Although I dont like what they are doing and think they have a monopoly, I can see why they are doing it, Mac clones almost killed Apple before.
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
Apple needs to tread very lightly here. I don't believe they can copyright any hardware when it comes right down to it. I can remember back to when IBM controlled the PC market - and where are they now? I agree with the poster who said "let them sell the hardware without the OS". Apple is just as vulnerable now as IBM was then.
Mark my words
Rich
Even more vunerable actually. Apple's upturn is based on fads and ineptitude by Microsoft. If either one changes, Apple's fortunes could change fast. They need to work on new types of customers and customer retention. Apple made a huge mistake 10 years ago assuming the people who bought Bondi Blue iMacs would just automatically be in the Mac fold for their next computer. That arrogance lead to some very dark days. We cannot afford to blow another opportunity.
YES, if MacDonald's said that you could only install Hamburger Meat between McDonald's double layered buns, there WOULD be a lawsuit. And guess who would lose.
How do you figure Apple has a monopoly ? On what ? their O/S ?. Microsoft has one too on Windows. Chevy has one on their product, Prius has one on their's. etc...
People here really should read up on exactly what a monopoly is.
Apple Software
Apple could be huge by just selling software to all PCs. I know that it could be a problem, but once you make an OS, the more copies you sell, the more you make. There is very little cost in each package (maybe $5).
In contrast, hardware is expensive to develop and sell and Apple's products are of high quality. There is a small margin, maybe 25% profit in hardware (maybe a little more)..
I ultimately believe this will happen some day, although it's going to take awhile. This is why you see Apple turning into more of a software company.
Apple could be huge by just selling software to all PCs. I know that it could be a problem, but once you make an OS, the more copies you sell, the more you make. There is very little cost in each package (maybe $5).
In contrast, hardware is expensive to develop and sell and Apple's products are of high quality. There is a small margin, maybe 25% profit in hardware (maybe a little more)..
I ultimately believe this will happen some day, although it's going to take awhile. This is why you see Apple turning into more of a software company.
So you're conceding this point to me, right? Because this is exactly what Psystar is doing.
No, but shouldn't someone legally have the right to buy two cheeseburgers at Wendys, add some thousand island dressing and one more bun to make their own big mac?
Those clones kept users in the Mac fold. Apple's inability to change almost killed it. Power Computing and the others brought direct sales and BTO configurations to the Mac. Apple stood by the obsolete method of only offering fixed configuration through retailers. That didn't change until Jobs came back, bought power, and made use of their direct sales expertise.
milo, you are my hero - you said all the stuff that I was going to say, and really are one of the few on here who seem to "get" this whole thing. I was getting more and more enraged as I read through this thread until I reached your post. Thank you!
I mean they have monopoly on OS X as they only want it on their machines, and do what they can to keep it their way.
And since they haven't said that, what's your point?
I'll make it real simple.
A company makes and sells a product.
Generally, nobody else can make and sell that product.
But as long as competing products exist, it's NOT a monopoly.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly because nobody else can sell macs. Honda doesn't have a monopoly because nobody else can sell Priuses. And Coke Inc. doesn't have a monopoly because nobody else can sell Cokes.
Psystar's website appears to be offline. For me at least. 'Course, MobileMe Mail is offline, too, as far as I can tell.
Well legally speaking that is not a monopoly. It's called business. Everybody does it.
Kind of, but I don't really want a high end gaming machine or anything, otherwise I would expect to pay Mac Pro prices anyway. I just need a better video card than is in the Mac Mini in a headless computer. It seems crazy to have to jump from a $700 Mac Mini to a $2300 Mac Pro just because I need a better video card. That's the gaping hole in the Apple product line that would make something like Psystar attractive to a lot of people.
milo, you are my hero - you said all the stuff that I was going to say, and really are one of the few on here who seem to "get" this whole thing. I was getting more and more enraged as I read through this thread until I reached your post. Thank you!
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.
This argument is not only wrong, it is soooooo dated!!
Apple killed mac all by itself during the 1990s -- Macs simply sucked. Apple now has Intel based computers, a much more open strategy, users more comfortable with cloud computing so the data is not locked into Windoze anymore, Microsoft Office fully compatible with Windoze versions, etc.
Back in the 90s clone era, IMHO Macs SUCKED. Period. The clones didn't help Apple, but blaming their troubles on the "clones" is just too simplistic.
Hear! Hear!
What about someone starting up a fighting fund for these brave guys - David versus Goliath like.
I for one am happy to chip in.
Or starting a boycott of Apple goods?
It shows up SJ et al for what they are - ******* ****** - (fill in gaps as you please).
Macs are for the peoplew ho are willing to buy them! NOT the cheapskates who wanna get off with a 400 $ piece of ****
If you feel that an Apple-made mid-range tower would suit the needs of some then please explain the business model for both the mid-range tower and the iMac so they both may exist side by side profitably?
So you're conceding this point to me, right? Because this is exactly what Psystar is doing.
No, I'm conceding that cars aren't the best analogy, not to mention that the point was illustrating what is and what isn't a monopoly. And that's NOT what Psystar is doing at all.
Sure, go for it. But you can't sell it as a Big Mac. Food also isn't protected as intellectual property like software is.
You're wrong.
They are the only ones who can sell OSX, but calling it a "monopoly" is misusing the term.
Except that I'm right.
Google "derivative works". The law says you can't modify and distribute copyrighted material without permission from the copyright owner. Period.
If you want to argue with this, find me something in the copyright law that says otherwise. Until then your posts are nothing more than wishful thinking and fantasy on your part.
Totally! Users should be reamed up the ass to get a video card that's upgradeable! Damn straight!
Everyone should spend $1k more for that privilege!You're arguing against yourself here. As a matter of fact, if software weren't distributed with some form of license agreement, it would arguably become impossible for anybody to ever execute any software for which they didn't own the copyright on any computer without running afoul of copyright law, because running any software unavoidably entails duplicating the copyrighted material.
It is only by virtue of EULAs that any software can ever be installed.
B
bikemonkey
Guest
So I was pretty pissed when I went to my local Ferrari garage and they couldn't sell me a car for £30K.
Apple is a maker of premium lifestyle products. Their product lines are clearly defined and their products suit almost everyone* for their intended purpose (*based on the feedback from people I know).
If you really want 40TB of storage for your porn, 20GB RAM for The Sims 2 and a 5.0GHz CPU for word documents - all for under £1000 -, then quit bitching, build your own PC and moan at Microsoft for supplying you a sub-par OS. I presume that is why you guys want an Apple product. It's not Apple's fault that Windows is rubbish.
/rant over.
Apple is a maker of premium lifestyle products. Their product lines are clearly defined and their products suit almost everyone* for their intended purpose (*based on the feedback from people I know).
If you really want 40TB of storage for your porn, 20GB RAM for The Sims 2 and a 5.0GHz CPU for word documents - all for under £1000 -, then quit bitching, build your own PC and moan at Microsoft for supplying you a sub-par OS. I presume that is why you guys want an Apple product. It's not Apple's fault that Windows is rubbish.
/rant over.
This case is not about the EULA. Probably it's not even about modifying OS X.
Psystar offered (modified) copies of the 10.5.4 update on their web page. This is definitely a violation of copyright law.
Even if someone downloads the original 10.5.4 update from Apple and makes it available on his/her server, he/she violates copyright law. Period. It doesn't matter that he/she doesn't make money with the software or that the copyright holder offers the same download for free.
If you want Psystar to stay around, you should hope that only low damages are awarded. Psystar absolutely cannot win this case.
Psystar offered (modified) copies of the 10.5.4 update on their web page. This is definitely a violation of copyright law.
Even if someone downloads the original 10.5.4 update from Apple and makes it available on his/her server, he/she violates copyright law. Period. It doesn't matter that he/she doesn't make money with the software or that the copyright holder offers the same download for free.
If you want Psystar to stay around, you should hope that only low damages are awarded. Psystar absolutely cannot win this case.