I'm looking forward to Apple legal pounding Psystar into the ground. and shoveling 10 feet of dirt on top. what a scummy company
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
The EULA used by Apple and most every other software company is unethical to start with. If you pay for a piece of software you own it and should be able to use it as you see fit. Just because someone can write something stupid on a piece of paper, does not mean it is a.) ethical or b.) legal. And BTW, the jury is most definitely still out as to whether EULAs as they exist today are legal. It is about as ethical as Apple charging you $450 for a graphics card that all but identical to the $150 PC version. And yes, that is an Apples to Apples comparison.
There are mechanisms in our commercial laws that Apple can use to do what they are trying to do with OSX. It's called a lease. But I'm sure you can guess what kind of stink that would cause.
That doesn't begin to cover the development costs of the hardware and software that Apple spends.
OSX was developed to sell Apple hardware. If that weren't the case, OSX would be openly available on any platform. However, that's not Apples business model, that's Microsofts business model. Apple plays an active role in both software, and hardware design.
Firstly, these are in no way meant to come across as flame-bait, they are genuine queries....
Why is this such a bad thing for apple really? Macs are (seen as) expensive, if 'customer A' cannot afford a mac they aren't going to buy one and therefore Apple gets no money. But if they can afford a cheaper machine which does the same job but for less money AND includes a fee for OSX then Apple would surely gain a sale they wouldn't have and be better off?
If enough people did this, would apple not potentially lower their prices accordingly, which would be better for us, the consumer?
Why is this such a bad thing for apple really? Macs are (seen as) expensive, if 'customer A' cannot afford a mac they aren't going to buy one and therefore Apple gets no money. But if they can afford a cheaper machine which does the same job but for less money AND includes a fee for OSX then Apple would surely gain a sale they wouldn't have and be better off?
If enough people did this, would apple not potentially lower their prices accordingly, which would be better for us, the consumer?
And by stole you of course mean Steve saw a pre-alpha version of a GUI and decided to make his own which looked and acted nothing like Xerox's and contained none of their code.
I guess Ubuntu stole from Vista since they are both GUI's and an Ubuntu programmer used a Vista machine once.
Let me just say this... If you've ever tried building a hackingtosh with specs you think are VERY close to actual Apple hardware (same graphics, broadcom Wifi, etc), you'll quickly notice the theory of "generic" drivers to be a bad one. 2 examples come to mind... Though OSX does have drivers for many Broadcom chipsets, it doesn't mean all will work. Same can be said for Marvell Ethernet controllers... Or trackpads!! Though there are often ways to get unsupported hardware working, it's a real pain, and not always possible (those Marvell ethernet controllers were a dead-end).
so the trouble isn't in what you know about, it's in the little things you assume won't be a problem. For those there can be hundreds and hundreds of potential issues.
Not really. It's unethical to take product X made by somebody else, alter bits of it, and flog it on to make a profit but without having paid to produce it, as well as piggybacking off the brand built up by the other company.
I believe this is great news. The issue I take with Apple is there lack of a "true" desktop system. Since Apple dropped the PPC chip in lei of Intel chipsets, the iMac has used a mobile processor, leaving a huge gap between the iMac and Mac Pro (which utilizes a server grade chip). A consumer had the option of purchasing a PowerMac G5 for ~$1500 (or was that PowerMac G4, I forget) and the lampshade iMac for roughly the same price. They were both comparable in performance, the PowerMac slightly faster, and had different aspects to satisfy different needs. Apple needs to produce a reasonable desktop for its consumers. Perhaps competition, legal or not, from such companies as Psystar will force Apple's hand (highly doubtful, but it can't hurt).
The "fake mac" is much faster than the iMac. It is about on par with the Mac Pro, which is thousands more (for a comparable system). The iMac uses a mobile Core 2 Duo processor compared to the quad core "fake mac" or Mac Pro.
The "fake mac" is much faster than the iMac. It is about on par with the Mac Pro, which is thousands more (for a comparable system). The iMac uses a mobile Core 2 Duo processor compared to the quad core "fake mac" or Mac Pro.
Incorrect all around. Putting aside the "same level of competition" comment, Apple didn't steal anything from Xerox PARC. They PURCHASED the technology from a company (Xerox) which did not want to utilize, implement or distribute the technology its engineers had developed. There is nothing improper about what Apple did then as compensation was paid. This is analogous to when Apple the Apple clones used to legitimately license the Mac OS; it wasn't improper because there was compensation. Here, there is none; simply utilization and distribution for Apple's OS. Whether or not that is a legal violation of Apple's EULA is an interesting legal question and the ultimate decision may have far reaching implications in the industry.
Huh?
How do you consider buying someone's software, altering it and putting it on alternate hardware, both of which you agreed NOT to do when you bought it, and THEN selling it as legitimate "competition?" I just don't understand.
This is as legitimate as scalping tickets outside a stadium.
How do you consider buying someone's software, altering it and putting it on alternate hardware, both of which you agreed NOT to do when you bought it, and THEN selling it as legitimate "competition?" I just don't understand.
This is as legitimate as scalping tickets outside a stadium.
Any company reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. Apple knows the name of the ones that owe them $50,000 for buying Leopard. It seems to me all Apple has to do is not sell that "entity" any licenses. And if Psystar uses a different name to purchase Leopard Apple will know for a fact that there is indeed other people behind psystars motives.
Dumb move on psystars part.
Dumb move on psystars part.
Ah, the naiveté of intellectual property ignorance. What about Apple's right to determine how their creation is used? Or are they just a charity?
No they don't alter OSX in any way. They load a program before OSX boots to make OSX think that chip is there.
Because Mac OS X exists to sell Mac hardware. Someone buying OS X and then running off and buying a PC doesn't benefit Apple, it actually costs them more money. For them to officially support this, they would have to spend massive amounts of money on developing drivers, etc. for thousands of different configurations, as well as much more money on support costs.
All of that for something that doesn't even bring them much profit. In fact, you'd likely see the price of OS X go UP, not down, because of that, in order to cover the increased costs for the software development.
So Apple would gain a sale, but they'd be losing money unless costs SOMEWHERE went up. And OS X would probably become less stable all around because of all the extra drivers, etc. needed.
You've got to look at the bigger picture - Apple don't want to or need to dominate the market. If it tried to do that, its value would plummet.
People buy expensive luxury goods because they come with extras which cheap and cheerful products can't offer.
Macs are seen as expensive, which makes people want one.
Apple should be forced to license its OS?? Why on earth should a company be forced to sell it's product in a manner other than it sees fit to. Too bad for the people that can't afford Apple products. That is not Apple's fault. And if they are too non-tech savvy to install Linux than that is also their own laziness and problem. They could always hire a consultant to do it for them if they don't want Windows but cant afford Mac systems. While we are talking about forcing companies to sell products cheap for the masses lets start with car companies. I cant afford $80k for a Hummer but they are much safer and better utility vehicles so I should have the right to own one at the price I can afford right? That's your logic isn't it? After all if more people were driving safer vehicles that's better for the road system since it means less fatal accidents. Or how about we start forcing Ferarri to sell their engines to GM and Toyota since their engines are far superior products and well people should have the right to choose which engine they want in their car right?
And your comment about the person who suggested they create their own OS is completely wrong. If Psystar wanted to compete with Apple that is what they would have to do. And you are right. It is not easy and it is not cheap to do. But that's what competition is and that is what makes companies produce products. Why should Psystar make any profit off of Apple's research and development. Apple wrote their own OS and they support it. They spend the cash and should be the ones reaping the benefit of it.
Basically you are promoting a system where hey if the product is a benefit to the public it should be ripped from the company that produced its' hands and made available to people to install however they want to ensure it is affordable to all. Guess what. That thinking will lead to an industry where no one develops anything new and beneficial because no company will be willing to fork over money for charity basically since if it is a revolutionary or superior product it will be taken for them and forcibly sold cheap.
So stop being cheap. You want Apple quality products save up and buy them and stop trying to get the government to help you rip off the company that put the effort and money to develop it.
No they aren't a charity, thats why you pay money for the copy of OSX you would like to do with as you please. What if the makes of photoshop started saying you weren't allowed to put your friends heads on porn stars bodies?
Nothing like a little friendly competition. 
[/sarcasm]
I don't think I'd buy a computer from Psystar. Having to hack Mac OS X, not my idea of a good time.
[/sarcasm]I don't think I'd buy a computer from Psystar. Having to hack Mac OS X, not my idea of a good time.
Actually, it can hurt. In that
-Apple will be forced to waste money on these lawsuits
-Even if Psystar wins, it just means that either (a) OS X costs more or (b) OS X isn't sold retail period
-If Apple is somehow forced to officially allow OS X on other platforms, they still couldn't be forced to write drivers for 3rd party hardware themselves, they just couldn't prevent others from doing it. That means OS X becomes less stable the more configurations it's sold on, which means increased support costs for Apple, which means higher prices all around.