You may not be too far off there.
Apple has shown they're much more interested in selling music / video players in the last couple years.
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
You may not be too far off there.
Apple has shown they're much more interested in selling music / video players in the last couple years.
They'd have to lower the price of their hardware if they were to allow that. If they opened up Mac OSX to non-Apple hardware, nobody would buy their hardware any more. They won't do it for purely business reasons - and they don't have to. They're making plenty of money right now, why change a business strategy that's working out pretty well?
Yeah, I really hope that guy was being sarcastic, but for some reason I doubt it. Look, I own and use a Mac Pro. It dual boots into Vista Ultimate, and no, I rarely use it. I think OSX is the best operating system out there. The Mac Pro is a bit of overkill for my needs, but at least I know it'll be a while before I need to upgrade it. Had there been a mid-range tower, I would have purchased it instead. I already had a 24" monitor so the iMac wasn't an option.
The fanbois disgust me. You can use and enjoy Apple products without confusing the Apple corporation with your best friend. The products aren't perfect but they are the best for my current needs, so I use them. I've got years of experience with Linux, the BSD variants, the Windows variants, Solaris, you name it... OSX is the best for me right now.
The spirit of creativity and hacking which made the computer industry so amazing for the past few decades never would have existed if the fanbois had existed in the 70s. I'm not kidding when I say they would have booed Bill Joy and company for writing BSD in the 1970s. The would have whined about AT&T's System V copyright, and OSX would have never existed as a result.
There is a difference between what a single consumer does, and what a corporation does. I can sell a computer I own, but if I go ahead and buy hundreds of mac systems and open a store, I am not authorized to sell those macs on a large scale. If I modify the hardware/software and sell them branded as Apple Macs then again there is trouble, especially when done in a large scale. On a small scale at a personal level, its fair use to sell your older systems with the software it came with or you bought.
i am not sure about anything BUT, the way i figure. if pystar actually thought it would be better for the consumer to be given choice, and competition for apple etc, wouldn't it be more 'just' to just develop their own operating system based on open standards that is fully compatible with osx? i mean.. wouldn't that be completely legal and would give the customers what they are looking for. they believe that there is an obvious market for low end osx'ish computers, and they care about consumers and fighting monopoly, then that is what they should do.
Psystar, go away already, you're not welcome.
Who on earth would want that piece of ugly junk anyways?!
I'd rather buy a year old Mac for the money. That reminds me, I don't even know what a Psychstar goes for, that's how interested I am in them. Hope they go bust in three weeks, at least fewer "clients" get ripped off by a company with too little power to survive, let alone service customers.
What's next - a Psychstar iPhone clone?
jeez....
J.
Who on earth would want that piece of ugly junk anyways?!
I'd rather buy a year old Mac for the money. That reminds me, I don't even know what a Psychstar goes for, that's how interested I am in them. Hope they go bust in three weeks, at least fewer "clients" get ripped off by a company with too little power to survive, let alone service customers.
What's next - a Psychstar iPhone clone?
jeez....
J.
Can you suggest some precedence and/or statutes I can read to back up this point. Inquiring minds want to know.
then again, if they had that kind of expertise or the finances, they wouldnt be selling those cheapo clones.
If you were a longtime Apple user, you'd understand that anything close to cloning Macs is gonna destroy Apple in no time. They are the ones entitled to tying THEIR software with THEIR hardware, and no one else.
Clones have been allowed before, but SJ rightly pulled the plug before it was too late.
Again people: you want clones, go buy a PC. Macs shall remain Macs as long as they are sold by Apple.
The only thing more powerful than a Mac Pro? Apple's legal department. These guys don't play games. I bet that's why everyone's afraid to make clones!
That aside, I am another proponent of Apple offering more inexpensive options, as well as the mid-range tower.
Just sayin'.
That aside, I am another proponent of Apple offering more inexpensive options, as well as the mid-range tower.
Just sayin'.
I agree. I'd like to see OSX open sourced but I think Apple would be foolish to do so. What I do think they should do, however, is allow it to run on non-Apple hardware. How?
Provide a list of hardware that is officially OSX supported. Start with what they have now... 8800 GT video cards, 3870s, Intel procs, etc. Maybe sell a PCI card that adds EFI functionality to the machine along with Leopard. People could then start building their own machines, and the hardware would be just as reliable as what Apple is currently selling, because it WOULD be the hardware Apple is currently selling.
They'll get much more in the way of marketshare, still sell Leopard for over 100 a pop, and sell more software like iWork and everything else.
People act like there is some sort of brilliant engineering or special components in a Mac Pro. I think the aluminum case and air flow are great design ideas, but inside it's ultimately just another PC with an EFI chip.
For those who think Macs are so much more expensive than competitors, see this side-by-side comparison. Compared spec to spec, macs are not more expensive. True, you can buy a really cheap computer from Dell, but it's going to give you really cheap performance. Besides, once you customize your Dell, or other cheap computer, to have some decent specs, it is going to cost you the same as a Mac.
I know, Apple's RAm is costly, but you can upgrade RAM in Macs easily without affecting the warrantee of the computer. Therefore consumers can choose from where to purchase RAM.
Some people want Apple to make a cheap tower, but the average consumer doesn't need the advantages that a tower brings. Remember, Apple wants to make money. If they could make money on a cheap tower, they would do it.
I know, Apple's RAm is costly, but you can upgrade RAM in Macs easily without affecting the warrantee of the computer. Therefore consumers can choose from where to purchase RAM.
Some people want Apple to make a cheap tower, but the average consumer doesn't need the advantages that a tower brings. Remember, Apple wants to make money. If they could make money on a cheap tower, they would do it.
I have the 20" ALU and have had exactly the opposite experience. I do a lot of video work for my family. I find the 8x/24x slot loading drive to be painfully slow compared to by old 18x/48x and is unable to work with anything that comes from my uncles with the Mini-DVD camcorders unless they bring the actual camcorder to me. Hard drive space is becoming an issue with video but with the iMac, I have no way to easily replace my 320gb drive with a 750GB or 1TB drive. This is only going to get worse with iTV. I also had planned to go with a backup hard drive and separate hard drive to dual boot windows.
Then there is the number of USB devices. If my card reader didn't double as a hub, I'd be in trouble. In its shipping configuration you have one port for the keyboard/mouse, one for the printer, and one for iPod/Digital camera/flash drive/everything else. That requires a lot of hooking and unhooking cables and since the ports are in the back of the machine, a lot of turning the iMac to be able to access them.
Lastly is 3D performance. I don't expect much, but I do expect a brand new computer be able to play a three year old game on a medium resolution on high quality. Too many slow downs. To me, the iMac is a great family machine, but it doesn't offer the same value to me that PowerMacs did. It gives up too much for a small form factor.
I've said from the very beginning that PsyStar's fatal flaw was distributing hacked versions of a copyrighted OS. The accusations of EULA violation are all irrelevant (it would've been very likely that legal action on account of OS X's EULA would've ended in failure for Apple). They only thing that could've tanked PsyStar was selling those hacked versions of OS X... and sure enough...
What they needed to do was create a tool so a user could take an original retail OS X disk and install it him/herself with a big ol' "WARNING: BY INSTALLING THIS SOFTWARE ON NON-APPLE HARDWARE, YOU ARE BREAKING OS X's EULA, THEREBY EXEMPTING YOURSELF FROM ANY OFFICIAL APPLE SUPPORT. DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE?" window beforehand.
-Clive
What they needed to do was create a tool so a user could take an original retail OS X disk and install it him/herself with a big ol' "WARNING: BY INSTALLING THIS SOFTWARE ON NON-APPLE HARDWARE, YOU ARE BREAKING OS X's EULA, THEREBY EXEMPTING YOURSELF FROM ANY OFFICIAL APPLE SUPPORT. DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE?" window beforehand.
-Clive
The company was actually doing gangbusters business until Apple decided to sue. I'm sure that's going to hurt their business, but the clients I heard from didn't feel ripped off in the slightest. They were happy to have a computer that met their needs at a good price point.
You said "glaring hole"... you're dirty.
If you only knew what I'd write here if the site wasn't so heavily censored!
Again, they have been doing great as a business with their expertise and finances. You're letting your empty fanboi beliefs blind you from reality. They found a gap in the market and sold a ton of computers exploiting it.
1997 called, it wants it's common sense back. Apple could do just find selling OSX and supporting clones. They'd start chewing away at Microsoft's market share and sell more software and more ipods/iphones/Apple TVs in the process. The problems facing Apple in the early-mid 90s are very different than the problems facing them today.
Disagree, the clones didn't kill apple. Apple almost killed apple in the 1990s.
Don't want to re-type this so here is the original comment :
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/5827485/
What part of "I already have a monitor and want to be able to upgrade my video card/add a hard drive at some point" don't you understand?
There are a ton of people here clamoring for a cheap tower.
Although, the minute you open the floodgates just a crack, you'd have all sorts of people complaining that Apple was forcing them to buy new hardware, and how "unfair" that'd be. Remember how people complained about hardware requirements when Vista was released?
Of course, I think Apple would have every right to deny support to people who came to them with problems and whose hardware was inadequate to run their OS
Actually, I'd like to see something with comparable performance to an iMac, just not in the iMac form factor. An updated Mac Mini would be nice. Looking at the Mac product line, there is a considerable gap between the iMac and Mac Pro.
For all future referance to MONOPOLY:
1. the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service : his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs.
[usu. with negative ] the exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something : men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love.
a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service : areas where cable companies operate as monopolies.
a commodity or service controlled in this way : electricity, gas, and water were considered to be natural monopolies.
So where exactly does the above average consumer go now that Apple caters to the average consumer? This isn't about price, this is about configurations. Apple is very comparable in price when it comes to similar machines in similar configurations. A $1299 iMac is not the same thing as $1299 PowerMac. When you have to pay $2299 to get the same capability that you previously got for $1299 and that the windows world can still get for that price, you're usually not too pleased.
EULA isn't a law. It's an "agreement". Does anyone know if a EULA has been tested in court?
I can compare the bottom line computers...
Mac Mini $599
Intel 1.83GHz core 2 duo processor
80 GB 5400rpm SATA hard drive
1 GB Memory installed
Intel GMA 950 graphics processor
Combo drive (Reads DVD's / Writes CD's)
Psystar Open $614
Intel 2.4GHz core 2 duo processor
250 GB 7200rpm SATA hard drive
2 GB memory installed
GeForce 7200GS 256 MB installed
Built in DVD writer