Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer

[crackpip]

Another thing this is about is belief in the free market. There are some of us who believe that having a choice is a good thing and a little competition will be beneficial to both the health of the OS and to keep Apple motivated. There are others who believe that Apple somehow has all the answers for everyone and we should blindly defer to their judgment.

I think what you are advocating is the opposite of a free market. You are advocating government interference to force Apple to license a flagship product (OS X) to competitors that directly compete with Apple's primary revenue source (hardware). This is in an environment, in which Apple has significant competition from Microsoft and the various flavors of Linux.

... this is about whether a Mac user has the right to choice. This is about whether a mainstream computer operating system can be tied to specific hardware.

Actually, this is not about users; this is about companies and distributors. Apple is not suing OSx86. They are suing a company distributing a modified version of Apple's product.

Although I haven't seen the argument explicitly stated, I think a lot of you believe that Apple need to continue to bundle OS X and Macs or face bankruptcy. So even though the bundling is interfering with the free market forces, it's OK, because Apple is fighting for its life. I mean, who in their right mind would buy a Mac to run Windows on?

It's not that Apple would face bankruptcy, but it would force a drastic change to Apple's business model at a point when it is working well for the company. Apple's business model is to subsidize OS X development using hardware sales. Apple could change to the more standard model of separating hardware and OS X, but why should they risk their current situation? Why trade marketshare for profit, when they're getting both right now.

Apple still faces a significant amount of competition from Microsoft. Separating OS X from the hardware, would open Apple to competing on two fronts, against the hardware makers and Microsoft. Right now, they use the hardware to prop-up the software and the software to prop-up the hardware. Think about it, it's only been in the past few years, that Apple has been even considered a competitor to Microsoft. Before that they were completely marginalized. So a question that I haven't seen anyone mention yet is, how much more would you be willing to pay to install OS X on non-Apple hardware? $100? $200? $500? I wonder how much Apple would have to charge to make the OS X division profitable.

I also wonder, that if Apple is forced to open OS X onto generic hardware, would consumer protection laws force them to support it on this other hardware. Certainly not everywhere, but some areas have much more protective laws than others. You can't just sell a product and not support it.

crackpip

 

[czachorski]

Anyone who argues that there is any relation between OS X and Macs, other than them being sold by the same company, are simply wrong. Sorry. The bundling of Macs and OS X is utterly artificial.

Although I haven't seen the argument explicitly stated, I think a lot of you believe that Apple need to continue to bundle OS X and Macs or face bankruptcy. So even though the bundling is interfering with the free market forces, it's OK, because Apple is fighting for its life. I mean, who in their right mind would buy a Mac to run Windows on?

On the other hand, that no one would buy Macs if Apple's OS did not exist (or could be installed on anything) is a testament to the fact that Apple make (some) inferior hardware products. Thinkpads are of better quality than most laptops, and are more expensive, and Lenovo seems to be doing well. Why can't Apple compete? Well, the answer should be obvious.

Why do Apple make inferior products? Because it's profitable, and because they don't need to make better laptops (for example) as long as they can exclusively bundle it with a superior product, namely OS X. Is that a good thing for the consumer? I don't think so.

If OS X could be installed on anything, it would force Apple to compete on a level playing field with other computer selling companies, which would result in better, cheaper products and/or bankruptcy for Apple. Is the latter really at all likely?

You're describing bundling, and bundling occurs with just about every product sold these days. It is not as black and white as you make it out to be to say that Apple's selling of OS X and Macs is artificial. There are a lot of components of the bundle that make perfectly good sense too.

And the last time this discussion came up, no one had a good answer for the logical conclusion to the argument that Apple shouldn't be able to bundle: If you claim that they should be forced to sell OS X stand-alone, are you also going to force them to sell it cheaply? Because I can guarantee you that it won't be $129 if they are forced to sell OS-X for generic X86. And are you going to force them to support it to on generic hardware? And dictate the price for that support? Because that is what would have to be done to get to the logical ends of that argument: OS X for sale for generic X86 hardware. This point from the last time this came up is still valid: Let's say Apple decides (or is forced) to open OS-X up, license for stand-alone installation on generic PC hardware, but did the following:

1. Sold it "as is" with no support.
2. Charged $1000 for it.
3. Continued to sell "upgrades" for OS-X for $129.

Game over.

 

[czachorski]

I think what you are advocating is the opposite of a free market. You are advocating government interference to force Apple to license a flagship product (OS X) to competitors that directly compete with Apple's primary revenue source (hardware). This is in an environment, in which Apple has significant competition from Microsoft and the various flavors of Linux.



Actually, this is not about users; this is about companies and distributors. Apple is not suing OSx86. They are suing a company distributing a modified version of Apple's product.




It's not that Apple would face bankruptcy, but it would force a drastic change to Apple's business model at a point when it is working well for the company. Apple's business model is to subsidize OS X development using hardware sales. Apple could change to the more standard model of separating hardware and OS X, but why should they risk their current situation? Why trade marketshare for profit, when they're getting both right now.

Apple still faces a significant amount of competition from Microsoft. Separating OS X from the hardware, would open Apple to competing on two fronts, against the hardware makers and Microsoft. Right now, they use the hardware to prop-up the software and the software to prop-up the hardware. Think about it, it's only been in the past few years, that Apple has been even considered a competitor to Microsoft. Before that they were completely marginalized. So a question that I haven't seen anyone mention yet is, how much more would you be willing to pay to install OS X on non-Apple hardware? $100? $200? $500? I wonder how much Apple would have to charge to make the OS X division profitable.

I also wonder, that if Apple is forced to open OS X onto generic hardware, would consumer protection laws force them to support it on this other hardware. Certainly not everywhere, but some areas have much more protective laws than others. You can't just sell a product and not support it.

crackpip

Amen. Good post.

And it totally cracks me up how with just the very recent uprising in Mac popularity this past 3-4 years, they have gone from "beleaguered" to a "monopoly". Too funny.

 

[fagosu]

An excellent point. Who would Apple go after then?
When I get the time, I would like to investigate building a hackintosh for my own use. My very own mini tower with OS X

I already have, and I can tell you it's awesome. I can add more storage if I need, more or faster RAM, change the optical drive or add a second one. I just upgraded from a GeForce 7200 to a 8800GT video card and I can update the OS too. Although I must say that as great as having an OSX86 box is, its just a hobby, because you shouldn't use it for professional work even if you buy the retail "UPGRADE" Leopard DVD as I did (common sense and ethics).

Having said that, I know that my next computer WILL be a Mac.

~fagosu

 

[gnasher729]

Armchair lawyers crack me up. Good luck trying to argue that one in court.

The problem that many people have is that they don't distinguish between usage of a word like "monopoly" in everyday language and what it means in legal terms.

Does Apple have a monopoly on selling MacOS X? Well, absolutely. Does that have any legal significance? None whatsoever. If Apple had a monopoly in the operating system market for personal computers, that would have legal significance, but Apple has only a few percent market share in that area. If anyone complains that they can't use MacOS X on the computer of their choice, Apple can just tell them to install Windows or Linux instead.

 

[gnasher729]

Although I haven't seen the argument explicitly stated, I think a lot of you believe that Apple need to continue to bundle OS X and Macs or face bankruptcy. So even though the bundling is interfering with the free market forces, it's OK, because Apple is fighting for its life. I mean, who in their right mind would buy a Mac to run Windows on?

I am quite convinced that the most profitable path for Apple is to sell MacOS X exclusively for Apple products. Whether selling MacOS X generally would lead to bankruptcy, I couldn't possibly judge that. But it doesn't matter at all: It is Apple who owns MacOS X, nobody else, and it is their decision alone how to sell it. You can complain that what Apple does is not the best for _you_, or you can complain that what Apple does is not even the best for Apple, but it is _their_ decision and _their_ responsibility alone.

And how is Apple interfering with free market forces? MacOS X is _their_ product, and in a free market Apple is allowed to sell _their_ product in any way they see fit and in no other way.

 

[macsmurf]

It's not that Apple would face bankruptcy, but it would force a drastic change to Apple's business model at a point when it is working well for the company. Apple's business model is to subsidize OS X development using hardware sales. Apple could change to the more standard model of separating hardware and OS X, but why should they risk their current situation? Why trade marketshare for profit, when they're getting both right now.

I agree. I'm not arguing that bundling is a bad business decision. In fact, it's a very good one. However, what I want as a consumer is superior software AND superior hardware.

Your point, of course, is that the only way to get superior software is for Apple to make the money on the inferior hardware. I'm just not convinced that's true. Usually competition is the driving force behind a better, cheaper product, and I've seen no argument to convince me that these markets are any different.

Apple still faces a significant amount of competition from Microsoft. Separating OS X from the hardware, would open Apple to competing on two fronts, against the hardware makers and Microsoft. Right now, they use the hardware to prop-up the software and the software to prop-up the hardware. Think about it, it's only been in the past few years, that Apple has been even considered a competitor to Microsoft. Before that they were completely marginalized.

Yes, but what's your point? Competition on both fronts will yield better products. Competition is what made OS X great (among other things).

So a question that I haven't seen anyone mention yet is, how much more would you be willing to pay to install OS X on non-Apple hardware? $100? $200? $500? I wonder how much Apple would have to charge to make the OS X division profitable.

I actually paid $200 for Leopard (OS X is more expensive in Europe). I don't know what I would be willing to pay for a PC version of OS X. I my country I have a legal right to patch software to make it work on my hardware, so probably not much more. OK, maybe $400

I also wonder, that if Apple is forced to open OS X onto generic hardware, would consumer protection laws force them to support it on this other hardware.

No. Linux works on generic hardware and no one is forced to support it without compensation.

Certainly not everywhere, but some areas have much more protective laws than others. You can't just sell a product and not support it.

That's a legal claim, which may or may not be true, but probably isn't. There's nothing to stop you from selling a Linux distribution without support.

 

[G58]

That does seem to be the answer, at least for Psystar. And Apple is big enough to fend for itself. But there's a much bigger picture here.

The first question is whether the court will find a remedy that allows Psystar to keep selling their Open Computer without Mac OS X installed. That surely isn't out of the question.

Their site was down earlier today, but it's up again now. And the Open Computer, dubbed: The Smart Alternative to an Apple, with Mac OS X Leopard preinstalled, is still for sale from $554.99.

Before the WWDC, there was talk going around here that Apple was about to open up Mac OS X to PCs. Some thought that was crazy. But I wasn't so sure, and I'm not so sure now - at least in the long run.

Currently, what differentiates Apple products for most people is what makes Apple 'cool'. And what makes Apple 'cool' for most people, is the box - the iPod, MacBook, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac, iPhone - every one, Sub Zero style icons, even the ageing MacBook and MacBook Pro.

That's the story for most people. Of course WE all know that what makes Apple the best choice, is what makes Apple better, and that's Mac OS X. But the OS is more of a subliminal reason for buying Macs for the average buyer.

Now, if we end up in a real recession [which is looking more and more likely], many more people will be differentiating on the basis of price, and that will hit Apple hard because as we all know, you can buy an average PC for a lot less than any Mac.

So, with many PC users opting to stick with XP, Vista still failing, Windows7 apparently still the product of a wet dream becoming sticky on Bill's recently vacated office chair, the OS war is really only just getting started.

MS have two simple choices: keep cobbling together half-baked rewrites of Windows on top of 3, 4, 5 older iterations [with all the issues that throws up for the developers and users], fronted by poor imitations of Mac OS X, or start again - from scratch.

But from the length of time it took Apple to turn NEXTSTEP into Mac OS X [at least 15 years if we count the development at NeXT but discount the gestation period that lead to the Mach kernel and BSD Unix], we know it's a long long process. Microsoft doesn't have that much time.

So there will be a convergence of two curves: MS Windows' 95% traditional dominance and falling slowly, with Apple Mac OS X's more rapidly increasing 5, 6, 7, 8% that will probably be at 15% in two years - maybe three times what it is today. This will mean the death of Microsoft as we know it, because the innovator that stops innovating is dead.

The day will come when the appeal of a stable alternative takes over as the biggest draw for Apple, and not the boxes. By that day, Apple will sell its OS to run on PCs. That day may not be today, any day before the October case conference, or whenever the parties meet in court, but it will come.

Perhaps they should just sell the clone with no operating system and leave the infringement on the consumer?

 

[macsmurf]

You're describing bundling, and bundling occurs with just about every product sold these days. It is not as black and white as you make it out to be to say that Apple's selling of OS X and Macs is artificial. There are a lot of components of the bundle that make perfectly good sense too.

Examples? I'm sure it makes good business sense, but I don't care about Apple's business - I care about their products.

And the last time this discussion came up, no one had a good answer for the logical conclusion to the argument that Apple shouldn't be able to bundle: If you claim that they should be forced to sell OS X stand-alone, are you also going to force them to sell it cheaply?

Of course not. The market should decide the price of the product. By the way, Apple already sells OS X stand-alone.

Because I can guarantee you that it won't be $129 if they are forced to sell OS-X for generic X86.

OK

And are you going to force them to support it to on generic hardware?

No.

And dictate the price for that support?

No. I probably wouldn't buy support, regardless of the cost.

Because that is what would have to be done to get to the logical ends of that argument: OS X for sale for generic X86 hardware. This point from the last time this came up is still valid: Let's say Apple decides (or is forced) to open OS-X up, license for stand-alone installation on generic PC hardware, but did the following:

1. Sold it "as is" with no support.
2. Charged $1000 for it.

Apple have every right to shoot themselves in the foot. Listen, the point is NOT that Apple can circumvent whatever the courts would impose on them. Microsoft have been doing that for years with great succes. The question is: Should they? And why would consumers applaud that?

3. Continued to sell "upgrades" for OS-X for $129.

Game over.

For Apple?

Anyway, I have the legal right to install software and patch it to make it work on my hardware, and I think americans should have that right too.

 

[G58]

You just hit the nail on the head.

The market for the machine you describe is bigger than most people understand. And it's growing.

G

I would like to purchase a mid range tower (Power Mac getting old), but instead I'll have to choose between a build my own hackintosh or a Mac Pro (which i really don't need).

The thing is that the Power Mac was a fair bit cheaper than the Mac Pro, which has caused a big gap now. I need something that can handle 4 hard drives and an Optical drive, with a few PCI-Express slots and an upgradable graphics card.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Magnus, that case doesn't say what you think it says. It is nowhere near. In this case, company A sued company B, and company B argued that A was guilty of "copyright abuse". The judge then said that you can only use a claim of "copyright abuse" as a defence if you are accused of copyright infringement, and A hadn't sued B for copyright infringement. The judge never even looked at whether the claim of "copyright abuse" was in any way justified, because that defence just missed the point. It had nothing to do with what B was accused of.

In the case that we are discussing now, Apple _does_ accuse Psystar (among other things) of copyright infringement, so Psystar _can_ claim as a defence that Apple is guilty of "copyright abuse". Not that it will do them much good.

You misunderstand what I was saying. I was saying IF Apple had NOT filed under copyright abuse, they would have lost because of that precedent almost without a doubt. This is why I said they were careful to prepare because that case is obviously why they chose copyright infringement as the basis for their case. Psystar's mistake was in 'modifying' in any way, shape or form any Apple code. There are apparently boot managers out there that can install the full retail versions of OSX. They should have included those and let the customers simply insert their own purchased copies of retail OSX to install and Apple wouldn't have ANY leg to stand on with a copyright abuse case.

It depends on the judgement. When it comes down to it, this isn't about some sleazy basement computer company called Psystar, they have little to no future, this is about whether a Mac user has the right to choice. This is about whether a mainstream computer operating system can be tied to specific hardware. Depending on the judge, this could be a landmark decision.

While I fully agree with your sentiments, I'm afraid the problem will be this case will probably never see the light of day in a court room. Apple's "Plan A" is probably to simply outspend them into oblivion. Who cares about a ruling if the judge never sees the case through? The other issue is HOW and WHAT Apple filed. If they had filed on a Eula violation, the ruling you're hoping for might come to fruition as the judge could simply invalidate the Eula on illegal tying. But Apple chose copyright infringement and thus the judge never has to even consider Apple's monopoly on hardware for OSX (which some don't believe even exists as a market). They only have to look at whether Psystar modified Apple's code and if so, they could lose outright. It was very very stupid of Psystar to pre-install and otherwise modify any OSX code to run on their hardware. All efforts should have been to completely fool OSX into installing off a retail DVD onto their hardware. If they haven't modified it, they haven't broken copyrights. If they left it to the user to simply insert the disk and install it themselves, Apple couldn't have filed using copyright as a basis. They would have had to gone to the Eula instead where they would have had a good chance of losing. If they left it to the customer to install, Apple would have had to sue each individual customer that they believe installed it (not really practical). So yes, I believe Psystar screwed up. If they couldn't achieve that level, they should have waited to ship until they could and avoided the lawsuit, IMO. I'm sure Apple's lawyers studied this long and hard so they'd have the best method of attack.

On the other hand, Psystar COULD file a countersuit challenging the Eula. That would bypass the copyright issue and get right to the point you were trying to make. But that'd mean they would then have TWO legal battles to fight and once again we come down to money.

Most of the people who agree with Apple's decision would also agree if it was Microsoft suing Pystar.

Somehow, I seriously doubt that. Most Mac people would gladly pounce on Microsoft. Somehow, it's different when it's their beloved Apple. Me, I like the Operating System Apple has. I don't like Apple the company any better than Microsoft. They're both greedy, uncaring corporations run (or formerly run) by Megalomaniacs.

Let's say Apple decides (or is forced) to open OS-X up, license for stand-alone installation on generic PC hardware, but did the following:

1. Sold it "as is" with no support.
2. Charged $1000 for it.
3. Continued to sell "upgrades" for OS-X for $129.

Game over.

$1000? Why don't you just say $10 MILLION why you're at it? $1000 is more than the entire Mac-Mini shipped WITH OSX. There's no way they could possibly justify selling OSX retail for more than the price of the Mini. In fact, it'd have to be at most the price of the Mini minus the hardware costs to Apple for it.

People (including myself) have said time and time again we might very well be willing to pay $400+ for MacOSX that would could install on any hardware we choose, yet people keep bringing this tired argument up again and again. When I can build a tower PC for $1000 that can outgame the $2400+ MacPro, $400 onto that price still saves me $1000! I'm sorry, but at the heart of all this, the very reason Psystar was able to sell ANY computers to begin with is because Apple has a gaping wide hole in the middle of its product lineup. If they'd fill that hole, Psystar or companies like it would never even bother. But no, Apple wants you to move up to the $2400+ Mac Pro, even if you can't afford it or justify it.

So let Apple charge Windows style prices for its OS when sold separately and ship a separate $129 'upgrade' version. While that would make Steve Jobs' keynote making fun of Vista's pricing look dumb (because it would admit fundamentally underneath the only reason they can make that joke is that they control the hardware market and make most of their money there), it would at least finally make this tired argument go away that somehow people wanting Mac clones would turn away if they had to pay $400 like Vista for it. I say there'd still be a market. If not, that market would die on its own. That's how capitalism is supposed to work, not by litigating the competition to death.

But then Microsoft's method is to simply buy-out or force out the competition, whichever happens to be easier. Their Yahoo groveling (and now AOL) is pathetic. They suck at online service and so they think they can buy their way out of the problem simply eliminating competition that is BETTER than them, but has less money to defend itself. Oh wait. That's Apple's method of dealing with Psystar too.

 

[Moritz-M]

In my opinion most overlook that alot of companies don't open their OS's to other peoples hardware, even though they too use standart parts. The systems most similar to PC's are consoles, those are sold like the Mac: As a hardware software bundle and you can only get the software to run on that specific hardware and no other hardware-maker can copy it and sell the OS seperatly. Same for mobile phones.

So, I'm just curious: What makes people think apple should be forced into "selling the OS without the hardware" and not just about anybody who bundles software to its hardware? What (law-wise or even just in your mind) is the difference between OS X and the OS powering the PS3 or Xbox 360?

 

[diamond.g]

In my opinion most overlook that alot of companies don't open their OS's to other peoples hardware, even though they too use standart parts. The systems most similar to PC's are consoles, those are sold like the Mac: As a hardware software bundle and you can only get the software to run on that specific hardware and no other hardware-maker can copy it and sell the OS seperatly. Same for mobile phones.

So, I'm just curious: What makes people think apple should be forced into "selling the OS without the hardware" and not just about anybody who bundles software to its hardware? What (law-wise or even just in your mind) is the difference between OS X and the OS powering the PS3 or Xbox 360?

All the other stuff aside. I really hope Snow Leopard includes some requirement for a TPM chip (or a special PPC authentication chip) so that all the folks that feel Mac hardware is actually different than PC hardware can actually be right for once (since the Intel switch).

The difference between OS X and the PS3/360 OS is that you literally can't run it on any other hardware than what it currently runs on. To actually run it would require you to be able to source the same parts (since all of them are custom parts build by the respective console owner). Your not going to be able to just go buy Xenos/Xenon or Cell/RSX anywhere else anytime soon. Not to mention the memory architectures/types aren't something easily put together/purchased. And in Sony and Microsoft case (in regards to the consoles) they probably own the licenses/designs for enough parts for it to be pretty improbably for someone to copy them.

 

[mklos]

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.

I know what I said and it has nothing to do with Apple. Simply put, there's nothing illegal about having monopoly. Its only illegal if you use that monopoly to your advantage using illegal tactics. Simply stating a fact. But I guess we can't state facts around here anymore without being called a fanboy!

I think Apple knows where its future is. I think you'll be waiting a while before Apple releases OS X for anything other than Macs. I hope you have a good Mac right now....

 

[Sun Baked]

I know what I said and it has nothing to do with Apple. Simply put, there's nothing illegal about having monopoly. Its only illegal if you use that monopoly to your advantage using illegal tactics. Simply stating a fact. But I guess we can't state facts around here anymore without being called a fanboy! :rollseyes:

I think Apple knows where its future is. I think you'll be waiting a while before Apple releases OS X for anything other than Macs. I hope you have a good Mac right now....

Sort of silly ...

All Apple is doing is artificially limiting their sales of their OS, which hurts Apple more than anyone else.

Never heard of a company in a monopoly position where people said they aren't selling enough units and don't have a big enough market share.

 

[mklos]

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.

Oh boy...you don't know how good you have it still with tight integration. Go ahead, backup your information and do an erase and install of OS X. When if finishes see how many drivers you have to install to get your video, ethernet, wireless, audio, chipset, etc working. Plug in that 3rd party printer and see how many drivers you need to install (pending its not a completely brand new printer), plug in that external HD and see how long it takes to show up without having to go through a bunch of crap like Windows does. Oh, but thats not what we call tight integration is it?

Cry me a freaking river! So Apple can't release a new Mac every month. BOO HOO! Never mind that Apple wouldn't be selling anywhere near as many computers as it does today if the iPod didn't even exist. People didn't just all of a sudden start buying Apple computers. If you think the iPod halo effect didn't happen, then you're smoking to serious good stuff!

Apple computers are still the highest rated computers sold today as far as quality. As things get more and more complicated and advanced, more crap is going to happen. This is true with any computer, Dell, HP, Apple, Acer, how built, etc. Its also true with more than just computers (i.e. everyday vehicles).

Sort of silly ...

All Apple is doing is artificially limiting their sales of their OS, which hurts Apple more than anyone else.

Never heard of a company in a monopoly position where people said they aren't selling enough units and don't have a big enough market share.

I don't think Apple is caring so much about which makes more money. Obviously Apple knows if it sells to the entire outside world it will make more money of OS X. Its about the integrity of the OS and keeping it that way. I think people need to stop and think before they post. Too many just read bits and pieces of people's posts and just want to argue points that simply don't make sense. This is why I rarely ever come over here anymore.

 

[macsmurf]

Oh boy...you don't know how good you have it still with tight integration. Go ahead, backup your information and do an erase and install of OS X. When if finishes see how many drivers you have to install to get your video, ethernet, wireless, audio, chipset, etc working. Plug in that 3rd party printer and see how many drivers you need to install (pending its not a completely brand new printer), plug in that external HD and see how long it takes to show up without having to go through a bunch of crap like Windows does. Oh, but thats not what we call tight integration is it?

A full re-installation on my hackintosh takes about an hour. That must mean my hackintosh is tightly integrated with OS X. Sweet!

Apple computers are still the highest rated computers sold today as far as quality.

Oh, Really? Take a look at the Macbook. The only laptop, as far as I know, that still comes with a combo-drive. I really like the form-factor, though. The Dell XPS 1330 has the same size, but is lighter, has a LED screen, and can be outfitted with a better graphics card. The price is about the same.

If you want a Mac with a LED 13" screen, your only option is the Macbook Air, which is a 1st generation product that tends to lock up, because of one of the cores shutting down. Nobody really knows why exactly, although insufficient cooling may have something to do with it.

When it comes to durability, I challenge you to show me any study saying that Apple have fewer faults than their competitors.

In what way are Macbooks of better quality?

If Apple made the best looking, most durable, most environmentally friendly, lightest laptops with the longest battery life in the world, why don't people buy them to run Windows or Linux on? Even if they're slightly more expensive?

 

[sfh]

If this goes to a jury apple will loose

All psystar's defense has to show is that even apple thinks you should be able to use other operating systems on your hardware.. Bootcamp

I'm amazed that nobody has brought this up

I personally would not buy a psystar machine but why shouldn't companies be able to offer any operating system that will work with their hardware...

If apple wanted to keep osx on their own hardware they should have not dipped their toes into the intel sebspool

 

[Iced Angel]

I don't think Apple is caring so much about which makes more money. Obviously Apple knows if it sells to the entire outside world it will make more money of OS X. Its about the integrity of the OS and keeping it that way. I think people need to stop and think before they post. Too many just read bits and pieces of people's posts and just want to argue points that simply don't make sense. This is why I rarely ever come over here anymore.

dude do you know anything about marketing?
I think they care so much about which makes more money, that is way they are making iPhone, iPod, etc.

Don't get me wrong ... I love apple, and OS X, but I hate how their products are limited. You don't even have an option to order a non-glossy iMac.(I think if you want you have to go ahead and order a Mac Pro + cinema display and spend over 3000 bucks!) This is insane !!

 

[gnasher729]

All psystar's defense has to show is that even apple thinks you should be able to use other operating systems on your hardware.. Bootcamp

I'm amazed that nobody has brought this up

And what would that prove? Apple thinks that you should be able to run any operating system on your Mac as long as the copyright holder of the OS allows it. Therefore you can run MacOS X, Windows or Linux on a Mac, because the respective copyright holders allow it. Apple also thinks that you should be able to run any operating system on a Psystar as long as the copyright holder of the OS allows it. Therefore you can run Windows or Linux on it, but not MacOS X because the copyright holder (Apple) doesn't allow it.

You misunderstand what I was saying. I was saying IF Apple had NOT filed under copyright abuse, they would have lost because of that precedent almost without a doubt.

I read the article you linked to, and I cannot see anything in it that supports what you are saying. Apple has NOT filed a complaint about "copyright abuse", they filed for "copyright infringement". "Copyright abuse" is a term that is used if the rightful copyright holder abuses their rights in some nefarious way. I think one case of "copyright abuse" was when (I think it was Sony) included their company name in the ROMs of a games machine; Connectix created an emulator and it turned out the some software checked that the letters "S", "O", "N" and "Y" where inside the ROMs. So Connectix copied these letters, was sued for copyright infringement and successfully used "copyright abuse" as a defence.

If you are sued for copyright infringement, you can claim that the rightful owner of the copyright is guilty of "copyright abuse" and use that as a defence. In the case you quoted A sued B for many things, but not for copyright infringement. B claimed that A was guilty of "copyright abuse". Since A never sued B for copyright infringement, B's defence missed the point and was thrown out. But if Psystar claimed that Apple was guilty of "copyright abuse", together with some evidence, that defence would be taken seriously.

 

[maestro55]

Don't get me wrong ... I love apple, and OS X, but I hate how their products are limited. You don't even have an option to order a non-glossy iMac.(I think if you want you have to go ahead and order a Mac Pro + cinema display and spend over 3000 bucks!) This is insane !!

While I somewhat disagree with this lawsuit in question as I feel that Psystar isn't a real threat to Apple and that it is a relatively small group of users who would buy their products. I will say that Apple isn't going to offer anymore products than they must to keep their rising market share. I will also say that Apple isn't going to lower costs as long as there are people buying their products (and it is obvious from this thread that there are many people who would go to Apple even if there were allowable clones on the market).

Let me give you an example, while a clone isn't the exact same product as ciggerates, I work at Wal-Mart and often times I am stuck on the tobacco check-out lane. I have customers who often complain that Wal-Mart sells their ciggerates for profit so a pack that can be bought a gas station for $3 or $4 is usually around $5 or even $6 (a couple of brands close to $7). My response to why we sell ours so high is that we will keep selling them that high as long as people continue to buy them at that price.

Apple is going to continue selling their products and despite if there were clones people are still going to choose the Apple product. So I understand your frustration but people are happy with the way things are for the most part and so Apple is happy with the money they make the customers they please.

 

[dukebound85]

i dunno if anyone else caught this, but there is another company selling leopard compatible computers

heres a thread i just started on it
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=5843435#post5843435

 

[Tallest Skil]

i dunno if anyone else caught this, but there is another company selling leopard compatible computers

heres a thread i just started on it
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=5843435#post5843435

They don't sell it preinstalled. Virtually every single PC can run OSX86, so their claims are the same as any manufacturer could tout.

 

[dukebound85]

They don't sell it preinstalled. Virtually every single PC can run OSX86, so their claims are the same as any manufacturer could tout.

neither does psystar of i remember correctly. they just resale a leopard disk and tell the consumer to get the patched version right?

 

[neoelectronaut]

It comes down to this. If you want to use OS X, you have to buy a Mac. Apple doesn't make the type of computer you want? Tough. Use Windows. You don't have the legal right to install OS X on anything but a Mac. Installing OS X on a homebuilt PC is piracy, plain and simple.

There's no argument to have here.