Right, when it failed miserably and the company nearly went under. But that was pre-OS X anyway ...
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
Right, when it failed miserably and the company nearly went under. But that was pre-OS X anyway ...
Of course it failed miserably. Apple was trying to sell its the customers it wanted and would not license to any established companies. They did keep a lot of users on the platform who might have jumped ship to windows.
I put this feedback to SJ. on the firewire topic, but hope there might be others who feel like I do.
Dear Steve,
Please give us a chance to get out of firewire in time, rather than ditching the product without fair warning, judging by the response on Mac Rumours forum, there is a growing number of users upset about getting unceremoniously dumped by Apple on this subject.
Better, would you consider releasing an IBM compatible MacOSX, if you feel having connectivity choices is not what the customer wants.
I think from a financial point of view, like ipods for Windows, it would be a runaway success, people will still buy Apples, so don't panic about that, but at least you can cut the ports down to zero if you want, the diehards will be happy, and the rest of the planet will be ecstatic, anyone who can afford a new $500 PC which is just about everyone, will enjoy MacOSX for the first time, you could consider it your humanitarian contribution to the world, run for president, and rake in a lot of loot as well.
In any case what I'm suggesting is already happening, better to get in now while the going is good, than wait for the approaching tsunami to wash Apple away. I think the choice is clear, and from my own perspective, is long overdue.
Bob
I'm not saying Psystar isn't guilty of modifying Apple's OS. That remains to be seen. I have noted that it is NOT in any way necessary at this stage to do so in order to install OS X. The cleanest method I've seen is that new EFI USB dongle, which can be inserted internally on a desktop and OS X will believe it's installing in a Mac. No software is needed to be installed or modified anywhere. Really, it's just an EFI versus Bios issue that ever needed to be addressed period and has little or nothing to do with whether the operating system itself can run on anyone else's hardware. It typical motherboards had an EFI option built into them, it would all be beside the point. Most of the Hackintosh efforts have been to build EFI emulators to make a Bios based motherboard pretend to be an EFI one to simply get by the boot strap.
What I'm saying here is that my issue with Apple does not begin or end with Psystar. It begins and ends with the idea that they are somehow allowed to dictate what hardware I can buy to use with OS X. And this has come about because Apple consistently fails to deliver the choices some of us need or want in hardware or for reasonable prices. For example, $2400 to get a tower is not reasonable; it doesn't matter that it competes with workstations; they offer NOTHING lower down the chain for desktop users but that ridiculous POS called the iMac, which I personally despise. This has forced me to get an older PowerMac and upgrade it, which is NOT cost effective, yet is still less than 1/2 the price of a Mac Pro. While it does not approach a Mac Pro's computing ability, it meets my surfing and home audio server needs, which is an entirely different question.
I only purchased an MBP because I got it for $1444 with rebate, which is in the new regular Macbook territory without the new Macbook issues of ultra-reflective glossy screens and no firewire ports (one of which I need to connect an audio firewire box to use it as a portable recording studio). But as far as future desktops and laptops go, Apple is looking pretty darn miserable to me in terms of hardware and it shouldn't have to be that way.
People want to argue that Apple shouldn't have to cater to every Joe's needs whether it be enterprise users or hobbyists or gamers that simply want a reasonable priced mini-tower with expansion options. YET in the same breath, they don't think Apple should let anyone else offer that hardware even though they don't have any interest in offering it. That choice forces people to either jump platforms (Windows), get some kind of Hackintosh type setup or compromise their hardware desires JUST to remain on the OS X platform. Yet these same people arguing this don't want to even call that OS X platform a 'platform' lest they open Apple up to anti-trust charges. It's a market, but don't call it a market (wink wink).
Are you telling me Apple is retarded or what? It's a fact of life that an operating system is not tied to any single piece of hardware, not even within Apple's own lineup. Such a claim would not only be laughable in court, but is just patently absurd as far as logic and science go. My PowerMac is not an MBP which is not an Intel Mac Pro. They don't even have the same family of processors. So how can a "Macintosh" be a 'single' product? An operating system is not hardware and hardware is not an operating system. The fact OS X is a further branch off of Berkeley Unix only underscores the whole problem with such an argument.
What's your point? Whether in whole or in part, Microsoft was ordered to provide MORE information to COMPETITORS. It's NOT in Microsoft's interest to do so in ANY amount what-so-ever. That's too bad. The world is about more than just letting anyone company get too greedy. Greed is what is bringing about the economic collapse we're facing right now. Greed is why GM looked at the next quarter instead of the next 5 years and why they are running out of capital while Toyota isn't. Greed is why they kept making high-profit margin SUVs when Toyota could see the market was unsustainable with gas prices moving upward. Greed kept them from acting sooner and from looking ahead. Greed is why Microsoft tried to eliminate Netscape and forced BETTER systems like the Commodore Amiga from the market in the '90s using tactics that were anything but fair or reasonable or even competitive (unless you like cutthroat competition). Greed is why Apple can't present consistency for the enterprise market or stick to the server hardware market and why its now eschewing professionals in favor of glossy eyed consumerism and phones.
Tell me how they're different when a person who wants to run their library of Macintosh software is told to "go to Windows" if they want a matte screen on their next laptop. The hardware is the SAME BASIC STUFF yet that Dell with the matte screen isn't supposed to run OS X? Well my software is OS X so I HAVE to buy hardware that can run it or I abandon my software base. So how is Apple competing with Dell for existing platform users? You want ot say "market" and I want to say "platform" but platform equates to the operating system NOT the hardware. Dell and Lenovo aren't platforms. They're hardware. They can run Linux or they can run Windows or they can run Dos or they can run some new OS that some guy is working on in his garage. They can even run OS X with an EFI emulator or dongle installed. But it is ironically Apple's own EULA that makes their hardware a separate market. They're saying their Operating System IS special and they don't want any competitors for the high-margin profits they make off hardware (not software). I don't blame them. I just don't think it's right. Software should compete with software. Hardware should compete with hardware. This is not an embedded system we're talking about or unique hardware so those arguments for 'specialized' or 'unique' platforms don't apply, not even as much as the iPhone.
Apple has made the argument in court that OS X isn't special...that it competes with Windows and therefore its hardware DOES compete with Dell, but this flies completely contrary in the face of their own commercials which claim Macs ARE special and ARE better and don't have viruses and other problems that plague "PCs" but by "PCs" they mean WINDOWS not Dell or Lenovo! Because those problems are Windows operating system problems not hardware problems.
I make an operating system (i.e. PLATFORM) choice based on those kinds of things. I don't have to worry about the tremendous amount of viruses and spyware that Windows has. I don't have to deal the blue screen of death. But that doesn't in any way NEGATE my NEED for certain HARDWARE requirements. If I feel I need a matte screen, I need it REGARDLESS of whether I use Windows or OS X. But with this whole Apple deal, I cannot get it because Apple says their hardware is UNIQUE (i.e. I have to buy it from them to run OS X) when it clearly is NOT. If they even did not sell OS X at retail at places like Best Buy, they could at least claim that they do not sell OS X separate from their hardware, but this is EASILY PROVEN FALSE because they clearly DO sell it separate and not as some 'upgrade' version or actually tied to their hardware in any way except that Eula that you can't read until AFTER you open the box. Apple has not done itself any favors in the way it has run things and only makes it that much simpler to prove that is actively trying to corner all the hardware for its 'platform' or 'market segment'. No other segment or platform has a monopoly on its hardware like that. NONE. So why should Apple be allowed to monopolize its 'segment' or 'platform' (I dare not say 'market' or you'll start playing word games again even though to me it IS a market.
Windows and OS X *are* different markets. If they weren't, the games from one would run on the other and I wouldn't have to buy Microsoft Office all over again if I moved from one to the other, which I clearly DO have to do if I go from Mac to Windows, but ironically I might NOT have to if I move from Windows to Mac because Apple does go the OTHER way now. You can install a copy of Windows on your Mac hardware and therefore not lose your entire software investment by switching platforms, but you are not 'allowed' to the do the same if you move from Mac to Windows (companies like VMware are not 'allowed' to virtualize OS X, but it's OK if Apple takes advantage of that to converts to move TO the Mac platform). Apple wants things to go its way and no one else's way. They'll let you move in easier these days (with Boot Camp, etc.), but not move out without huge costs (i.e. buy your software all over again because it won't WORK on a Dell). And yet it CAN work on a Dell if you virtualize or install OS X on a Dell, but Apple has 'forbade' it so you can't do it (like I should give a crap about what they forbid when its only in their interest for GREED and nothing else. Who cares if I have to buy my software all over again just to get a matte screen (IF the software even exists on the Windows platform) just so long as Apple can monoplize that market! Apple seems like the criminals to me in the same way the banks were the ones trying to screw over the public with ARM loans, etc. they knew the people they were loaning to couldn't afford. Then when the chips are down, they'll want bailed out just like GM, Ford and Chrysler do now.
I'm really surprised its taken Apple this long to sue. I know I would never buy a third rate Mac
You are wrong. Most routers use Linux as OS and because of the GPL the source is available. German Telekom for example sells an OEM AVM dsl/vdsl router with their own software which just sucks. Therefore many people here in Germany install the original AVM firmware on that router.
Hmm, zacman, I think your response to this metaphor is wrong.
Tshort wasn't talking about consumer level hardware, he was talking about network appliances which tend to be over the £1000 mark.
However, I don't think his point makes much sense in this instance.
I would look at it more in the sense of Sun Microsytems, whos old business model was very much in parallel with Apples. Solaris would only run on SPARC hardware. Now there is Solaris and OpenSolaris which runs on x86 hardware too.
What if Apple started working along those lines? The main problem I would see with it is they would need to improve their hardware markedly to appeal more.
OSX is much better an OS than OS7-9 were, and I only switched after I used OSX, OS9 seemed very archaic and inflexible, even compared with Windows NT. Which sounds weird because OSX comes from a nearly 40 year old OS architecture. Anyway, thats why I think Apple would survive licensing OSX. They also have their consumer electronics working really well and to be honest, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they do license away their Operating System at some point.
Tshort wasn't talking about consumer level hardware, he was talking about network appliances which tend to be over the £1000 mark.
However, I don't think his point makes much sense in this instance.
I would look at it more in the sense of Sun Microsytems, whos old business model was very much in parallel with Apples. Solaris would only run on SPARC hardware. Now there is Solaris and OpenSolaris which runs on x86 hardware too.
What if Apple started working along those lines? The main problem I would see with it is they would need to improve their hardware markedly to appeal more.
OSX is much better an OS than OS7-9 were, and I only switched after I used OSX, OS9 seemed very archaic and inflexible, even compared with Windows NT. Which sounds weird because OSX comes from a nearly 40 year old OS architecture. Anyway, thats why I think Apple would survive licensing OSX. They also have their consumer electronics working really well and to be honest, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they do license away their Operating System at some point.
The thread is 4 months old
I don't think he was talking about home routers.
Yes I can prove it using simple logic. If you READ Apple's legal complaint, Apple NEVER claims that Pystar modified Apple's code. In fact, Apple claims to have created OSX all by themselves. No mention is made of the open source components of OSX or BSD.
See pargraph 23 on page 6 of the complaint.
Apple claims that they never granted Pystar a liscense to sell OSX thus the copyright infrigment .
Read the complaint:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/images/apple.pdf
So I think it is clear that Apple KNOWS that Pystar did NOT modify Apple's OSX code that they have only modified the BSD portion so they had to ignore it in their complaint.
It all depends on their license with BSD, just because OS software is included in OS X, that doesnt make OS X OS. You can modify OS software and resell it as profit - it just depends on your license for the original OS software.
BTW, I dont think that Software Update is OS - since they DID modify that to look for their servers instead of Apple's. If you read Psystar's site, it says that you cannot install an off-the-shelf copy of Leopard, and the updates from Apple will not install. Why?
EDIT: And the reason they did not include it in the complaint is that they would then have to provide a copy of OS X code for review to compare to Psystar's.
r.j.s.,
Apple's license with BSD is not in question here. You need the EFI emulation software to load OSX on non-Apple MOBOs - that is why you can't load the Apple updated on non-Apple MOBOs. As many have stated the EFI works at the BSD open source level and it is legal to modify it - even Apple agrees with that (it's in the EULA).
See PARA 2D of the EULA.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf
Notwithstanding your argument that Apple doesn't want to provide it's OSX code to the court, Apple has not charged Pystar with modifying Apple code. It is not an issue that the court will hear. So any claims that Pystar has modified Apple's code are unsustainable and are not relevant to the case at hand.
So given these facts do you still contend that Pystar has modified Apple code and thus is liable for copyright infringement?
Depends on your view. From the clone maker's view it was a great success - they had better hardware at lower cost and Apple was loosing high-end hardware sales.
The consumer's view was it was a success. More for less.
From Apple's view it was a disaster to their hardware sales. Thus the release of OS 8.x and no more clone sales.
Apple's own business practices were also bringing them down. Apple steadfastly adhered to the traditional business model of selling fixed configurations through third party retailers. The clones brought over the direct BTO sales model from the PC side. Not only did it allow them to sell computers are lower prices because of not having a middleman, it allowed the flexibility of delivering a computer built to the customer's specifications.
Doesn't matter. Even Cisco was sued because of GPL violations. If it's GPL you can modify it.
just because something works in a technical sense has nothing to do with whether it is legal.
I CAN make hundreds of copies of a commercial DVD. I have the technical equipment and know how. but it is not legal for me to do so and sell or give them away (illegal distribution)
forget that issue. really it is moot. the not moot is that the EULA is END user only. As in the person that paid the money is the one with the right to use it for his/her needs. NOT to then turn around and resell that software. and in particular, as Psystar has admitted, to hack the software and change it, regardless of the reason for the change.
in one sense yes. but not when that sense is the operating system. hardware and the operating system need each other to be of any value so they are in fact not different products. that is the view that Apple is pushing. in rebuttal to early court cases to the contrary. and given Apple's lack of market share in the personal computer market, they will probably gain the courts favor that the tying is not a violation.
they are selling that hardware by trading on Apple's name and reputation. they are selling that hardware via the inclusion of a software they agreed not to resell via the EULA. they are selling that hardware by illegally violating the software and changing it. Also how do you know they are selling the software at cost and not adding to the price to cover the labor of the modification and pre-install.
and i'm sure that you have solid proof that they didn't either first obtain permission to make the change, or use one of the free/open source variants of BSD
again, you have solid proof of this.
because you wouldn't be saying any of this without knowing it to be 100% true.
debatable. Psystar didn't get permission to distribute/redistribute the software.
and if you break down the cost of the hardware you can proof, beyond a doubt, that Psystar only gets $129 for the software, that there is no profit coming in. of course you can. you wouldn't say anything without proof.
that's because the question was whether it was illegal to tie a web browser to the operating system or not. and to prohibit those with a license to sell computers with that OS from including any other web browsers. it was deemed illegal.
that depends on the actual market.
I could not agree more with this post, Magnus. Apple refuses to service major segments of its potential market, and this trend is only increasing with the elimination of Firewire from the MacBooks and matte screens from both the MB and the MBP. Apple insists on locking customers into its hardware, and then it continues to restrict hardware choice at the same time. Apple didn't want to take this case to court because Apple will end up looking really bad if there's a fair examination of its practices. We just have to hope that Pystar is strong enough to resist pressure to close up shop if Apple flashes enough cash its way.
100% proof?? No one has that not even Apple. You don't have 100% proof that it isn't. The courts will hear the case and decide. Apple has been very open that OSX is BSD based. It doesn't matter what Apple's agreement is with BSD. That is not an issue that is being heard by the court.
I based my statements on what Apple has sued for and what the courts have said in general over the years as it relates to tying.
Pystar doesn't need Apple's persmission to re-sell copies of OSX that they have purchased. It is not illegal for them to buy a copy of OSX from AMAZON.COM for $110 and then charge $2,000 for it. There is no Florida statute that would prevent this. The USA has a free market and if they can get $200 per copy of OSX, power to them.
To make it easier for you to understand, you can buy a book from AMAZON.COM for $100 and sell it for what ever you want to. The publisher can NOT prevent you from doing so. Look up the 1st sale doctrine. Now if you make photocopies of the book and sell it, the publisher CAN sue you for copyright infringement.
As for shrink-wrapped software, the most recent decision supports the consumer's right to sell their copies.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...desk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.html
What Apple is trying to do is to bypass the 1st sale doctrine and get the court to prevent Pystar from re-selling legally purchased copies of OSX. They are trying to use the Federal copyright law to prevent downstream sales of OSX.
While the courts are mixed on this, the most recent cases are establishing that consumers can re-sell their shrink-wrapped software and the publisher can not prevent a further sale. It will interesting to see how the court rules in this case. OSX is not a negotiated license that each buyer signs individually with Apple; it is a consumer piece of shrink-wrapped software.
Apple is free to sue the individules who are using OSX in violation of their OSX EULA. How well would that go for them?
Remember, Apple is getting paid the price that APPLE has set for each copy of OSX that Pystar sells. If Pystar is pirating OSX that would be a different case. Apple doesn't believe this to be the case as they did not sue for illegal copies of OSX. It makes no difference if Pystar is making $300 per copy of OSX it sells or $50 or losing $24 per copy. Apple can raise the retail price of OSX to $500 if it wants to and then Pystar would have to buys copies of OSX at that price level and either absorb the increased cost or pass it on to their customers.
And just because you love Apple that doesn't mean they have the right to dictate what hardware you can buy to use with your Mac software any more than Microsoft has the right to tell me what hardware to use with Windows. The only difference is that Apple THINKS they have that right, but the law is quite clear. A company that actively tries to prevent competition (there is NO doubt here that Apple is doing that in that Eula) is breaking anti-trust law. There is simply no way around it.
What I fail to understand is why people like yourself would WANT Apple to be able to limit your hardware choices. Do you enjoy not being able to decide for yourself if you next computer has a matte screen or a firewire port? Do you really want Apple making those kinds of decisions FOR you? And then charging you twice as much to boot? I looked at an HP 17" laptop today that had every feature Apple's 15" MBP had PLUS HDMI out, Blu-Ray playback and came standard with 4GB of ram and a 320GB drive. It cost $1200. I got last year's MBP for $1444 and that's the biggest sale price I've EVER seen an MBP for and it's still $244 more than the HP and doesn't have blu-ray and only has a 200GB drive and 2Gb of ram and a 15" screen. Apple is supposed to be competitive now? Look up the price of Apple's 17" MBP.
The problem is if all your software is Mac software you're in a bit of a bind because while you CAN transfer your XP license to a Mac, you cannot transfer OS X to your PC. In other words, if I'm a Windows user moving to Mac, I can keep running Windows on my new Mac to at least continue using my old Windows software. I forfeit my Mac software moving a PC and Apple KNOWS it. It's one more reason that 'once you go Mac you don't go back' and that's not always a good thing. Any action on a corporation's part that impedes my choices as a consumer is NOT a good thing or a good law.
Some of you should actually think about that instead of spouting off support for Apple when Apple only has one thing in mind when it makes these decisions and that's PROFIT (i.e. greed is their motive). They don't have your interests in mind and they don't care about your losses. They only care about the bottom line. That's the kind of ethical abyss that has caused the current economic crisis. Companies have focused on greed over great service; they've focused on making profit over making great products; they've focused on their shareholders instead of on their customers.
You SHOULD be allowed to make a backup of a commercial DVD in case something happens to your original because as you should know, you are ONLY 'licensed' to watch that one physical copy. Hollywood will NOT provide you with an at cost replacement should your media fail. They fully expect you to shell out retail again to replace scratched discs, etc.
But the DMCA says NO. You are not allowed ANY 'fair use' rights any more including backups because you are not allowed to circumvent copy protection systems even if for things like 'fair use'. That law is WRONG and it's unethical and needs to be repealed. But look who pushed for it. It wasn't the citizens of the U.S. It was special interests (i.e. corporations). They know you should be able to make backups. But they DON'T CARE. They want your MONEY and they'll take it any way they can including unethical methods. They won't blink twice at ripping you off, but yet you defend their right to do so? Please. Spare me the crying.
So now you're telling me you don''t support the right of someone to sell property they have purchased from another party? I'm supposed to buy a video game for my PS3, but when I'm sick of it, I'm supposed to throw it away??? That's what you're telling me! That's beyond unethical. It's total BS is what it is. If I buy OS X and decide to sell it, that's MY business, not yours and not Apple's. If Psystar buys it and wants to resell it, that's their business. It's called free trade. Just what brand of Corporate Communism are you supporting there anyway?
Give me a break. You cannot argue hardware and software are the same thing so don't even try. Yeah, my Atari 2600 and my E.T. cartridge 'need each other' to do anything so they are in fact the SAME THING. In what Universe does that logic work, pray tell? I can run Windows on a MBP. I can run Linux on a MBP. I can run OS X on a MBP. The hardware doesn't care which one of them I run or even if I run all of them at once with something like VMware. It's just ones and zeroes.
So HP and Lenovo are trading on Microsoft's name if they include Windows??? Once again, learn to separate reality from fiction. Hardware is hardware and software is software. If a Psystar customer has a problem with their Blu-Ray drive they aren't going to go to Apple for support! Apple won't even sell Blu-Ray drives (What good are they in a Hackintosh? It's called Boot Camp. Mass storage is also useful).
Um, I don't think they 'agreed' to the Eula. That's why they're going to court. They've declared the Eula invalid and it IS invalid so your point is moot. These "Eulas" should all be abolished. It's like Hershey telling you that you're allowed to buy a candy bar from them, but you're not allowed to eat it and when you're sick of looking at it, you have to throw it away; you're not allowed to sell it to your neighbor. No company should have that kind of control over their consumers and no country should support that kind of control for corporations.
How do I know Apple is selling their hardware at cost and not overcharging for it? Accountability are numbers on a page. Apple just said in court that their price for OS X is comparable to Windows so they've just admitted that it's not even overvalued at the store. There goes one of their future arguments out the door when they try to raise it to overcharge all the cloners that will move in when they've lost their case.
I have seen too many HP laptops fail early in their life. Nice to have all those features for a low cost, but for how long? Dell seems to make a better low cost laptop. My Sony has also been pretty reliable.
I suggest you focus on learning to install OS X on one of those machines. If you pick the right model its pretty easy to do these days. Now keep in mind that some stuff such as the blu-ray (bag of hurt ya know) or HDMI might not work since Apple does not sell those items in its computers. Might also be a problem if the wireless does not use a Broadcom chip set (Dells 14xx and 15xx wireless series cards work OK). Some sound cards also don't play well. You might get sound, but not headphone jack or mic operation. Come to think of it the video resolution might be a problem after some OS X updates. Also seems some don't like to wake up from sleep after OS X is installed. You might run into a false indication that your battery is not installed or incorrect state of charge. Webcams sometimes work, but maybe not with apps like Skype or Photo Booth, depending on the OS X version and the webcam used. I'd get familiar with kext's and third party utilities such as OSX86Tools and KextHelper. There are also some terminal command strings that will be helpful to run after an update. These are not things needed to install OS X on a regular PC. They are needed to make the computers features work under OS X. In many cases there is no work around and the features cannot be made to work correctly.
Let me guess, if Apple is forced to allow installation of its OS X on non-Apple products then you will also expect all those products features to work under OS X as well? So what next, sue Apple because they don't support blu-ray, HP touch screen, your brand of sound card/video card or HDMI? I can't believe you are still beating this dead horse. There is a lot more to using OS X on a non-Apple machine then just making it boot successfully.
Apple laptops have the same failure rate as HP, Dell, & Toshiba. They all break.
No one has said that Apple will be forced to support anything beyond their own hardware. Microsoft Windows doesn't support all the hardware out there. The provider of the hardware writes the driver. Case in point. My M-Audio Delta 1010LT audio interface isn't supported natively by Windows (or OSX either). M-Audio provides the drivers for XP.
If I called Mircosoft and said that my audio interface doesn't work with XP what would they say? Sorry, we don't support that device. Contact M-Audio.
This "force Apple to support everything" argument is pure rubbish. Apple will support some hardware; other hardware will have the drivers written by 3rd parties.
The real question is, why doesn't HP provide OSX drivers for their laptops? Could it be the anti-competative practices of Apple?
What if HP did provide OSX drives for it's laptops? Should Apple sue them?
it's so clear now. I have been enlightened. Market is defined by whether you can run software from one on the other. So simple, so elegant.
so Playstation, Wii, Xbox, those are all separate markets. that's why I can't just shove an Xbox game in my Wii and make it work. And that's why my old Atari games won't play in any of them -- it's a different market.
i wouldn't be so sure about that.
I bought and have friends that bought those clone machines and they sucked. And support for them sucked. didn't even take the whole 30 days for me to realize the machine blew chunks. One friend wasn't so lucky, it took him about 90 days. thankfully he paid so little that when they refused to take back a return he wasn't out much.
nothing you have said speaks to illegal practices, just perhaps stupid ones. and stupidity will cost them there tiny chunk of the market and they will go under and then folks will switch back to Windows or to some new system that swoped in to save the day.
but lack of giving you what you want doesn't make what Psystar did right by the law.
yes but Psystar is NOT selling shrinkwrapped software. they force their buyers to take it pre-installed which means that they opened it, and by opening it they agreed to the EULA which says that the person opening the package is the one with the right to use the software. and further, they hacked the software and modified it for their use which may be a violation of digital copyright laws right there.
again, the court says if you bought it and never opened it, go for it.
but psystar did totally open it.
Apple isn't suing the folks that bought the Psystar systems cause it is clear that those folks were played. they were lead to believe that nothing bad was going on. and apple gets this and isn't blaming the buyers.
on this you are correct. Copyright laws don't give a fig if you are making any money at all. That isn't what determines a violation. Your right to distribute something is all that matters. And we will see what the final decision is on that.
all I have to say is that I will not buy a Mac OS based computer from anyone but Apple, for two reasons. One I am not convinced that they are doing anything wrong and two, they service their machines locally (or at least more locally than my shipping my computer across country so some stranger can do it and ship it back with a bunch of strangers handling it carelessly both ways)
I wasn't talking about Apple reliability. I was simply making a recommendation based on my corporate IT experience with Windows based laptops. They are not all they same. Some are tougher then others.
The argument being made by the poster I responded to was that Apple should permit OS X to run on any computer. My point was that even if that were allowed there is a lot of hardware out there is not supported by OS X out of the box. So even if you could install and boot you would have significant issues. Certainly if there were enough demand a vendor might create OS X support, but the demand would take quite a while to build, if it ever did and the development of the drivers would take additional months. So in the mean time you have at best a crippled computer. This issue is more complicated on laptops (which is what the poster was referring to) due to the integration and proprietary nature of most designs. Calling M-audio would do you no good if they don't think its worth designing software to work on OS X.