Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Psystar Agrees to Pay Nearly $2.7 Million in Settlement With Apple

Yr Blues said:
For Apple to be incensed that someone is selling a computer that can utilize OSX, while Apple builds all of theirs to boot Windows and even supplies a program to do so, BOOT CAMP. That's what hypocrisy is. Look it up.
Click to expand...

It is NOT hypocrisy. Apple is incensed that someone is violating their copyright. They are not encouraging anyone to violate anyone else's copyright. You are taking two unrelated things and comparing them. Windows is DESIGNED and INTENDED to run on non-microsoft hardware - there IS NO microsoft hardware.

If Apple encouraged people to install Zune's OS on ipods, THAT would be hypocrisy.

Your example is like if there are two people, and person A says "have a slice of my cake" to person B, and person B eats it but refuses to return the favor. That doesn't make person B a hypocrite.

This is grade school level stuff, buddy.
 
cmaier said:
It is NOT hypocrisy. Apple is incensed that someone is violating their copyright. They are not encouraging anyone to violate anyone else's copyright. You are taking two unrelated things and comparing them. Windows is DESIGNED and INTENDED to run on non-microsoft hardware - there IS NO microsoft hardware.

If Apple encouraged people to install Zune's OS on ipods, THAT would be hypocrisy.

Your example is like if there are two people, and person A says "have a slice of my cake" to person B, and person B eats it but refuses to return the favor. That doesn't make person B a hypocrite.

This is grade school level stuff, buddy.
Click to expand...

I'm talking principles, not legal BS.
 
Yr Blues said:
I can't believe so many people believe what they say rather than what they do. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You're a stinkin' troll.

This isn't "legal BS." It's simple logic. The definition of hypocrisy is taking an inconsistent position when it benefits you to do so. We've explained to you multiple times why there is no inconsistency in the position, we've provided cites explaining why your basic premise is false (which you seem to have abandoned without admitting your error), and all you do is keep squirming around with more conclusory nonsense.
 
Yr Blues said:
Can't win with the fanboys.
Click to expand...

Last refuge of people with no facts on their side - "fanboys."

In other threads I'm yelled at for praising google or for dissing apple. But when I disagree with you, show you facts and citations proving you are wrong, point out the huge blatant obvious flaw in your logic, all you've got is "fanboy."

And that's what makes you a troll.
 
Yr Blues said:
For Apple to be incensed that someone is selling a computer that can utilize OSX, while Apple builds all of theirs to boot Windows and even supplies a program to do so, BOOT CAMP. That's what hypocrisy is. Look it up.
Click to expand...

Apple is incensed about people violating software licenses. Apple encourages people to obey licensing with Boot Camp. That is far from hypocrisy. Look it up, I even gave you a link. Its a different business model that Apple has never (with one exception in the 90’s) promoted their business as anything else. How is Apple offering the masses the ability to use other people’s software legally hypocritical? Apple’s licensing for their OS is different than Microsoft’s. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s a business model that Apple has never been shy about.


Yr Blues said:
I can't believe so many people believe what they say rather than what they do. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Apple went to intel months before bootcamp or the other virtualization products were commercially available for macs - though you could legally emulate Windows for years legally and Apple never cared - no licenses were violated. I provided a cite. You have provided no evidence whatsoever.
 
Yr Blues said:
Can't win with the fanboys.
Click to expand...

You'll never win with flawed logic.

Windows is designed, as well as encouraged, to run on multiple hardware configurations, as Microsoft is primarily a software company.

Apple, on the other hand, is both a hardware and software company, which chooses not to license their OS to run on configurations other than their own.

There is no hypocrisy involved here - it is in Apple's best interest to maintain control of their integrated hardware/software solution.

Windows is a completely different model, thus MS has no problem extending their OS to the Mac platform.

Mac running Windows ≠ Psystar running OS X.
 
Mr. Gates said:
I can understand all the different points being made,

but really,

Is Psystar REALLY that big of a threat ?
Click to expand...

What is that question even supposed to mean? You are supposed to let people infringe your rights as long as they aren't too successful at it? So if someone wants to break into my house every day and steal a cornflake, I should let them because they aren't going to hurt me or deprive me of too many cornflakes?
 
cmaier said:
What is that question even supposed to mean? You are supposed to let people infringe your rights as long as they aren't too successful at it? So if someone wants to break into my house every day and steal a cornflake, I should let them because they aren't going to hurt me or deprive me of too many cornflakes?
Click to expand...

Don't get all crazy now. Simply wondering how many people ever even heard of them. I understand that people like you have decided to become an attack dog for Apple whenever you can, but try to understand that it was more an insult to Psystar than an attack on your religion :)
 
Yr Blues said:
Everyone seems to forget that Apple went to Intel to make it easier for switchers to install Windows on their Apple computers. Freakin' hypocrites. :mad:
Click to expand...

Microsoft actually had a software in their Office for Mac suite in the PPC era called VirtualPC which (poorly) attempted to virtualize Windows. When Apple announced the Intel transition, people commented on the feasibility of running Windows on a Mac. Apple released Boot Camp, Parallels and Fusion were released, and Microsoft discontinued support for Virtual PC, telling people to use Boot Camp, Parallels, or Fusion. There's a history of Microsoft helping people run Windows on Macs. There's no hypocrisy.

Steve Jobs had System 7.7 renamed to Mac OS 8 so that clone manufacturers couldn't license it (the contract only went up to System 7). SJ-era Apple has a history of not allowing Mac OS to be run on non-Mac machines. There's no hypocrisy. It's just how Apple and Microsoft license their OS: one to everyone and one to themselves.
 
Mr. Gates said:
Don't get all crazy now. Simply wondering how many people ever even heard of them. I understand that people like you have decided to become an attack dog for Apple whenever you can, but try to understand that it was more an insult to Psystar than an attack on your religion :)
Click to expand...

There are many things I despise about Apple, but I am a strong supporter of intellectual property rights.

And many people had heard of Psystar because they got a lot of press coverage for so flagrantly violating Apple's copyright.
 
cmaier said:
There are many things I despise about Apple, but I am a strong supporter of intellectual property rights.

And many people had heard of Psystar because they got a lot of press coverage for so flagrantly violating Apple's copyright.
Click to expand...

Well good. It's nice to have a civil discussion with level headed people. Some of the people on this site are so fanatical whenever you say ANYTHING Anti-Apple it makes me want to stop being a member. If the only point of this site is to talk about how great Apple is ......well , how boring.
 
butterfly0fdoom said:
Ah. Oops. Well, Microsoft didn't halt it or anything, so I guess it goes to further validate the point to an extent. Virtual PC sucked anyway. Man, it was so slow >.>
Click to expand...

Well, it’s pretty much been halted on the mac - MS isn’t porting it to Intel - no real point anyway - and is PC only nowadays. MS didn’t mind it - their business is selling Windows licenses to whoever will buy them.
 
pdjudd said:
MS got really lucky with the IBM mentality of IT departments.
Click to expand...

Not really. They are all of the same mindset, and Apple (and customers) is not. You can see it right here in this thread about Apple computers. (like PeterQVenkman) IT boys want to fiddle around, mess stuff up, fix it, etc. Both in hardware and software. Macs have been designed away from that from day 1.

This is why IT guys have always been so anti-Apple, it gives them little to do.
 
JAT said:
This is why IT guys have always been so anti-Apple, it gives them little to do.
Click to expand...

John Grueber has argued that MS’s successes came initially by IBM - it had nothing to do with tinkering or anything like that (that stuff came later). The IT mantra of the 80’s was “nobody got fired by going with IBM”. It was a form of FUD exemplified here:

By spreading questionable information about the drawbacks of less well known products, an established company can discourage decision-makers from choosing those products over its wares, regardless of the relative technical merits. This is a recognized phenomenon, epitomized by the traditional axiom of purchasing agents that "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM equipment". The result is that many companies' IT departments buy software that they know to be technically inferior because upper management is more likely to recognize the brand.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine. Just google the phrase. Tinkering didn’t happen till much later until after Compaq cloned the IBM boot process and MS had the capability to license their OS to other companies. At that point it was to Microsoft’s advantage to expand their hardware compatibility.
 
Mr. Gates said:
Don't get all crazy now. Simply wondering how many people ever even heard of them. I understand that people like you have decided to become an attack dog for Apple whenever you can, but try to understand that it was more an insult to Psystar than an attack on your religion :)
Click to expand...
I understand that people like you attack anyone you deem "overly supportive" of Apple, but you'll just have to accept that we don't all have a copy of your little rulebook that specifies what is and is not permissable (sort of like a religion).

In answer to your original question, yes, Psystar is obviously a threat. Imagine that you had created something valuable enough that other people wanted to steal it. A few isolated thefts and legal imitations happen. No big deal, you think, that's just the cost of doing business. Then someone sets up a company whose entire business plan revolves around stealing your creation. Now you have a problem that actually needs to be dealt with. That's where Apple is at with Psystar.

You said you wondered how many people had ever even heard of Psystar. Probably very few potential customers have heard of them but you can be damn sure everyone in or interesting in getting into the PC manufacturing business is following this pretty closely. Psystar is hardly the first company to come up with the idea of selling Mac clones. If Psystar pulls it off, lots of others will follow.

Hell, it's a great business plan: you don't have to develop any hardware or software. You just buy commodity PC parts, slap OS X on the machines and undercut Apple's prices. And undercutting Apple would be child's play because they're covering all the R&D costs. Anyway, my point is that Mac cloning is a very attractive business and you would be hard pressed to make that case that there would not be a flood of Psystars if Apple does nothing.
 
mattster16 said:
Is there a special dell website I don't know about? The $776 Latitude I'm looking at has a lower resolution screen, Intel integrated graphics, 1 GB of memory, no camera, an 80 GB hard drive, no DVD-writer, no backlit keyboard, no bluetooth and no draft-n wireless.

Yeah, higher specs than the $1499 MBP... :rolleyes:

Upgrading the Latitude to the specs of the MBP gives us $1,347 (on sale right now, regular price $1,620). Yeah the Apple costs more but it's also Aluminum, comes with more software and is most arguably better designed.

Yeah there's a slight Apple premium, but not nearly as much as you'd have people believe.
Click to expand...
I'm currently customizing one on dell, and so far I can say that the Dell is much much cheaper with better specs.
 
Yr Blues said:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/compatibility/

"It runs Windows, too" HYPOCRITES......right there on its own product page. Unprincipled. Boot Camp is a built in utility to siphon Windows users, and gamers—for that matter.
Click to expand...
Obvious troll is obvious? lol

No serious gamer would buy a Mac to then install Windows on and use.

Most serious gamers would simply build their own system that would be on-par with a single-socket Mac Pro or the 27" i5/i7 iMac, but at a much lower cost (albeit, without the 27" iMac's sexy screen).

Otherwise, those that wouldn't build one, would likely pay for one to be built. Either way, they wouldn't purchase a Mac to run Windows and play games on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back