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.
Psystar Case Comes to a Close as U.S. Supreme Court Declines Review
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Glad copyright infringement is just a hobby for you! It's a risky profession, though it can be profitable.
If you buy software and install it on your machine, how is that copyright infringement?
It might be against the EULA, but nobody's infringing on any copyrights...
I want a mid-range tower, but I do expect to pay around £1200-1500 given Apple's build quality. I think if Apple produced a tower for £800, for example, it wouldn't be that good. I do believe that you get what you pay for, I just want more choice from the current desktop range and currently Apple don't offer a desktop that I would want to buy.
You're using it for an unauthorized purpose. Remember that purchasing ANY software entitles you to use it according to the terms of the EULA. You do not own it (this applies to all software, not just OS X). In the case of a copy of OS X you may have purchased, keep in mind that it is a software upgrade, not a full install. If you install it on a machine that did not come with OS X (the only way to get a full install), it is the same as purchasing an upgrade (rather than the full version) of MS Office and installing it on a machine that didn't have Office in the first place (except that MS won't allow you to do this, of course, whereas Apple has not put in place the license registration/software locks to prevent you from doing this).
If Apple sold a full retail version of OS X, it would cost about $300, comparable to retail versions of Windows 7 Pro. That would eat considerably into the savings of someone who built their own Hackintosh.
There isn't really anything under the hood of Apple computers that is proprietary or custom anymore. The processor was the biggest difference, and that went poof with the demise of Power PC and the switch to intel. The biggest problem is that OSX has a software check that would not allow the os to be installed... which the hacker community has circumvented since the first intel macs rolled off the assembly lines.
It is not expensive at all the replicate the parts in a Mac. That's generally Apple hater's biggest (and most credible) argument to Mac's being so over priced... there are machines on the market with basically the same parts that sell at HALF the price of a Mac. Actually, those machines often have some spec bumps and are still half the price, or considerably less.
What you pay for as a premium is not the components inside the machine. It's the customized hand and glove fit of the OS to that hardware. Windows has drivers and support for every piece of hardware under the sun... OSX only supports parts they actually use, which allows for better driver support and use of the components by the OS. The hacker community has circumvented this by writing drivers that allow OSX to run on most windows machines. (much in the way bootcamp works for windows)
Macs do have premium construction OUTSIDE. Unibody metal, attention to detail, no cheap plastic cases, etc. The cooling systems on notebooks have always been more advanced than competitors... there are selling points to paying more for a mac, and I'm down for all of them. Hard drive locking technology if you drop a macbook, etc. Apple is always ahead of the curve on these things, and for most of us, we find great value in that. Not to mention long term support of our hardware and software.
As for a clone box, it's ugly... but performance wise it should not be hard at all to mirror that of an Apple made computer under the hood. Definitely not expensive as your post said. Tear down sites that list costs to build get those numbers based on stock parts to begin with, and are never accurate. (They don't account for volume discounts, purchase agreements, etc. A tear down site that says something costs $600 to build is way off... that's what it would cost YOU to build if you went out and bought the parts yourself.)
Samsung or another part maker might assign a company a unique part number or a custom casing for something to make it fit within the companies design, but it's really no different from a stock part they sell openly and would work off the same driver or with very minor tweaks.
Apple could offer a sub $1,000 tower without scrimping on parts. This is exactly why so many people play with the 'hackintosh' idea. I've used a hackintosh and found the speed and responsiveness on par with the mac pro.
As I say, I’m going from memory but those receipts were among the financial records that Psystar was requested to hand over. Because it largely failed, it was the accused of withholding information. After a quick check, Psystar did indeed claim it couldn’t provide relevant information because of it being “lost” (albeit saying that it already been shown):
Yes, and the Mac Pro has workstation specs. So why do people insist on comparing it with a Hackintosh with desktop specs?
That being said, it is inexcusable that the Mac Pro has had no upgrade in over a year and is still priced the same as when it was introduced. If Apple is not bothering to upgrade it, at least the price should reflect its aging specs.
Here's an off-the-shelf PC motherboard that supports 2 CPUs, 64 Gigs of RAM, 14 HDDs and 7 PCI Express cards.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131817
You are in a thread about the Psystar case. Where it was demonstrated in a court of law that, among other things, modifying OS X to make it work on a non-Mac results in the creation of a derivative work. Which is copyright infringement.
The SLA is what actually gives you the rights that you need to install and modify OS X.
So no need to waste any more time on this I guess,on what is and what could have been, the above statement says it all. Only Apple is allowed to make and sell computers running OSX, nobody else is. If you want OSX buy a computer by Apple.
So more elaborate:
No matter what you'd like to do, Apple doesn't offer OS X for any other purpose than to run on a Apple computer. That's their business model, and their right. If you don't agree, don't buy one. Simple.
If you want to experiment and customize computers, may I suggest a Linux variant or Windows or whatever. That can be done both on the cheap and very expensive too.
Apple is not a budget computer maker, never has claimed to be that, and probably never will, they want to make the best computers they know how to make, and ask a premium price for that.
I don't mind that at all, it's our own choice to buy it, or choose something else over it. Millions of people do however, so they're doing something right.
Companies like Spystar should have better put their efforts into making nice computers running something else than OSX, rather than giving their money to lawyers, as they're the only winners here, as always....
You can make a very cheap Mac and put osx86 on it. Lots of the install DVDs are not idiot proof and come with a lot of drivers.
QFT. If Apple abandons the Mac Pro, I don't know what I'll do. I have the current gen, and it's almost 2 years old (2010 was the last Mac Pro update). Inexcusable. I've thrown in USB 3 and eSATA PCIe cards, Blu-Ray, 240GB Mercury EXTREME Pro 6G (in case the next Pro is SATA III), 8TB's HDDs and 16GB RAM.
Things a beast, but with Light Peak aka Thunderbolt there's so much they can do. Smaller form factor with processor(s), RAM, 2x PCIe and HDD slots, and Thunderbolt ports for attached graphics box and extra peripherals stored away in a closet or such - run a thunderbolt cable to your work area/desk for your display(s), HIDs, etc that would be a sweet system. Might even lower the price point down to what PowerMac's used to cost by cutting down on parts (and they didn't eat into iMac sales).
700 sold proves one thing : it's not profitable for Apple to go after the segment.
Interesting, I have been thinking of building a Mac lately. I guess my goal would be some sort of Mac Pro type of machine with an updated graphics card, however I would like get one of those thunderbolt displays, any suggestion on what computer box motherboard would be really appreciated. Thank you.
Macs are standard. Because you don't know of any such PCs doesn't mean they don't exist.
The HP Z820 Workstation is a PC that can support up to 128 GB of RAM with 2 CPU sockets, has 4 Internal drive bays and 3 external, exceeding your listed specs
Heck, my cheap MSI motherboard has 6 SATA ports. 2 HDDs ? Where did you come up with this nonsense ?
Proves nothing. They had neither the apple name nor their marketing. They advertised on a select few sites frequented by a relative handful of *Apple* enthusiasts and were a complete unknown quantity. To assume that their sales predict Apple sales on a similar product is bad logic.
If you don't have a valid license for the software you're using, simply running it constitutes copyright infringement as many precedents have been established that copying the software from the HDD to the RAM (loading an application/OS) is sufficient to be considered distribution and thus infringing.
And installing it from the media to the Hard drive would be another infringement since you're "copying" the data
So yeah, unlicensed software = copyright infringement in the US.
Well, to be fair, a lot of folks were going to be leery of buying a Hackintosh with all that entails from a company Apple had targeted publicly. Not sure that proves the segment would not be profitable for Apple. I think the bigger issue is that such a segment would never match profitability of iPad and iThingies, which is now Apple's bread and butter.
Apple did get out of the segment. Maybe they know something you don't.
Anyway, we pretty much agree one way or another about the Psystar sales : they don't paint a nice picture, no matter the reason (market potential or marketing/branding).
And if Porsche offered a hatchback people would buy it too. Who cares? They have a specific market they want, and it's really none of your concern until you replace Tim Cook.