What makes you think you are entitled to anything Apple makes? If Apple doesn't make something you want, you go somewhere else, there are plenty of alternatives. I guess if I want a 100 dollar computer and Apple doesn't make it, I should throw a fit.
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 Suggests Possible Conspiracy Behind Psystar
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What makes you think you are entitled to anything Apple makes? If Apple doesn't make something you want, you go somewhere else, there are plenty of alternatives. I guess if I want a 100 dollar computer and Apple doesn't make it, I should throw a fit.
I haven't read through this whole thread, so could someone help me out? Why is Pystar winning this case such a bad thing? All this is going to do is give the consumer more options and possibly more improved products. It may even drive down the prices of Macs, but who cares if it doesn't. People are still going to buy Macs. They're sleek machines that run very seemlessly. They have a lot of loyal customers and their Apple Care Plan and customer service is the best in the business.
It is true, OS X may run a bit buggy on these other computers, but who says Apple has to offer support? Apple can just continue to offer OS X support on their own hardware. And Apple will still make money off every copy of OS X sold.
I really don't see what bad could come of this. This certainly isn't going to put Apple out of business or even come close to it.
I'm actually excited for this. Bring on the 10 or 11 inch netbook that Jobs refuses to sell and thinks is a "nascent" technology. I really wouldn't feel like I am "betraying" Apple by purchasing this since Apple doesn't offer it.
It is true, OS X may run a bit buggy on these other computers, but who says Apple has to offer support? Apple can just continue to offer OS X support on their own hardware. And Apple will still make money off every copy of OS X sold.
I really don't see what bad could come of this. This certainly isn't going to put Apple out of business or even come close to it.
I'm actually excited for this. Bring on the 10 or 11 inch netbook that Jobs refuses to sell and thinks is a "nascent" technology. I really wouldn't feel like I am "betraying" Apple by purchasing this since Apple doesn't offer it.
Yep, I posted that link a few pages ago (this tread goes faster than I can post). I was continuing a theory of saying if they were only available in box. Obviously they are not.
Yeah, about that rationality you were talking about...
The difference is in the whining and accusations of "diluting gene pools" by the rabid, and the utter lack of professionalism. Anyone who bandies about the "fanboy" label ultimately has nothing of substance to stand on. Way to undermine your valid points with melodramatic crap. And it's neither here nor there, but it's "you're".
Note that you're the one foaming at the mouth here, and that "my kind" is a meaningless epithet for someone who has been using Apple computers since 1984, and someone who uses all three major platforms on a regular basis.
Having met and worked with Apple designers and engineers, I find the question absurd.
That's not the point. Psystar is illegally using Apple's brands and trademarks. They cannot do this. The courts have already rules that Apple faces competition in the market. Heck, Psystar has asserted that point that users have an option of Windows and other *nix systems. Apple has plenty of competiton.
This case is about trademark infringement and breech of contract (I think that is still being asserted.
Exactly. If we took away all the discussion about EULAs, the relative merits and costs of hardware, and all the other things which are irrelevant to this lawsuit, we'd have about 20 posts remaining in this thread that are even remotely on-topic.
SIMPLY NOT TRUE (except in your own mind).
The court only decided that the case had merits and would not be thrown out.
BIG DIFFERENCE from the EULA being tested in a court of law.
That has NOT happened. This case has NOT even gone to trial yet!
And EULA's don't often get tested and I would bet the farm Apple doesn't want theirs to go to trial either, just like MOST corporations don't want such egregious licensing arrangements to be court tested. Why take the enormous risk? It's just that simple. Apple has so much MORE to lose here.
Conspiracy?
On the bottom of this page there is an advertisement for the DVD of the X Files movie. With an O around the X.
The OS X Files?
Hmmm...
On the bottom of this page there is an advertisement for the DVD of the X Files movie. With an O around the X.
The OS X Files?
Hmmm...
Actually, the case that psystar asserted (regarding anti-competitive behavior) was dismissed simply because Pystar's claims were without merit. The judge stated that what Apple was doing was perfectly allowed and understood by the end user.
I never said they were actually guilty - I am accusing them (like apple except I am not suing them) of illegally violating copyright and trademark. I have yet to use the guilty word.
I would just FREAKING LOVE for Apple to find out for sure it was a big company (a Dell or even better, Microsoft) -- and to sue them and the court's demand Gates/Ballmer to pay Steve a HUMONGOUS chunk of change.
What is a Mac, but an off the shelf intel machine a custom case.
Exactly how many of those options are compatible with your existing software and files? This isn't like going from a HP to a Dell here. If you're a lower end general purpose user with little investment in a platform beyond what came preloaded, the switch is going to be of minimal difficulty. Then again, Apple already this class of user very well with the iMac, new Macbook, and the left for dead Mac Mini. If you're one with a substantial investment in both hardware and software, you have to make another substantial invest in a completely different platform.
Also, if you're well served by Apple and their current lineup, that's great. However who the hell gave you the right to pass judgement on those who aren't, especially those with over a decade and thousands of dollars invested in the Mac? We didn't choose to have different needs than Apple's hardware allows. Apple decided to go in a more lifestyle consumer direction. Our years of loyalty were repaid by having the rug pulled out from under us and being spit on by people like you. Excuse me if we're a little bitter. When they decide that you no longer fit their philosophy, you;ll understand.
That would just be crazy! I can't imagine large companies engaging in this kind of activity. That's just asking for public backlash. Bad PR if you ask me.
It more looks like it's Apple who is behind Psystar and tries to get a court order in Apple's favor through bad defending.
Afterwards Apple will shut down macrumors.com. They'll claim macrumors.com is in violation with the DMCA because its forums support jailbroken iphones which is clearly a violation of the iphone EULA as it modifies OS X mobile.
And quite possibly a very bad OS X experience (due to lack of support).
As soon as people start using a Psystar desktop, for example, and hacked drivers for unsupported cards, they may very well have a bad OS X experience, and blame it on OS X.
I put together a Hackintosh and although it was fun to do, it didn't feel like a Mac. Something about the video (a fast accelerated NVidia gaming card that was jerky under OS X) and the mouse (felt like a Windows mouse, not like the same mouse connected to a MacBook, and I have NO reason why that should be the case). It was a very fast system (dual core AMD with fast NVidia graphics) under Windows, and very "blah" under OS X. So I abandoned that system and replaced it with a real Mac.
I knew what a real Mac experience was like because I had a Mac already. But for those who are trying to get a Mac-for-cheap, Apple has no control over the end-user experience.
This is what Apple is trying to protect over-and-above the net dollars that they might lose on hardware.
It's about controlling the BRAND.
Is it a coincidence that the X-Files movie was just released on DVD? I think not ...
I don't see what the big deal is anyway. Hasn't Apple convinced everybody by now that there's no market for a mid-range tower?
I don't see what the big deal is anyway. Hasn't Apple convinced everybody by now that there's no market for a mid-range tower?
You may have missed the 400+ posting thread about Psystar's counterclaims being thrown out. In the decision (which is freely available if you can be bothered to look for it), the judge made very clear that a. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the MacOS X market. b. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the market for MacOS X compatible computers. c. Apple has the right to decide whether to license MacOS X, who to license it to, and under which conditions to license it. d. Apple has the right to license MacOS X under terms that only allow installation on an Apple computer.
Now if you are so sure that Apple doesn't want this case to go to a trial, what is your explanation that Apple has gone to the court and asked for a trial?
I am actually surprised that Apple hasn't filed a motion for a summary judgement, since it appears that Psystar's entire defense has already been shredded.
The problem is that what Psystar is trying to pull off is deeply anti-competitive and against everything that a free market is supposed to be.
Apple has the copyright for MacOS X. That didn't happen by coincidence; it happened because Apple paid $400 million for NeXT and invested many, many years of hundreds of developers to improve on it. This is called competition: You invest money and effort to produce a product that people want to buy. The same thing that Dell does, except that Dell doesn't concentrate on adding the best possible software to their computers, but on keeping the prices as low as possible.
This kind of competition gave you Macs with a very nice operating system, and Dells that are very affordable. But the system only works because a company can rely on being awarded for their efforts and not being ripped off. Dell wouldn't build a plant where they build cheap computers if Apple could just waltz in and say "Sorry Michael, this plant is now ours, and we use it to build Macs really cheaply". And Apple wouldn't invest all that effort into MacOS X if Dell could walk in and say "Sorry Steve, all Dell computers now ship with MacOS X as well".
But that is what Psystar is trying to do: Instead of competing, they try to rip off Apple. There are plenty of operating systems around that they can install on their computers, completely legally because the copyright holder allows it. And there is one operating system that the copyright holder uses as a competitive advantage, created at huge effort, and that the copyright holder doesn't allow them to license, and that is MacOS X. If Psystar wants an operating system that is better than Windows or Linux, they'll have to write their own one, just as Apple did.
Here's why licensing the OS would be a terrible idea...
I'm using a Dell M1530 at work with Windows XP (which is not supported by Dell on this computer...). Recently, my internet connection has been randomly dropping out. Nobody else on the network has the issue but me. What's the problem? Who knows? It could be gnomes in my laptop screwing with the connection for all I know. Because Microsoft doesn't control what devices it's using, it can't help me diagnose the problem other than suggesting the hardware could be the problem. Because Intel doesn't make the OS, they can't tell me if it's an OS issue.
I love using my Mac because I didn't have to scour the internet for drivers just to get the dang thing to work.
Licensing the OS for anyone to install on any machine would be a tech support nightmare. There would be so many issues with people expecting things to be 'easier', when in fact, they would be just as bad as they were with windows.
Let the people who want to buy PCs stick with Windows or Linux (talk about a configuration nightmare!) They probably know what they're doing, or can manage to get their computer to a point where it is usable to them.
My question to this whole Psystar thing is WHY?
There doesn't seem to be any way for them to turn a profit and not have it snatched up by Apple's lawyers.
I'm using a Dell M1530 at work with Windows XP (which is not supported by Dell on this computer...). Recently, my internet connection has been randomly dropping out. Nobody else on the network has the issue but me. What's the problem? Who knows? It could be gnomes in my laptop screwing with the connection for all I know. Because Microsoft doesn't control what devices it's using, it can't help me diagnose the problem other than suggesting the hardware could be the problem. Because Intel doesn't make the OS, they can't tell me if it's an OS issue.
I love using my Mac because I didn't have to scour the internet for drivers just to get the dang thing to work.
Licensing the OS for anyone to install on any machine would be a tech support nightmare. There would be so many issues with people expecting things to be 'easier', when in fact, they would be just as bad as they were with windows.
Let the people who want to buy PCs stick with Windows or Linux (talk about a configuration nightmare!) They probably know what they're doing, or can manage to get their computer to a point where it is usable to them.
My question to this whole Psystar thing is WHY?
There doesn't seem to be any way for them to turn a profit and not have it snatched up by Apple's lawyers.