Sorry but this time I hope that Psystar wins this round... Apple ought to be more accomodating of the Hackintosh crowd 
...
...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do any other old timers remember Ma Bell? If you wanted telephone service, you had to lease one of their phones.
Maybe this will "ring a bell" with some of you.
Does Apple have similar business practices, i.e., requiring the purchase of Product A with the use of Product B?
Maybe this will "ring a bell" with some of you.
Does Apple have similar business practices, i.e., requiring the purchase of Product A with the use of Product B?
So a book I marked up with notes and a highlighter can't be sold?
Do you know how absurd you sound?
Nor can it be rented, leased or inherited.
And how, exactly, is that different from what we have now with Apple-branded computer products?
Apple doesn't make computers for everybody. They may not offer a dozen different models, but they are doing quite well considering just how few options they offer in every market category they compete in.
At least straw has more substance then smoke...
I'm sure this is part of Apple's plan. They wanted the company to suffer as much as possible by waiting for them to put in all the capital necessary to putting these computers together, then they sue. So if the company loses, they will need to reembourse their customers and all their computers will be useless.
I'm saying the more legacy code there is the more chance there is for instability. Adding a completely different architecture only adds to the problem. As for the PowerPC code, just take a look at you extensions folder in the system library. There are plenty of Legacy PowerPC device drivers that have no use on a PowerPC machine. I don't think Intel machines needs GeForce2 drivers, support for ADB devices, or system drivers for K2 motherboards.
Since when can a book - even with notes in it, or a few pages torn out - not be inherited?
Honestly, this is not the Prius thread! You dont see me associtating DeLoreans with OS X do you?
Does it have a Flux Capacitor???
corywoolf said:
Even if Apple does have a monopoly, there's nothing illegal about having a monopoly. People get the wrong idea about this because Microsoft was sued for having a monopoly. It only gets illegal when you start to take advantage of the monopoly using illegal practices, such as what Microsoft was doing.
Also, just because Apple develops software (specifically an OS), doesn't mean they have to offer it to absolutely everything, every platform, etc. If develop your own OS, are you automatically obligated to make it available for every piece of hardware out there? Absolutely not! If Apple wants to make an OS for its own computers, they can absolutely do this without getting sued. There's nothing in the legal system that states that Apple has to offer its OS to every piece of hardware out there. If you look and find it somewhere on the internet, post it right here without a spin to it. Be my guest.....
We are talking about the future of Apple Computers here people. Do we really want Apple Computers to be "just another white box"? This is exactly what they'll end up being. Apple makes more than half its revenues/profits from its computers (mobile devices soon to take over most likely). This would be a serious financial hit for Apple if they're computer sales start to take a serious nosedive. Apple is protecting its product just like any company would do. Others have stated the advantages of buying an genuine Apple product over some cheap spinoff so I don't have to spell it out again.
look at what you just said. More double standard, more illogical biased love towards apple.
Isn't apple not reality distorted enough?
Apple's future? company's future is built upon honesty and healthy ecosystem, not upon deceptive tactics. Apple's future needs to be set by apple itself, not by you and me or whoever blindly giving money to it w/o thinking.
I for one won't give a cent more to apple until the day they lift the shackle on OSX and being honest in their PRs.
And why would you care if they add an activation unless you planned on pirating the software?
Well said. The reason I like Apple systems is the OS and the hardware. Is there better hardware, more durable, maybe a little better looking? Sure, but it's running Windows or something else [Linux? BLAH!]. It's a small sacrifice I make, and premium I pay for wanting a one stop OS/Laptop/Desktop that has good support and decent quality. Point? It's my choice. If I don't want to pay that, or I'm okay with using a different OS, then I can. It's not Apple's responsibility to please everyone. Face it, they have a solid following, strong financials, and solid sales. They don't need to do anything if they don't want. If you don't like it, go buy a DELL, HP, Lenovo, whatever, and be done with it...
And how, exactly, is that different from what we have now with Apple-branded computer products?
Apple doesn't make computers for everybody. They may not offer a dozen different models, but they are doing quite well considering just how few options they offer in every market category they compete in.
At least straw has more substance then smoke...
How would it be different than what we have now?
Well, rather than having three computer models (one of which is useless to anyone who already owns a monitor) someone could go out, buy an Apple approved motherboard, video card, ram, hard drive, and any case they'd like and build their own Mac.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly. It is the same as Microsoft's argument back then when they were being sued. MS argued that there are other choices in OS's, they were not the only one (Mac, OS/2, Unix, etc.), and it is not their fault if the majority of the public chooses theirs.
Since the argument is about the OS, and the different choices, Apple doesn't have a monopoly, you can even now put many other OS's on Macs themselves.
Apple can choose to write its own OS for its own computers than run only on them, and it is their right. If Joe Public doesn't like it, run something else on the Mac, or go get a different computer. There are choices.
If you don't like Apple, then leave and buy something else. Apple has always operated this way, so why is this such a surprise to people???
I don't like American cars; they're built crappy, look gaudy, and have no resale value. That's why I don't buy them. I happen to like Toyota, Nissan, and Honda so I buy their vehicles. Based on your logic, Toyota, Nissan, and Honda should make their engines, and such work in Ford and Chevy, because I want that...??? WTF is that all about????
But even if others have been "spelling it out", it's simply not true. In theory it could be, but if we think of all the problems with leopard, and all the problems with their recent hardware in general, the "tight integration" is simply non-existant. But, perhaps you guys are right, though: If this is the best they can do with "tight integration", they really should get some better designers/prgrammers, whatever if they were to "branch out", so to speak.
Do I want Apple to be "just another white box"? Well, they already are. Their focus is entirely on the iPods/iPhone, and the lowest common denominator consumer.
The problem arises, that even though they are "just another white box", when you realise they have a vertical monopoly, in that OS X (and the OSX-only apps) only run on Macs. That makes it hard to get out in time, because the hardware itself has to be (sub par) Apple in order to run it.
I frankly don't care if Apple would "take a hit". As it is, they don't care about much else than their iApps and iHardware, and I doubt they'll sell fewer iPhones and iPods because, say, thinkpads would officially be able to run OS X. Besides, there would still be enough hard-balled (hard-boiled?) Apple fans willing to suffer the hardship and hit'n'miss build quality of Mac-ownership.
You cannot have been along for a long ride. If so, you'd have noticed a shift a focus, dwindling QC, and a huge amount of weird bugs in their OS.
The problem with finding something else, is that many people use certain apps in order to make a living, apps that aren't available cross-platform.
Crap analogy. The thing is, it's very easy t switch OS if you have no needs more than the usual lowest denominator suspect - er - consumer.
The moment your income depends on certain apps that aren't available on both platforms, you have much more invested in it, than merely waking up one morning and going "Hmm, I think I'll like a better computer this time around, methinks I'll buy me a thinkpad". It's far from that effortless.
Besides, what's wrong with demanding a little quality from Apple, and if they can't deliver, then having the want to at least be able to choose the hardware it runs on?
Ask all those people with legally purchased and licensed versions of Windows Vista who were slapped with "reduced functionality mode" for a period of time because Microsoft's servers suddenly couldn't remember that those people had legally purchased and licensed versions of Windows Vista...
But Apple now has to create a "Macintosh Qualified Hardware Lab" to test these configurations and then certify them. I suppose Apple could push the cost of certifying a product upon the manufacturer, but how many of those manufacturers are going to front that money unless they know they'll sell enough product to make it worth the while?
And who writes the initial drivers? And who updates them? And who is responsible for supporting the product if it doesn't work? If I buy an nVidia card "certified" for OS X and then apply non-certified drivers, who do I contact for support? Who determines if the problem is in the hardware or the drivers?
I've spent three decades building PCs. I don't do so anymore because it's far too much of a hassle. I do not lack the technical skills or knowledge to do it. I lack the spare time to chase down issues bouncing between vendors, none of whom will take responsibility for it if they at all don't have to.
And for the person who claimed we buy Macs because they run OS X, I bought an Al iMac specifically because I liked how it looked. It wasn't until I'd used it for about six months that I came to understand just how good OS X was as an operating system and how it cultivated equally good applications to run on it.
I think he was talking about we who have been aboard for years, buying one after another, as time comes to update to "stay updated".
Demand all you want. Again, if you don't like it, go elsewhere. Business does it all the time, and I've done it. If I don't like a way a particular company is supporting us, or providing services, I move on. And yes, I'm in IT. My whole argument is that NO ONE is forcing you to use Apple products. Just like NO ONE is forcing people to use Microsoft products, or buying a particular vehicle, etc. As someone else said; there are choices. Don't like it, too bad...
You say this as if it were true, conveniently forgetting that there are countless devices that have embedded and/or proprietary software. There's nothing illegal about it at all.
You don't think Apple haven't thought this through?
Marketshare IS NOT What Apple Wants
1) I support Apple (vs P anyway).
2) What many of you are missing with the "Apple has to introduce a mid-range tower to get more market share" argument is that you are confusing two things: market share (what Dell aimed at) and profit (what Apple aimed at). Now look at the two companies: Dell has a larger market share, HOWEVER they are in serious financial trouble. Apple has MUCH higher profit margins, and therefore they can AFFORD to run advertising, getting higher market share.
The problem with the mid-range tower is that, to price it somewhere where it won't a) not sell (like Mac Mini) due to tough competition in the low-end PC market (which has such low profit margins Apple would be crazy to go into anyway) or b) sell but not make any money (because of low profit margins).
Apple does want market share, but not in low-end PC market.
1) I support Apple (vs P anyway).
2) What many of you are missing with the "Apple has to introduce a mid-range tower to get more market share" argument is that you are confusing two things: market share (what Dell aimed at) and profit (what Apple aimed at). Now look at the two companies: Dell has a larger market share, HOWEVER they are in serious financial trouble. Apple has MUCH higher profit margins, and therefore they can AFFORD to run advertising, getting higher market share.
The problem with the mid-range tower is that, to price it somewhere where it won't a) not sell (like Mac Mini) due to tough competition in the low-end PC market (which has such low profit margins Apple would be crazy to go into anyway) or b) sell but not make any money (because of low profit margins).
Apple does want market share, but not in low-end PC market.
See above.
No, they don't. Yes, at any given points there are many businesses switching, but I doubt you'll find many indivudual businesses "switching all the time".
My next computer will be thinkpad, so I'm moving on as well. It's not a small task, nonetheless. I had a good long look on linux (Ubuntu in particular), but unfortunately I will not be able to use that in my (audio) niche because of a lack of fitting audio apps.
Secondly, there's windows. Now, there's a plethora of audio apps, but up until Adobe's Soundbooth CS4, there have not been a decent app to make up for either Bias Peak/Deck and/or Soundtrack (for what I use it for, anyway).
NO ONE is arguing that there are no choices. But because of a vertical monopoly it's not something one merely decides one morning, and in the evening everything is just superb and the switch is made. At least not if you have to be making a living from apps.
It's almost comical how people feel that Apple somehow owes them something. And if they [Apple] don't provide the best quality, at the cheapest prices, and open to all architectures, they're somehow a monopoly, or that they need to change their business tactics because "Joe Blow is damned mad, and he's making a stance"...
Your sig says it all...
Yes, businesses do do it all the time. Sounds like you're a small business owner, so it's probably less. But medium to large businesses make the switch on applications regularly, as they do with hardware. No, it doesn't happen all the time with a single business. But it does happen with multiple businesses daily. If you don't believe it, then you don't read much.
Hats off to you for going with the ThinkPad. I'm sure you'll be happy, and it will serve you well. I'll let Steve know so he can sleep better tonight too...I'm sure he'll want to be kept up to speed...
One again we are not talking about about something to go up against cheap Dells, the Mini (flawed as it is) and iMac already serve that crowd. We;re talking about something in the $1200-2000 dollar high end desktop range ala the XPS line. The iMac does not meet needs and the MacPro being a professional workstation is overkill on both price and features. We want what we had before Jobs unilaterally decided that we should be buying iMacs.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't SunOS tied to their machines? If so, same difference.