Psystar Case Comes to a Close as U.S. Supreme Court Declines Review

[Tee1up]

Wow, those towers are exactly what is needed here.

Well, you can still buy a PC with OS X on it in Germany: http://pearc.de.

German laws are different than US American laws. Microsoft learned that lesson back in the year 2000 with the so-called "OEM Urteil" when the German Bundesgerichtshof made it clear that several of Microsoft's EULA terms were illegal. This significantly changed Microsoft's business model in German and since then OEM and SystemBuilder versions can be sold and re-sold WITHOUT being bundled with a specific hardware.

Now Apple's EULA for OS X basically tries to force a bundle between their operating system and very specific hardware -- which essentially is the same what Microsoft tried to do with their OEM software license agreements.

PearC does not pre-install Apple's operating system software. They just provide the hardware and certain software that allows for booting and installing a RETAIL BOX VERSION of OS X. No copyright infringement there. No modification of Apple's software. And since German laws make certain EULA terms illegal that Apple nevertheless still have in their EULA, Apple's legal department has zero case against those guys.

On a technical note, I do not know how well those PearC machines work. I know from own experiments that OS X runs pretty well on certain Dell machines. I also know that Windows and Ubuntu Linux run very well on Apple hardware. And none of this is very surprising, because a Mac is basically just a standard, off-the-shelf Intel PC in a pretty designer case. So as long as the PC hardware resembles the hardware configuration of a Mac, there is no technical reason why OS X should not work on it.

 

[Bubba Satori]

there no denying that the mac pro (as it is is) a great looking computer.

Never look at my computer under the desk.
Over the monitor is a "great looking" print by Giotto.

 

[pdjudd]

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.

OK, but then where is the proof that such a computer would sell? There is no metric on either end since there is no legit market. Ouside of blunt assertions that they would sell, there is no proof either way. Such proof is impossible since we have no way of getting any. Right now the only proof comes from the fact that any sort of commercial model like Psystar had - which failed.

 

[philipma1957]

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.

people compare the mac pro to a hackintosh with desktop specs because the mac pro is apples only tower model. I have a diy pc that runs only windows 7 the mac pro is the only unit that apple makes that will do what this pc does. I have my pc hooked up to a 46 inch tv. only a mac mini or a mac pro will work for what I want. mac mini is a fail due to bad graphics. mac pro is a fail due to price.

A lot of people just go out and build a hackintosh pc. I did not I went legal to get what I want.
a mac mini with windows via vm ware fusion and a diy pc. Why ?
I still saved 1k over a mac pro with my setup. I did it legally.

My setup was about 1.7k with outstanding graphics. Also my pc and my mac mini are smaller then a mac pro and pull under 100 watts combined vs 200 plus for a mac pro.

 

[MacSince1990]

In what way was it a Mac "clone"? It looks nothing like a Mac, and having it configured with OSX would have just made it a computer running OS X, not a mac clone, right?

Edit:
Why is my question downvoted so much? Is it wrong to ask questions?

Only questions that are this magnitude of stupid and clearly illustrate you know nothing about Apple history because you waited until they could run Windows to start using them.

 

[AustinIllini]

there no denying that the mac pro (as it is is) a great looking computer.

1) Who cares what the tower looks like on a desktop computer?
2) The Macbook Pro, iMac, and Macbook Air are great looking computers. the Mac pro is a tower workhorse, not good looking.

 

[MacSince1990]

Back in the day when OSX was licensed to other makers they were called clones too.

Mac OS X was never licensed to other makers... System 7 was, and for a bit, Mac OS 8.

 

[pdjudd]

Mac OS X was never licensed to other makers... System 7 was, and for a bit, Mac OS 8.

That was a typo on my part - I meant to say Mac OS.

 

[yadmonkey]

OK, but then where is the proof that such a computer would sell? There is no metric on either end since there is no legit market. Ouside of blunt assertions that they would sell, there is no proof either way. Such proof is impossible since we have no way of getting any. Right now the only proof comes from the fact that any sort of commercial model like Psystar had - which failed.

I did not infer that it would sell - only that Psystar's failure is not indicative of Apple's chances of succeeding in selling a mid-range tower.

I suspect that they'd sell decently enough, even if only to creative pros and semi-pros, but that they would cannibalize Apple's other offerings and hurt their margins. Too bad that.

 

[pdjudd]

I'm did not infer that it would sell - only that Psystar's failure is not indicative of Apple's chances of succeeding in selling a mid-range tower.

The business method failed in the 90's when they did it before. That's proof. It's simple business that you do enable other competitors to compete with yourself using a product that you make. Apple is not going to make it tougher to sell their own hardware. Nobody does that.

I suspect that they'd sell decently enough, even if only to creative pros and semi-pros, but that they would cannibalize Apple's other offerings and hurt their margins. Too bad that.

I don't think we can make any sort of a prediction about creative pros or semi pros. They tend to be the hardest to satisfy for the size that they are - hence the Mac Pro - give them a huge amount of horsepower and hope for the best. I do agree that it would cannibalize everything else though.

Apple is smart enough to realize that if they license their OS, their hardware will be next to impossible to sell - and that stuff is what drives their OS.

 

[3282868]

people compare the mac pro to a hackintosh with desktop specs because the mac pro is apples only tower model. I have a diy pc that runs only windows 7 the mac pro is the only unit that apple makes that will do what this pc does. I have my pc hooked up to a 46 inch tv. only a mac mini or a mac pro will work for what I want. mac mini is a fail due to bad graphics. mac pro is a fail due to price.

A lot of people just go out and build a hackintosh pc I did not I went legal to get what I want a mac mini with windows via vm ware fusion and a diy pc. Why I still saved 1k over a mac pro with my setup. I did it legally.

My setup was about 1.7k with outstanding graphics. Also my pc and my mac mini are smaller then a mac pro and pull under 100 watts vs 200 plus for a mac pro.

There have been many clamoring for a Mac tower between the top iMac and Mac Pro, allowing the ability to upgrade graphics cards/PCIe cards for eSATA/USB 3.0/internal SATA HDDs/RAM/Blu-Ray (movie houses/editors especially) while using their own displays and HID's (iMac's only allow for RAM upgrade's, and their panel's aren't the best for editing for reasons discussed at length).

Since Apple went to Intel from PPC, the PowerMac G4/G5's increased from the mid-$1k to mid-$2k price point. This halted many businesses from investing in Mac Pro systems, not because they aren't needed or that the iMac fit their needs but because Apple slowly began neglecting these systems and the pro-Apps became less "pro" (Note: Steve Jobs stated in 2004 in a room full of professionals after acquiring "Shake" that their input would no longer be required by Apple, that states a lot right there).

The argument that Apple "left" work stations/pro systems because it's a dying segment is erroneous, it's tantamount to stating Nokia once left the smart phone industry because it was a dying industry. Apple is choosing to neglect power systems, not because there's no money in it. Many businesses have thousands set for system/software licensing upgrades, it's not uncommon for $100k+ for one business to spend on upgrades. That ain't chump change.

Apple broke into the mobile ARM market with money made from the professionals who bought PowerMac's and their stunning 3 model CCFL LCD line after Jobs [rightfully] cut out the peripherals that were losing money around 1997 when he restructured Apple. That money went into R&D for the iPad/Fingerworks buy out around 2004 that lead to the iPhone in 2007 and so on. Apple made a killing in iDevices, now having $100 Bill in cash reserves. This doesn't mean Apple made their money because desktops and power systems are dead in a "post-PC era", that's so ridiculous it's insane. There is a market for power desktops, try editing movies on a top iMac, especially HD, my 12-Core Mac Pro struggles at times. An iMac just doesn't cut it, especially when two displays and a monitor are pretty standard.

Point: Apple has enough cash to support both the consumer and professional markets. They'd be remiss not to do so.

 

[yadmonkey]

The business method failed in the 90's when they did it before. That's proof. It's simple business that you do enable other competitors to compete with yourself using a product that you make. Apple is not going to make it tougher to sell their own hardware. Nobody does that.

You and I are talking about different things. I'm talking about Apple offering a mid-range tower, not licensing their software to a third party. If you follow my posts back to the one you replied to, that should be pretty clear.

 

[Macboy Pro]

See, if Apple offered sub $1,000 towers with lower end parts people would buy them.

I'd like to see Apple just offer a current technology tower. Seems they are riding a wave of iPhone and iPad success and PC makers as well as Microsoft are ambushing them with better desktop equipment and software. While I am an Huge Apple fan, it is obvious that the PC world passed Apple quite awhile ago...

If they are serious about their Mac Product line, they need to invest some of their capital/cash in it...

 

[pdjudd]

You and I are talking about different things. I'm talking about Apple offering a mid-range tower, not licensing their software to a third party. If you follow my posts back to the one you replied to, that should be pretty clear.

Sorry, you are correct. Offering a mid-range tower would just not be profitable for Apple - it would make the iMac alot tougher of a sell (it's really popular as a desktop) and it would crimp the Pac Pro even more. Not to mention that I doubt it would be profitable.

Apple is also smart enough to know that they cannot compete at the low end of the scale like other OEM's - not if they want to maintain profits or invest in things.

 

[Gasu E.]

If you buy software and install it on your machine, how is that copyright infringement?

Copyright literally really is "the right to copy." Only Apple, the copyright owner, has that unconstrained right to copy wherever and whenever they want. In return for your payment, Apple is granted you a subsidiary right to copy, allowing you to copy their property, but only under certain specific circumstances that they define.

It's just like anything else where you pay a fee to use property that someone else owns. For your fee, you can only do things the owner allows.

 

[Henri Gaudier]

Shame about Psystar. Apple need some competition in order to motivate them into lowering their prices. Now they have a billion squillion in cold hard cash couldn't they ease up on their prices a little? I know, I know I have a fluffy little soul not best suited to international capitalism. Oh .. the naivety!


& yes I know it's "our fault" for paying it and we could go elsewhere but it basically comes down to a choice of two OS's and once you've plumped for one it's rare courage/stupidity to jump platforms and buy everything you have accrued again.

1st one to mention "shareholders" get a telekinetic kick in the nuts.

 

[pdjudd]

Shame about Psystar. Apple need some competition in order to motivate them into lowering their prices.

There is competition - there are dozen's of computer makers out there. If you are angry about OS competition blame Microsoft who created an illegal monopoly all those years ago.

Apple owns OSX, they get to decide how it is sold and licensed. That's how copyrights work - they provide exclusive ownership.

 

[allmIne]

In what way was it a Mac "clone"? It looks nothing like a Mac, and having it configured with OSX would have just made it a computer running OS X, not a mac clone, right?

Edit:
Why is my question downvoted so much? Is it wrong to ask questions?

Of course. But some MacRumors users - and particularly users of the downrank button - are unable to think coherently, much less put forward a logical argument to what you've said.

So they resort to downranking. On the plus side, if you've ever tried to discuss a point with one of the down-rankers on the rare occasion they raise their heads above the parapet, you'll be very, very glad they just clicked down.

 

[yadmonkey]

Shame about Psystar. Apple need some competition in order to motivate them into lowering their prices. Now they have a billion squillion in cold hard cash couldn't they ease up on their prices a little? I know, I know I have a fluffy little soul not best suited to international capitalism. Oh .. the naivety!

That made me smile... I have a similar ruthlessness deficiency that will most likely ensure that I'm never put in charge of anything.

 

[Nostromo]

Mac Pro sighting - oh, we just got psyched over a psystar

This was like a ufo sigthing.... a Mac Pro sighting...

...and then it was not.... just a weather balloon... a Psystar.

All those mistaken Mac Pro sightings in this thread show how necessary the Mac Pro is.

For really challenging work there's nothing better to have a cool, quiet tower with lots of RAM and drives neatly inside...

...versus a hot running, fanning MBP with a thousand cables connecting to countless external hard drives so it looks like a screenshot to "Along Came A Spider".

And the iMac neatly combines the downsides of the MBP (lack of expandability, cables mess, temperature) with the downsides of the Mac Pro (not easy to transport).

Boy, do we need a Mac Pro!

 

[philipma1957]

That made me smile... I have a similar ruthlessness deficiency that will most likely ensure that I'm never put in charge of anything.

Yeah I am in that club myself!

 

[3282868]

Sorry, you are correct. Offering a mid-range tower would just not be profitable for Apple - it would make the iMac alot tougher of a sell (it's really popular as a desktop) and it would crimp the Pac Pro even more. Not to mention that I doubt it would be profitable.

Apple is also smart enough to know that they cannot compete at the low end of the scale like other OEM's - not if they want to maintain profits or invest in things.

Again, this argument is erroneous. PowerMac G4/5's were priced around the same as then iMac's, ~$1500. They did not cannibalize iMac sales as they sold to two very different markets. PowerMac's were display-less systems with professional options while the iMac was/is an all-in-one with only the RAM being allowed for user upgrade. No expandability for PCIe/graphics/eSATA, etc and the iMac panel does not suit all professionals.

If any part of the iMac goes so does the system, putting a professionals work on hold. Whereas a tower is not interdependent on other parts; displays can go, a graphics card can fry, the hard drive could blow - all those parts can be replaced without hindering workflow. If those parts blow on an iMac, you're SOL as it would be benched for repairs. Having worked on every Mac system to date, iMac's are not easy to open and repair.

And again, PowerMac systems did not eat into iMac sales, as is the case with Mac Pro's and iMac's. A mid-tower would not cannibalize iMac sales as they cater to and are two different markets. Professionals need an affordable Mac tower that was once the PowerMac allowing them the flexibility I stated without the high price-tag and overkill of the Xeon server class processors (think top line i7 iMac guts in a mid tower). Consumers love the iMac over a tower as it fits their needs, and the top iMac suits the needs of SOME professionals, but not the majority.

 

[MacinDoc]

Of course. But some MacRumors users - and particularly users of the downrank button - are unable to think coherently, much less put forward a logical argument to what you've said.

So they resort to downranking. On the plus side, if you've ever tried to discuss a point with one of the down-rankers on the rare occasion they raise their heads above the parapet, you'll be very, very glad they just clicked down.

I'm not generally a user of the ranking system, but Marcus's point has been logically rebutted. What makes a computer a Mac is the OS, not the hardware (although you could argue that the design is also a component of what makes a Mac a Mac). Since OS X is the essence of the Mac, any non-Apple branded computer running OS X is, by definition, a Mac clone. Apple creates products that focus on the entire user experience, not just the external appearance.

Back in the days when Apple licensed authorized clone makers to make machines that ran Mac OS, they were referred to as "clones", in spite of the fact that they had little external similarity to the Macs of the time.

 

[Lennholm]

There's no doubt in my mind as to Psystar's "mysterious" financing. Somebody big was out to undermine Apple. It could have been any of the PC manufacturers like Dell, HP hoping to be able to build OS X compatible beige boxes that would evenutally bring Apple down. And of course I would put nothing past Microsoft. All that talk of an Apple monopoly within its own market was nonsense from start to finish.

To use a frequent quote on these forums; take off the tin-foil hat

 

[KnightWRX]

Of course. But some MacRumors users - and particularly users of the downrank button - are unable to think coherently, much less put forward a logical argument to what you've said.

Uh ? I think it was explained to him a couple of times why they are called "Mac Clones", in the spirit of the IBM Compatible clone PCs out there. Basically, same hardware platform, different parts, same OS. That's a PC clone. Psystar was making the same thing for Macs, hence the term "Mac Clone".

Simple.