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
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?
My guess is that Apple is more interested in Psystar buckling before a trial happens so that they not only loose, but cannot return. Apple has the resources to wait and I don't think Psystar does.
Possibility two: Apple wants to make a point and say "we don't tolerate cloners" and wants that message to hit as hard as possible. A settlement has a chance of confidentiality attatched to it, but a court decision is going to get alot more press.
Yes, I skipped through the 400+ stupid fanboy Apple cheering posts conveniently for the sake of my sanity.
FACT #1: This case has NOT been decided in any way shape or form so the fanboys cheering, while humorous, has reached annoying heights.
FACT #2: Only PSYSTAR's weak at best countersuit was thrown out, which in no way means Apple is guaranteed to win their case.
FACT #3: Nothing ELSE has been decided in Apple's favor other than FACT #2
Even if Apple wins part of it and loses some of it, the Mac clone market STILL could be opened up ultimately to others even if PSYSTAR is put out of business. Apple wouldn't be coming up with these conspiracy theories if they weren't being re-buffed at settling this thing in my opinion.
So I'll assert again, that Apple does NOT want this to go to trial, but they've just been unable to settle with PSYSTAR for what they believe are suspicious reasons.
I think I'll be proven right in the end. We'll see.
Be prudent to ask yourself: 'Why is the OS X so affordable (in monetary terms)", for I assure you that to attain the finesse of the UI (and whatnot!) specific to the OS X and Apple's software in general would necessitate superior resources as and expertise compared to the effort and resources put into making Windoze OS. The same goes for the hardware. For justice's sake, if Macbooks cost 500,-, your low-end Dell would have to cost 100,- or less! Actually, less, else it would make no sense! But you'd complain still...
If you ask me, Apple computers are too affordable and therefore too popular, but not enough for you it seems...
That the cheapest Mac costs only twice as much as the cheapest PeeCee (the inferior hardware specifications alone should suffice an explanation - and I haven't yet started on the GUI, stability, design (in a broad sense, including the choice of material used)) must cause your delight, but you nag nonetheless!..
"Cheap-cheap-cheap-cheap!.." - you want cheap, then have cheap quality! What do you expect?
That is something I find overall confusing.
I think it is quite clear that this is not some guys who want to make a bit of money by ripping off Apple. If that was what they had wanted, they would have been a lot less obnoxious to swim under Apple's radar, like the x86 crowd. And they so don't have the slightest chance to survive the court case that I can't imagine Microsoft or Dell being behind this; the whole thing is just too stupid. Dell might have sponsored this if there had been any chance to win the case, but there isn't, and Dell employs some real lawyers that would have told them.
The most reasonable explanation I can come up with is that the plan was to annoy Apple enough to get bought out and get paid off. But that doesn't work with Apple (or with IBM, as SCO found out). Their lawyers must have cost more by now than two guys in garage could afford to spend, so there must be some medium sized amount of money somewhere behind it sponsoring it.
Maybe Apple just followed my reasoning and concluded that two guys in a garage couldn't have paid for these lawyers. And since the case must be quite annoying to Apple, they want the people behind it to be hung, quartered, and violently separated from their money so that nobody else gets the idea to mess with Apple. Plus the DMCA act opens the possibility of criminal charges.
Yes, I skipped through the 400+ stupid fanboy Apple cheering posts conveniently for the sake of my sanity.
FACT #1: This case has NOT been decided in any way shape or form so the fanboys cheering, while humorous, has reached annoying heights.
FACT #2: Only PSYSTAR's weak at best countersuit was thrown out, which in no way means Apple is guaranteed to win their case.
FACT #3: Nothing ELSE has been decided in Apple's favor other than FACT #2
Even if Apple wins part of it and loses some of it, the Mac clone market STILL could be opened up ultimately to others even if PSYSTAR is put out of business. Apple wouldn't be coming up with these crazy conspiracy theories if they weren't being re-buffed at settling this thing in my opinion.
So I'll assert again, that Apple does NOT want this to go to trial.
I think I'll be proven right in the end. We'll see.
"Fanboys"... why don't you instead type the word for a two-page long sequence to soothe your satisfaction having therewith expressed exactly what you want to express? Or, better yet, be inventive, go get a thesaurus and look up for synonyms for "fanboy" (if you manage to find any... except for 'zealot": that one, too, has been used by Windoze-community quite broadly, hasn't it?)? And you, Windoze fanboy? How would one name you, then? Pick a different term, devise one yourself, or engage yourself in more sound contemplations here...
If you refuse to read prior discussion, you deserve to be criticized when you find that your points have already been discussed and dismissed. Ad hominum attacks don't serve you well either.
I find people spouting complete nonsense to justify willful violation of licenses bothersome as well. Point?
And what argument does Psystar have to justify the claims that Apple contends - The only one we have heard was shot down and the Judge re-affirmed Apple's rights - the heart of Psystars clone argument. Please read the prior cases and the relivant posts on this forum from people like Matticus (who is a lawyer) and understand that Psystar's only defence that they have asserted was quashed. Unless they make another assertion, we are left with the fefault assumption - no defence.
THe dismissal was really big in helping Apple in their claims against Psystar - my brief reading of the summary made that very clear,
See the dismissal summary, it would stil violate Apple's trademarks - a Judge has allready affirmed that Apple's business model is perfectly legal.
The only thing that can change this is an appeal - and I haven't heard Psystar amking any such appeal.
That is what I figured as well - a long time ago. All it took was me asking "How can Psystar - a no name company, afford to keep fighting a multi-billion dollar company like they have been doing." Admittedly, their legal prowess is pretty bad, but I figured that somebody is supporting them. Anybody else with simple business sense would be.
Yeah, but Apple can't kick in my door, slam my face against the desk, and tell me what I can and can't do with my copy of OS X, a copy that I own.
I agree.And I want the guts of a Ferrari in my Toyota. It certainly doesn't cost the premium that Ferrari charges to actually make those engines and components ... why won't Ferrari just open up and license their technology?
It's just not fair!
I never thought of it that way. The software subsidized by the hardware's price. Oh, and it's been a long time grue
You could potentially ask Ferrari to be an engine supplier for your company just as companies like Ford, GM, Mercerdes Benz etc supply engines to other smaller companies for niche vehicles. That being said generally those engines are not provided to a direct competitor.
You can actually buy Ferrari F1 engines, but generally these are two generations old or more so that Ferrari doesn't sell current engine secrets to competitors.
You can also buy regular Ferrari egnines. Though you might be getting them from a wrecked car
Unfortunately those "innocent" people are just as guilty as Psystar, their only saving grace to now may have been they weren't doing it for profit (?). Violating the EULA and installing OSX on a non Apple system is illegal regardless of whether you do it for profit or not.
For starters you do not own it - you license it. Big difference. And theoretically, yes they can go after you (although not in the matter you describe). However, the chances of them doing that is practically nill - the amount of effort and reward is just not enough.
However you are simply making another irrelevant point and throwing a red herring. This case is not about you the end user - it is about the actions of a business (Psystar). The EULA of OSX is immaterial in this case. Please read the relivant threads and the case filings where this has been stated repeatidly.
you tool. they're not breaking copyright by installing it on their compatible comps. i go to the store, buy a box of leopard, and no one will tell me where i can install it. i dont sign an agreement upon purchase saying i will install it on what apple desires. this is a bigger issue. you are clueless.
I say Dell are behind these guys.
If Psystar will be able to beat apple in court, Dell will be able to sell PCs with Mac OS X installed. Michael Dell said before that he would be happy to do so.
The truth is that it stank to high heaven from the very beginning.
Psystar is just a front in my opinion and I agree with Apple on this one.
If Psystar will be able to beat apple in court, Dell will be able to sell PCs with Mac OS X installed. Michael Dell said before that he would be happy to do so.
The truth is that it stank to high heaven from the very beginning.
Psystar is just a front in my opinion and I agree with Apple on this one.
You don't sign something and you don't do it upon purchase but you do agree to it before you can install. So, who's clueless?i dont sign an agreement upon purchase saying i will install it on what apple desires. this is a bigger issue. you are clueless.
These theories are a good as any. Maybe they want to make Psystar an example -- though at the risk of turning them into a martyr. I suppose Apple would get much the same impact with less risk by successfully moving for a summary judgement, which would be the judge telling Psystar that they came into court with nothing. I'm no lawyer, but I believe a lawyer might say that's even more humiliating than losing after a trial.
This has been pointed out several times already, but in fact the article says "as Alice in Wonderland might put it", making it clear that it is not meant to be a quotation but a play on the use of a doubtful comparative.
The author noted that this is something Alice *might* say as a way of indirectly referencing the original quote. Kind of funny when people don't get the jokes.
BTW - I heard somewhere that Psystar was also behind those so-called "Moon Landings" starting in the late 60s.
Interestinger and Interestinger.
EDIT: Sorry, Skunk - didn't see your post directly above before adding my $.02!
Poor Apple
Poor Apple !
Apparently
tried to pull the "me big, you small" on Psystar and failed to impress them. Sad to hear that needs a conspiracy theory to prove its "right".
Even more sad to see development and innovation dollars to be rerouted to lawyers.
please continue making more of those great products. Enlarge your competetive advantage and drain competitor resources in stead of looking back.
Do give me firewire, blu-ray support and snow leopard.
Poor Apple !
Apparently
tried to pull the "me big, you small" on Psystar and failed to impress them. Sad to hear that needs a conspiracy theory to prove its "right".Even more sad to see development and innovation dollars to be rerouted to lawyers.
please continue making more of those great products. Enlarge your competetive advantage and drain competitor resources in stead of looking back.Do give me firewire, blu-ray support and snow leopard.
Or as Alice might also have put it, "four score and twenty years ago, our forefathers..."
If Pystar wins, what would prevent Apple from changing the pricing of OSX? As mentioned in earlier posts, they could charge say, $1000 for a copy of it, but not pass that cost along into their hardware line to prevent other companies (Dell, HP, etc.) from undercutting their pricing. But I think that they could also drop the price to $129 if you buy it at an Apple Store AND get it installed by a Mac Genius so that actual Mac owners, and ONLY Mac owners, could still upgrade their OS relatively inexpensively. I don’t know if Apple could really do this, and I’m sure it would piss off a lot of Mac owners who don’t live close to an Apple Store, but it would prevent other companies from being able to sell OSX on PCs for less money than a Mac, while still allowing Mac owners to upgrade.
Also, I think that the unnamed defendants might just be people involved in the OSX86 Project. I don’t think that Apple really wants to go after everyone that makes their own Hackintosh. I don’t think that they really care that much about people doing it themselves at home. But, if this is the case, maybe they just want to give people that know how to do it, an incentive (ie. being named as a defendant in a lawsuit, leading to possible fines) to not show others how to do it.
That being said, I don’t think that Apple really has a lot to lose in this case. If they lose it, they can just alter their pricing structure to negate the outcome. But if they win, they have the chance to prevent anyone from even attempting to stand up to them in the future.
Also, I think that the unnamed defendants might just be people involved in the OSX86 Project. I don’t think that Apple really wants to go after everyone that makes their own Hackintosh. I don’t think that they really care that much about people doing it themselves at home. But, if this is the case, maybe they just want to give people that know how to do it, an incentive (ie. being named as a defendant in a lawsuit, leading to possible fines) to not show others how to do it.
That being said, I don’t think that Apple really has a lot to lose in this case. If they lose it, they can just alter their pricing structure to negate the outcome. But if they win, they have the chance to prevent anyone from even attempting to stand up to them in the future.
A valid question (remember this is not about an EULA really) and the answer is "nothing" All that would happen is that Apple would sell future versions of their OS through system specific upgrade discs (like the drop-in discs that are placed in systems sold between OS revisions) or through iTunes in some fashion that can only be done on a real Mac. I don't think in store is practical for businesses unless they have an on-site option...
In summary, Apple would just change how OSX is sold so that it cannot be interpreted or purchased as a "full version" by anybody purchasing it. Remember, the Judge has already said that Apple can sell OSX the way it currently is - nothing psystar can do will change that ruling at this point.