Ah, you do realise that *gasp* someone could have given him money *gasp* Shock! Horror!
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 Exits Bankruptcy, Launches New Xeon-Based Systems Running OS X
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ah, you do realise that *gasp* someone could have given him money *gasp* Shock! Horror!
Exactly. I could never support someone who uses BK like that, as it seems they did. The lawsuit bankrupted them, so they screwed their debtors and started over. Dishonest and disgusting. They're violating Apple trademark laws etc, yet keep going. They have no morals. They shouldn't be in court, they should be in jail.
Yeah, I caught onto that. But the fact that you're calling people ignorant while making up words seems kind of backwards - whether its a play on words or not.
You must see the irony there.
Psystar isnt arguing that all EULAs are useless, they are just arguing that parts of OSX's EULA aren't legally enforceable. Its not an all-or-nothing case, Psystar is just saying its illegal to tie OSX to a Mac. Licensing clauses wont be affected by this, so a copy of OSX will still only be allowed to run on one machine. They are just saying its not ok to force someone to buy overpriced hardware in order to use an OS.
Good! Psystar and other companies like it should be around. The Apple proprietary software game needs to end. I'm sorry to say, but there are nowhere near enough hardware options for OS X. It's tiring. Apple doesn't have the hardware all of its customers would want.
Go Psystar!
Go Psystar!
Yeah, I caught onto that. But the fact that you're calling people ignorant while making up words seems kind of backwards - whether its a play on words or not.
You must see the irony there.
"ignorati" is actually pretty clever, if i do say so myself.
And yes, when it comes to discussions about Apple + Psystar + IP, the amount of ignorance and downright stupidity that piles up around here is such that you need wings to stay above it.
Have a look at previous threads on this issue. There's a group of people who think that IP law itself is wrong (!) and that the legions of people who depend on its integrity have no rights to their product! And there are countless others around here who are teetering right on the edge of this insane view, ready to fall right over.
A victory in this lawsuit by Psystar won't force Apple to stop the tie between OS X and Macs. It will just force them to stop selling stand-alone OS X install boxes.
Reality seems to suggest otherwise.
Seems "customers" are just fine with what Apple is offering. Surges in mac sales, tops in customer satisfaction ratings year after year after year, glowing reviews, top spots in sales on Amazon.com, the smallest contraction in computer sales in the entire industry in this economy, and a strategy that seems to be paying off handsomely for Apple (hint: it means poeple are BUYING.) Apple seems to be offering EXACTLY what customers want. Unless of course your definition of "customer" begins and ends with what you see in the mirror.
Or are you referring to some obscure minority that posts on internet Mac forums??
I'll let you say so by yourself.
I'll admit it has a nice ring to it, but since you don't care to admit any irony I'll spell it out some.
1. Applying an Italian suffix to a Latin based English word is quite redundant, especially when the plural form in English exists.
2. Adding the suffix is meant to sound elitist and create the illusion of expertise as well as professionalism in the field. Exactly the opposite of what you were trying to portray.
Really? How's that? The Apple I and II had OSes that were "purchased" off-the-shelf?
Look into how Steve jobs made money while in college.
There isn't such things as "laptop" components" or desktop components or ...
There is only components. Like Lego.
The mini sits on a desk ... its a desktop. My iMac sits on my desk ... its a desktop. I guess I could put it on my lap and I could call it a laptop.
The G5 was in Power Macs. Could call it a desktop, but I think most are on the floor. So workstation is OK. A G5 in an iMac , I would call a desktop. Over 1000 Power Mac G5 in a cluster, I think supercomputer is reasonably accurate.
2.5 in hard drives tend to be in laptops. So people tend to call them a laptop component. But they're in the Mini too. So call it what you want, but its just a component.
I'm an electrical engineer and design computers. I only use "components".
Much ado about nothing.
I thought Apple was against illegal activities...
Be careful in what ever you do.
It will come back one day to haunt you.
I thought Apple was against illegal activities...
"Don't knock it till you try it first....you'll find it's a blessing and not a curse"
Or are we thinking of a different kind of illegal lol
I'd call them Desktops made up of laptop components. I look at it this way. When designing a chip you need to consider power consumption, speed, and price.
When designing chips for laptops power consumption is paramount and speed and price are 50/50.
For desktops You want the most speed for a reasonable price and have no regard to power consumption
For servers speed is paramount, power consumption is minor and price isn't considered.
Apple builds 'green' (i.e. low power consumption) desktops (iMac/ Mini) by using upper end laptop chip sets.
And power house desktops with server chip sets.
This is why I chose to go with a locked up upper end iMac over an expandable lower end Mac Pro a year ago. As long as I get 5 years out of it with no hardware failures I'll be happy with the decision.
As for Psystar, I believe using the EULA to couple software to hardware is a violation of fair use principles. i.e. if you're going to sell me something you are with in your rights to keep me from selling copies, but should not be allowed to dictate how I choose to use it otherwise or prevent me from adding value to it and reselling it. This will eventually be decided in court and I for one am glad Psystar is pushing this.
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/index.htmIntel disagrees with you.
Please note the following categories that Intel lists:
- Desktop processors
- Notebook processors
- Server and workstation processors
- Internet device processors
- Embedded and communications processors
I guess I stand corrected.
I design a pipeline pig that weighs about 5000 lbs with apparently "laptop" components.
Anyone volunteer to try it on their lap?
What???? Do you remotely have any evidence what so ever to back that up?
Apple ships over 6 million Macs per year.
6 M * $129 is $774M a year. Let's cut it by 60% for taxes, marketing, markup, and some admin costs (being conservative, probably less than that). That is $309M. Let's say that the average Mac OS X Engineer makes/costs $280K per year (salary plus perks. that's conservatively an avg 'take home' salary of $140K which is high.). That pays for 1,103 engineers. You think there are more than 1,103 engineers with those kinds of costs on the project? ( also exclude all the non OS applications that are shared across OS X offerings (Mac OS X and iPhone OS). Safari , Calendar , etc. We are talking just mostly core OS. ) Those costs are quite high could be more but that is still a ton of software folks.
According to Apple's 10Q , the company spends about $319M every quarter on R&D.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000119312509085781/d10q.htm
So Mac OS X by itself brings enough money to pay for R&D (admin/marketing costs are elsewhere in the 10Q, so get back a bit of the $774 above ) for the whole company for a quarter. Hardware, other software products , operation development, the whole thing.
Still haven't counted the retail sales for upgrades and folks buying for "hacking". Nor counted the substantially higher Mac OS X server revenue. Nor associated OS X revenues percentages from sales of iPhones/Touches.
There is about 40M macs deployed. If only 10% of those buy upgrades then that's another 4 million units sold retail.
$10 an iPhone/Touch and 40M of those per year...... another $400M in gross. ( $774M + $400M => over $1B per year).
a Billion a year operation that isn't profitable. Really?
Competition. Free market. Kind of gone out of style these days.
I wish there was a hundred Psystars putting Apple's lock down to the test.
I wish there was a hundred Psystars putting Apple's lock down to the test.