Psystar Files for Bankruptcy

[ericinboston]

I'm bumping this because, though I disagree with certain key points you've made, I think even the bits I disagree with are well put compared to the all-too-typical, shooting-from-the-hip posts we sometimes see.

However, I think it's unfair to equate the term monopoly with any company like Apple that holds only less than 10% market share. If you don't know which company breaches anti-trust laws the most & tries to stifle competition, try googling for MS & anti-trust.

Also, ever wondered why HP, Dell or any one of a number of PC hardware makers don't design their own OS, rather than complaining about lost sales because of Vista's pre-SP1 shortcomings, as happened recently?

Apple's business plan may not be palatable to all, but how else do you think they can afford to constantly innovate, develop OS X, work on new products, etc.? Yes, their relatively high profit margins, some 30% as opposed to the average industry standard of about 10%, allowing them to hire some of the best engineering talent out there.

What you're suggesting would certainly guarantee that Macs would have to be sold at much lower prices &, yes, there would be short-term monetary gain for all consumers. However, long-term, we'd all lose out. How many years do you think it'd take before Apple's share price tumbled to record lows & inevitable cutbacks turned them into just another PC company producing mostly generic hardware?

What I would like to see Apple do to grow market share is either to go into very selective partnership with a quality PC maker to sell OS X computers that won't cannibalize Apple's existing range, for eg., mid-towers (not comparable to serious workstations like Mac Pro), or simply striking a better balance in a downhill economy between profit margins & steady growth. I grant the former is highly unlikely. If Mac sales continue to dip however, which recently they've done significantly so, I think (at least I hope) we may see slightly cheaper Macs in the coming months.

Well written.

I've been asking for Apple to re-create a desktop/tower for the past 5 years and it hasn't happened yet.

Maybe what I should ask for, which would probably increase their marketshare a bit, is to generally offer more iMacs and/or lower priced iMacs. What would be nice, for example, is to slash $200 off the bottom iMac and get it to $999 or less. No, I would not want Apple to therefore remove 1/2 the RAM and suck the tech specs out of it. Just drop the price...

I'll give up on my quest for a $700 Apple desktop (without monitor but much more powerful than the Mini) if Apple would start chopping some iMac prices...this way I can justify getting rid of my current monitor and replacing it with the one Apple forces me use on the iMac. I really like the iMac's design (the past 2 years) but I can't justify a)$1200 and b)tossing my 24" monitor. I'm willing to meet you 1/2 way Apple...if you're listening.

-Eric

 

[Ansuz]

They became the end user when they bought the OS. period. They have not sold a single unlicensed copy of the OS to anyone. Every machine comes with the retail licensed copy. This is covered under the First Sale Doctrine.

Actually, since they were unable to produce the financial records that showed any purchases of OSX retail DVDS, you can't assume that to be true

Then, after that, they decided to resell the machine. People do it every day on CL and eBay.

Modifying the OS is not covered by First Sale. Different issues.

 

[gnasher729]

Oh, and I thought one had to enforce their rights consistently....

Again, I am not defending Psystar. I am just surprised by the nerdy gloating that there's less competition.

IMO, it would make many happy, if someone offered a pre-configured OS X netbook for $600. But Apple will sue them, even though it doesn't offer a competing product. And the fan-boys will support it, just because.

There are certain rights that you have to defend consistently. Mostly trademarks, which are about recognition of a brand. Allowing others to infringe on your trademarks dilutes the mark, so it gets weaker. If Linux called itself "Open Windows" and Apple renamed MacOS X to "Shiny Windows" and so on and Microsoft didn't do anything about it for ten years, they would eventually lose their "Windows" trademarks. But things like patents and copyrights you don't have to defend consistently.

Anyway, how do you know that Apple hasn't hired a private investigator who is looking for Hackintoshes and is just too incompetent to find any?

Now I would refuse to call Psystar "competition". If I sell used cars, and you open a used car business 100 meters away, you are competition. If you steal my cars and sell them, you are not competition, you are a thief. Psystar was never competition.

I can't see why you would be happy about a Netbook preconfigured with MacOS X for $600. Netbooks cost a lot less than $400, subtract a Windows license, add $129, then selling it for $600 makes it considerably overpriced. And why is a MacBook not a "competing product"?

 

[IWantItThatWay]

Not if you need to sell x7 to make the same money...

Apple would still sell hardware and plus Apple could easily get 25% of the market (of 260 million PCs a year) if they licensed their OS. OS X has a high demand.

 

[smurfjammer]

Now I would refuse to call Psystar "competition". If I sell used cars, and you open a used car business 100 meters away, you are competition. If you steal my cars and sell them, you are not competition, you are a thief. Psystar was never competition.

Best quote of the day...

 

[Ansuz]

Apple would still sell hardware and plus Apple could easily get 25% of the market (of 260 million PCs a year) if they licensed their OS. OS X has a high demand.

I'm certian that if they could actually do that, they would.

Not to offend your armchair business skills, but I have to believe that the executives at Apple concidered this plan and rejected it.

 

[JohnnyLemonhead]

Actually, since they were unable to produce the financial records that showed any purchases of OSX retail DVDS, you can't assume that to be true



Modifyin the OS is not covered by First Sale. Different issues.

OK, then by your logic all custom car shops should be put out of business because they are modding a car design and all car designs by nature are trademarked. All tailors should be put out of business because they are making alterations to a suit that a designer designed. Again, why do you find Apple's position sacrosanct merely because they put their wishes into a user agreement (one, I might add, that goes into effect not by signing a piece of paper but merely by purchasing the product)? What is so special about Apple's $110 product that it can not be altered without the threat of endless legal harassment?

 

[smurfjammer]

Apple would still sell hardware and plus Apple could easily get 25% of the market (of 260 million PCs a year) if they licensed their OS. OS X has a high demand.

Apple would sell far less hardware and not even come close selling OS X @ $129 to cover the losses + having to re-train IT support staff.

 

[gnasher729]

They became the end user when they bought the OS. period. They have not sold a single unlicensed copy of the OS to anyone. Every machine comes with the retail licensed copy. This is covered under the First Sale Doctrine.

Then, after that, they decided to resell the machine. People do it every day on CL and eBay.

Again, you think you know the laws, but you don't. The first sale doctrine allows you to buy a box containing MacOS X 10.5, decide that you don't want it, and sell the unopened box to me. Once the software is installed, the first sale doctrine doesn't give you _any_ rights. It is the Software License Agreement that allows you to sell a Macintosh together with an installed copy of MacOS X, and the Software License Agreement doesn't allow you to install the software on a Psystar computer, and doesn't allow you to sell it when it is installed on a Psystar computer.

 

[IWantItThatWay]

I'm certian that if they could actually do that, they would.

Not to offend your armchair business skills, but I have to believe that the executives at Apple concidered this plan and rejected it.

Yeah Apple is scared of upgrading as well. With a PC, when you want to upgrade, all you do is open it and upgrade it, then get up to date drivers, and hope it works. With a Mac, all you do is buy a new one.

Apple wants to keep OS X to itself so Apple can control you.

 

[r.j.s]

OK, then by your logic all custom car shops should be put out of business because they are modding a car design and all car designs by nature are trademarked. All tailors should be put out of business because they are making alterations to a suit that a designer designed.

With those items, you actually buy the product - you own it, you can do what you want with it. If you want to pay someone to cut it up, so be it.

With software, you buy the physical media, but license the software - you do not own it.

 

[IWantItThatWay]

Apple would sell far less hardware and not even come close selling OS X @ $129 to cover the losses + having to re-train IT support staff.

Apple would sell less hardware (but then they could offer more choices) but could compensate with the license fees. Most people won't buy a Mac but if they can get one for $700 that's $129 for Apple right there. So they turned a non-sell into a sell.

 

[Veri]

Sir, I don't need to read that. I lived through it and followed it every day when it happened. I am aware of all the arguments made by the El Reño justice department. It was one of the biggest travesties in American legal history, and I say this as someone who is the furthest thing from a Gates/MS fan.

It is sad. In the mid '90s I was an ardent LOL-M$-SUX kinda person. I was involved in setting up some *umbrella* usergroup for the non-Wintel platforms of the day, and although it met with only very modest success, it did receive the honour of a mention as part of the ongoing case against MS. Looking back, I feel an idiot .

I have also learnt that MS was probably fairly happy, since no-one was actually bothering to compete on merit at that time, either thinking they could conquer some lame new media platform (hurr set top boxes) or bore Gates to death with litigation. Linux on the server has since matured to brilliance (ah, so that's how competition works!), but Linux on the desktop is still hampered by "why won't they see the light?" fanboys who don't actually want to take notice of what the market's asking for. Same for Apple in the workplace or on the Average Guy's desk at home, although I think Apple's way more aware than its cheerleaders that it's eschewing these markets.

(Why do people link to Wikipedia for information on anything?)

 

[Ansuz]

OK, then by your logic all custom car shops should be put out of business because they are modding a car design and all car designs by nature are trademarked. All tailors should be put out of business because they are making alterations to a suit that a designer designed. Again, why do you find Apple's position sacrosanct merely because they put their wishes into a user agreement (one, I might add, that goes into effect not by signing a piece of paper but merely by purchasing the product)? What is so special about Apple's $110 product that it can not be altered without the threat of endless legal harassment?

Intellectual property and physical property are governed by different laws and restrictions. Comparing software to a suit or a car is a bad analogy.

Its software, that makes it special. Look up IP laws if you need more information.

 

[JohnnyLemonhead]

With those items, you actually buy the product - you own it, you can do what you want with it. If you want to pay someone to cut it up, so be it.

With software, you buy the physical media, but license the software - you do not own it.

Ahh that is where you are exactly wrong, and it is the First Sale Doctrine that expressly states why you are wrong.

 

[r.j.s]

Ahh that is where you are exactly wrong, and it is the First Sale Doctrine that expressly states why you are wrong.

First sale has nothing to do with it. I never said you cannot sell your license.

(Why do people link to Wikipedia for information on anything?)

Fine.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

 

[smurfjammer]

Apple would sell less hardware (but then they could offer more choices) but could compensate with the license fees. Most people won't buy a Mac but if they can get one for $700 that's $129 for Apple right there. So they turned a non-sell into a sell.

I'm glad that you have nothing to do with sale/marketing at Apple, you would make them bankrupt in months....maybe you work for Psystar?

 

[Ansuz]

Ahh that is where you are exactly wrong, and it is the First Sale Doctrine that expressly states why you are wrong.

Read the actual First sale doctine sometime. What you are reselling is your licence to the IP. While you own it you are still bound be the terms of that licence and the new owner is bound by the terms of that licence.

All First Sale allows is the selling of IP licences you purchased. It does not allow you to alter that IP.

First Sale does not apply in this case. If all Psystar was doing was buying retail OSX DVDs and selling them on their website, they wouldn't be doing anything illegal. However, the second that they rewrote the code Apple owned in order to install those DVDs on their machines, they violated the terms of that license and copyright law.

 

[JohnnyLemonhead]

Intellectual property and physical property are governed by different laws and restrictions. Comparing software to a suit or a car is a bad analogy.

Its software, that makes it special. Look up IP laws if you need more information.

Oh, so when I go to the Apple store and ask for the leopard OS they just sit me down in a room and explain the code to me verbally? Oh--O.K. well now everything makes sense. See, all this time I thought when I asked for the leopard OS they pointed me to a sealed cardboard box with a disc inside of it. I didn't realize it was just "knowledge" they were selling me. On a side note, I guess no knowledge went into making cars. Carmaking: a totally knowledge-free exercise. If only the car makers knew this they could have saved millions on R&D. engineers, scientists, etc.

 

[IWantItThatWay]

I'm glad that you have nothing to do with sale/marketing at Apple, you would make them bankrupt in months....maybe you work for Psystar?

No I'd make Apple relevant again. Apple should've used the Vista failure to their advantage and license OS X, they could've easily got 30% of the marketshare (of 520 million PCs!) and then plus their hardware profits, and could've been actual competitor. They missed an opportunity and all because they want to control you and what you buy.

 

[Macky-Mac]

They became the end user when they bought the OS. period. They have not sold a single unlicensed copy of the OS to anyone. Every machine comes with the retail licensed copy. This is covered under the First Sale Doctrine.

Then, after that, they decided to resell the machine. People do it every day on CL and eBay.

The First Sale Doctrine would allow them to buy and resell copies, but that's not what they're doing. By installing it during the manufacturing process they're violating copyright laws prohibiting copying and distributing without authorization. Maybe if they sent along an unopened box and told their customers to install it themselves, then they could claim First Sale Doctrine rights, but they're not doing that.

 

[Ansuz]

Oh, so when I go to the Apple store and ask for the leopard OS they just sit me down in a room and explain the code to me verbally? Oh--O.K. well now everything makes sense. See, all this time I thought when I asked for the leopard OS they pointed me to a sealed cardboard box with a disc inside of it. I didn't realize it was just "knowledge" they were selling me. On a side note, I guess no knowledge went into making cars. Carmaking: a totally knowledge-free exercise. If only the car makers knew this they could have saved millions on R&D. engineers, scientists, etc.

You just don't get it, do you? They are just selling you knowledge- the DVD is just the medium by which you receive that knowledge. When you buy a car you are getting the machine itself. Software is nothing more than information. Same goes when you buy any software, movies, books, music, etc. You are buying the right to use someones ideas. They put certain restrictions on how you are allowed to use those ideas. That is how IP law works.

 

[Tallest Skil]

They missed an opportunity and all because they want to control you and what you buy.

Okay, well, with over a billion dollars profit per quarter in a recession, I think that Apple can afford to still completely ignore everything that you have ever said.

 

[smurfjammer]

No I'd make Apple relevant again. Apple should've used the Vista failure to their advantage and license OS X, they could've easily got 30% of the marketshare (of 520 million PCs!) and then plus their hardware profits, and could've been actual competitor. They missed an opportunity and all because they want to control you and what you buy.

They don't need to be relevant - just profitable, which they are and when they had clones they weren't.

 

[r.j.s]

Oh, so when I go to the Apple store and ask for the leopard OS they just sit me down in a room and explain the code to me verbally? Oh--O.K. well now everything makes sense. See, all this time I thought when I asked for the leopard OS they pointed me to a sealed cardboard box with a disc inside of it. I didn't realize it was just "knowledge" they were selling me. On a side note, I guess no knowledge went into making cars. Carmaking: a totally knowledge-free exercise. If only the car makers knew this they could have saved millions on R&D. engineers, scientists, etc.

No, and you know that is another poor strawman argument. You are buying the DVD and the cardboard box. That is all. You license the software on Apple's terms, if you don't like the terms - return your property and Apple's property and get your money back.