get no support or warranty. Not to mention that Apple is asking Psystar to buy back all the systems they sold. :confused:

Hugh
Based on my experience with AppleCare I'd happily take a computer with no support or warranty. The PsyStar would basically have to MELT before the total cost of purchase + repairs surpasses the price of a Mac Pro + 3Y APP.

[Tallest Skil]

Not to mention that Apple is asking Psystar to buy back all the systems they sold.

Except that that won't happen because people won't sell.

[bruinsrme]

You actually bought two of their computers? :eek: If Apple wins the case you will get no support or warranty. Not to mention that Apple is asking Psystar to buy back all the systems they sold. :confused:

Hugh
Pure FUD, sorry
No support or warranty? :rolleyes:
First apple has to win the case (years down the road)
Second Psystar has to buy back all the computers they sold, laughable again (not if they go bankrupt.

[Bregalad]

Frankly, I've owned a G5 Powermac several years (as a desktop...). Slightly expensive as a desktop I agree, but that's not it's market. But you know what, after 3 years, I had only upgraded the RAM and I was starting to contemplate either updating the GFX card or buying a new computer. In the end, as a desktop, I realized that the benefits I got from having an upgradable tower were practically non-existant. Macs are so well equiped out of the box that that I have trouble justifying updates. In then end, I ended up buying a new iMac a little over 2 years ago, and again juste upgraded the RAM.... So the money I saved was quite worth it ;)

So I disagree, the iMac is a great desktop. the clunkiness of a tower really can't be justified just for the sake of upgrades. I think apple's got it's product mix right.

The iMac is a weak desktop with low performance parts, no ability to change/upgrade anything except RAM to extend its lifespan and a lock-in to a display that should last twice as long as the computer it's attached to if it didn't have defects like uneven backlighting and mirror-like gloss.

I've owned over a dozen desktop Macs since 1992. I've upgraded the internal hard drive and RAM in every one of them, sometimes several times, changed video cards, upgraded processors and even overclocked a few. My current G5 has been upgraded the least of all, currently using its third and fourth hard drives, but that's because processor upgrades have been non-existent, lack of a technology like OpenCL has meant I haven't needed a better video card and I've spent all my upgrade money on a second Mac for my kids.

With the advent of Snow Leopard I'm looking for an Intel based desktop, but there is nothing besides the Mac Pro offering the ability to upgrade the hard drive(s). The iMac is still using a dual core processor and is therefore slower than a lot of two year old hackintosh machines. In fact my next Mac might very well be one of those 2007 era hackintoshes because the friend who owns one is moving to a Core i7 based machine.

For a used hackintosh that cost less to build than the entry level iMac to still be outperforming the entire iMac lineup two years later should embarrass Apple, but that emotion doesn't exist in Cupertino.

[Bregalad]

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

What are you adding to the clone to get it to cost $2000? Adding FireWire 800, BlueTooth, iLife, iWork and a wired keyboard and mouse only takes the total to $1709.

On the flip side the clone comes with twice as much RAM and a bigger hard drive than the Mac Pro. Adding those plus iWork (included with iLife on the clone) brings the total to $2798.

The "equivalent" Apple machine costs $1089 more than the clone.

[deconstruct60]

Apple is totally anti-DRM when they're selling other people's intellectual property (music for example). How about they take their own advice?
...
As Steve Jobs told the music industry - removing DRM is good for everybody.

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.

What folks who hack the kernel are doing is close to someone tweaking someones music ( inject a small sample of something else) and then resell that as music. Apple isn't down with that on other folks music. Neither are they down with that for their own IP.

If sell a machine that boots EFI and kicks out the magic cookie/code then Mac OS X will boot. If folks sold that and let end users buy Mac OS X, Apple probably would be miffed but pretty quiet.

Reselling a modified Mac OS X for your own purposes and bundled with a machine is where they will be after you like bloodhounds.

As Apple grows in Market share the fact that they are leaving somewhat significant niches open is annoying to some consumers. However, if folks who buy dongles and/or native EFI PCs install , use unmodified Mac OS X, and don't call Apple for support..... they probably won't complain too loudly at the Mac OS X retail sales increases. Just don't provide a holistic solution.

If consumer Windows ever went EFI and PC vendors went EFI in a big way then Apple would be pushed into a corner. For inertia reasons though BIOS is stuck in the loop. That's why hacks like BootCamp if tilting toward Windows and EFI-kits if titling toward Mac OS X are needed.

There are increasing BIOS motherboards with USB dongles on the so that can direct boot into VMWare ESXi , Zen , Hyper-V, etc. from a flash. Similar mechanism can be used to enable a Mac OS X boot even if EFI doesn't become pervasive.

Likewise if Apple just more deliberatively ported to some standard VMs wouldn't be a big deal either. That has nothing to do with DRM and the OS.
since the virtual VM is standard hardware Mac OS X would be decoupled. Kicking Apple in the shins on that front would expose whether they are being hypocritical or not. The spin is that the standardized hardware brings benefits. Virtual machines are standardized.

[dnguyen]

i didn't expect them to take this direction towards xeon based systems

[roski11]

The graphics chips are meh.Doesn't make me want to jump on it.

[Firefly2002]

beginning at $1499? the prices are right up there with macs...why not just buy a mac?

Ummm.. yeah there's tons of Xeon-based $1500 macs... get a clue.

[mdriftmeyer]

Based on my experience with AppleCare I'd happily take a computer with no support or warranty. The PsyStar would basically have to MELT before the total cost of purchase + repairs surpasses the price of a Mac Pro + 3Y APP.

You must be the disgruntled prick that is outside the norm.

I bought the iBook G4 14" with Apple Care. I received a new LCD display, logic board, HDD, CD-Rom Drive and all was covered inside the Apple Care. Two returns to Apple each returned within 5 business days.

The system sits as a 4th system on a drafting table running 10.4.11 just fine with me adding a 120GB Drive and 1.5GB RAM.