Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer

[WannaGoMac]

For those who think Macs are so much more expensive than competitors, see this side-by-side comparison. Compared spec to spec, macs are not more expensive. True, you can buy a really cheap computer from Dell, but it's going to give you really cheap performance. Besides, once you customize your Dell, or other cheap computer, to have some decent specs, it is going to cost you the same as a Mac.

I know, Apple's RAm is costly, but you can upgrade RAM in Macs easily without affecting the warrantee of the computer. Therefore consumers can choose from where to purchase RAM.

Some people want Apple to make a cheap tower, but the average consumer doesn't need the advantages that a tower brings. Remember, Apple wants to make money. If they could make money on a cheap tower, they would do it.

Nice try. Perhaps you can help me argue when people I try to switch to macs go to Best Buy where they get a perfectly usable Vista PC for $400, and the cheapest Mac on display is $1100. That's a lot of money. $400 may not be the "latest" but it does everything people want to do.

 

[gkarris]

I can compare the bottom line computers...

Mac Mini $599
Intel 1.83GHz core 2 duo processor
80 GB 5400rpm SATA hard drive
1 GB Memory installed
Intel GMA 950 graphics processor
Combo drive (Reads DVD's / Writes CD's)

Psystar Open $614
Intel 2.4GHz core 2 duo processor
250 GB 7200rpm SATA hard drive
2 GB memory installed
GeForce 7200GS 256 MB installed
Built in DVD writer

Does the price of the Psystar include OS X and iLife, Firewire port?

 

[oban14]

I can compare the bottom line computers...

Mac Mini $599
Intel 1.83GHz core 2 duo processor
80 GB 5400rpm SATA hard drive
1 GB Memory installed
Intel GMA 950 graphics processor
Combo drive (Reads DVD's / Writes CD's)

Psystar Open $614
Intel 2.4GHz core 2 duo processor
250 GB 7200rpm SATA hard drive
2 GB memory installed
GeForce 7200GS 256 MB installed
Built in DVD writer

Apple could sell the Psystar Open for 1000 and do incredibly well.

 

[thulsmans]

it sounds as though that people want a tower to enterchange apple parts with other better cheaper parts...

one of the reasons that mac's run so great is because they are specifially designed for their hardware configurations. this is also a downfall of XP and Vista. Os's can run on different hardware but it sucks

 

[BenRoethig]

What's next - a Psychstar iPhone clone?

Unlikely, there isn't an iPhone class that Apple has chosen to ignore. The same cannot be said of some desktop and server classes.

 

[englishman]

Best as I can tell, people want to simply accept whatever Steve Jobs and Apple choose to do as the best possible course of action despite any amount of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Guarantee you that if they announce a mid-tower tomorrow all the fanbois will be talking about how "brilliant" and "amazing" it is to see such great hardware, and how Apple is ahead of the curve again.

Its called Cognitive Dissonance - ie their thoughts justify the previous decisions they've made - otherwise they'd realise what sheep they are.

 

[jlblodgett]

Does the price of the Psystar include OS X and iLife, Firewire port?

It includes the OS X install DVD.

No firewire built in the Open Computer. Doesn't look like any wireless built in, either. There are options for those items. (It does come with Ethernet)

Of course, the Mac Mini doesn't have the open slots / open bays for expansion, either.

 

[BenRoethig]

it sounds as though that people want a tower to enterchange apple parts with other better cheaper parts...

one of the reasons that mac's run so great is because they are specifially designed for their hardware configurations. this is also a downfall of XP and Vista. Os's can run on different hardware but it sucks

I thought Mac users were smart enough to not believe that myth. That only differences between "Mac" hardware and "PC" hardware are ROM chips on the motherboard. The rest is all the same.

 

[jlblodgett]

it sounds as though that people want a tower to enterchange apple parts with other better cheaper parts...

one of the reasons that mac's run so great is because they are specifially designed for their hardware configurations. this is also a downfall of XP and Vista. Os's can run on different hardware but it sucks

You mean to tell me that Apple gets specialty hard drives, DVD drives, RAM, processors, etc. for all their computers?!?!

No wonder they are so pricey! Every Apple computer (even the base model) is a custom built machine.

 

[farmboy]

Lawyers don't use wikipedia for case law

For all future referance to MONOPOLY:


1. the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service : his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs.
• [usu. with negative ] the exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something : men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love.
• a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service : areas where cable companies operate as monopolies.
• a commodity or service controlled in this way : electricity, gas, and water were considered to be natural monopolies.

These definitions are completely subjective and have no legal basis.

 

[peejack]

Bye bye Psystar

 

[theanimala]

For those who think Macs are so much more expensive than competitors, see this side-by-side comparison. Compared spec to spec, macs are not more expensive. True, you can buy a really cheap computer from Dell, but it's going to give you really cheap performance. Besides, once you customize your Dell, or other cheap computer, to have some decent specs, it is going to cost you the same as a Mac.

I know, Apple's RAm is costly, but you can upgrade RAM in Macs easily without affecting the warrantee of the computer. Therefore consumers can choose from where to purchase RAM.

Some people want Apple to make a cheap tower, but the average consumer doesn't need the advantages that a tower brings. Remember, Apple wants to make money. If they could make money on a cheap tower, they would do it.

I disagree about the cost. You are comparing a specialized Dell system with the iMac. What a lot of people want is a mid priced, mid tower system without an integrated monitor. Just two weeks ago I bought a Dell Inspiron 530 Desktop with a 2.4Ghz Quad Core processor, 3GB ram, 500GB HD, Vista Home Premium for less then $450 shipped. I then bought a Radeon 4850 video card for another $150, and for $600 I have a SCREAMING system. That being said, I would LOVE to dual boot into OSX as well, and hopefully when there is drive support for the 4850, I will...

Before I get blasted, I do own a 24" iMac as my family machine and I love it. But I already have dual 20" monitors and could not afford a Mac Pro, nor would I pay the price for one when I can get the Dell mentioned above.

 

[stinkybeef]

Nice try. Perhaps you can help me argue when people I try to switch to macs go to Best Buy where they get a perfectly usable Vista PC for $400, and the cheapest Mac on display is $1100. That's a lot of money. $400 may not be the "latest" but it does everything people want to do.

Yeah, but people will also see that the cheaper computer has less specs.

 

[Wolfie Scooter]

Anti-Competitive Practices

I think some of the people using "monopoly" actually mean "anti-competitive".

Microsoft got in trouble here in the US and overseas for being anti-competitive, designing two separate products (Windows OS and Internet Explorer) to work together to the exclusion of competitors products.

Apple is engaging in anti-competitive practices by designing two separate products (Apple hardware and OS X software) to work together to the exclusion of the competitors products (Pystar hardware).

Apple's licensing agreement for OS X stating that it may only be installed on Apple's hardware is undeniably an anti-competitive practice.

 

[dbam987]

I think some of the people using "monopoly" actually mean "anti-competitive".

Microsoft got in trouble here in the US and overseas for being anti-competitive, designing two separate products (Windows OS and Internet Explorer) to work together to the exclusion of competitors products.

Apple is engaging in anti-competitive practices by designing two separate products (Apple hardware and OS X software) to work together to the exclusion of the competitors products (Pystar hardware).

Apple's licensing agreement for OS X stating that it may only be installed on Apple's hardware is undeniably an anti-competitive practice.

That is a great post. I bet Psystar's legal team is reading that now and working it into their legal statement. It would be funny if Microsoft threw in its lawyers into the fray to help out Psystar.

 

[Nichod]

Software alterations are difficult to sue on. It could be a simple and subtle alteration that is difficult to pin as copyright infringement. I've always found the closed OS concept as foolish. They could offer up OSX and allow it to be installed on any hardware and sell numerous copies. Just offer no support and label is as "as-is".

Personally, I hope we see some changes, I was a Mac owner for 2 months and the reliability of the Macbook I purchased was questionable. The computer was kept on my desk and treated like a gem. Within 1/2 a month the bezel was deforming around the screen, keys were showing wear and the wrist areas were already showing fading/discoloration. I'd love to use OSX, but not with Mac hardware.

 

[jbernie]

I can definately see the potential market for a mini tower offering from Apple.

I can also see the Apple needs to be very careful where it treads with the law suit, I would not be confident of it being a sure thing and even if they should win the lawsuit, there is the potential for a negative response from consumers towards Apple for shutting down the operation.

No doubt many in the industry will be watching this lawsuit quite closely.

 

[pointycollars]

I think some of the people using "monopoly" actually mean "anti-competitive".

Microsoft got in trouble here in the US and overseas for being anti-competitive, designing two separate products (Windows OS and Internet Explorer) to work together to the exclusion of competitors products.

Apple is engaging in anti-competitive practices by designing two separate products (Apple hardware and OS X software) to work together to the exclusion of the competitors products (Pystar hardware).

Apple's licensing agreement for OS X stating that it may only be installed on Apple's hardware is undeniably an anti-competitive practice.

Yes, however Apple doesn't get busted for anti-competitive practices because they don't control enough of the market share to be considered a monopoly. In fact, I would argue that Apple is even more anti-competitive than Microsoft, by a wide margin, because of how their products are designed to interact with one another so seamlessly.

I do believe that Apple will face the same kind of flack that Microsoft has taken if they continue to broaden their market share and step out of their niche market of people who have made the conscious decision to buy into their self-contained world of hardware and software.

 

[stinkybeef]

I think some are missing the point of my pricing point. You have to compare a Mac to a competitor spec for spec.

Same processor speed, same bus speed, same amount of cache, FireWire, communication, etc.

I wasn't suggesting that people should go buy an iMac and be happy with it, i was stating that when compariing computer prices, they should compare spec for spec.

 

[a456]

I'm surprised it has taken Apple this long to sue.

They needed to be pretty sure they were going to win, otherwise this opens the floodgates for further "hackintoshes" - in which case doing nothing would be better.

 

[Tallest Skil]

These definitions are completely subjective and have no legal basis.

So the definition of rape is subjective? A monopoly is a monopoly is a monopoly.

 

[DaBrain]

These definitions are completely subjective and have no legal basis.

Whatever!--))) Being that the word Monopoly was being thrown about I posted the definition from my iMac dictionary. Sorry if you don't like it but that's what it says. I have taken no stance here on this issue, I only quote the definition given by the built in iMac dictionary.

PS I always thought definitions meant something?--)))

 

[ChrisA]

Someone who? Hackers will do it, but companies can't if they're going to get sued and shut down.

Snowball's chance in hell. And if they won (which won't happen) Apple could just add hardware copy protection and shut them out.

Let's say Snow Leopard has something inside that checks for "hardware copy protection". My white iMac and my Mini and my G4 tower all lack this hardware so the check fails and Snow Leopard can't run. If Apple wants to support the hardware that is on sale today in their own store they can't add a hardware check.

I think it was Pysar's plan all along to get sued by Apple. No one is stupid enough to assume this would not happen. I think they actually want this to happen. Why? It's like buying a lotto ticket. Small chance of winning but it you win you win big. Pystar likely thinks they have a 1% chance but if they win then they can risk some serious R&D, funds, make a better computer and enter a billion dollar market.

The risks were are very uneven. Apple has a lot to loose (ability to keep Mac OS off clones) and little to gain (All they gain is equivalent to swatting a gnat) Pystar has a lot to gain and only a shoe string limited partnership company with near zero assets to loose. They have set themselves up in a rented building with no inventory or other product lines and I'm sure very little cash. Pystar is "law suit proof".

 

[HLdan]

The sheer number of people on mac forums asking for a mid-range headless Apple is pretty good evidence that there is a demand. I think the burden is on you to explain why it wouldn't make sense for Apple to offer this in spite of the fact that a lot of people want it, rather than on everyone else to justify to you why they want it.

I'm not arguing that a mid-tower product around the iMac's pricing wouldn't be ideal for some. This is about business, you are thinking like a consumer. The Mac mini needs a super upgrade with comparable specs if not better than the iMac but to make it a fully upgradable unit would cut into iMac sales. Again think about it from a business standpoint and not a customer.

Thought it may SEEM like a lot of people the amount of people on MR is a very small footprint of Mac users worldwide so I don't think the posters here are the confirmation that Apple needs to create a mid-range tower.

 

[Packbacker92]

Except for the fact that he's wrong on several counts. If people like you were using computers in the 70's, we'd still be on TRS-80s.

yeah and if we didn't have the slave trade 300 years ago then the United States would be all white. That is a pointless argument. Things have changed since the 70's. Things always change and that's how capitalism keeps moving forward. Regardless of whether right or wrong, the market is different now and Apple has the right to sue Psystar just as Psystar had the right to choose to distribute modified Apple software. Whether they are right or wrong is up the court, however, I think both companies have a strong argument.