I think someone else makes the cases, too. Most things are farmed out these days.
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 Files for Bankruptcy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, and this is why I cannot see how people can justify the (sometimes) $1000 price difference between computers.
Sorry, no large horde of property, or trinkets here. Perhaps the lack of trinkets is partly why I'm so easily able to set and meet my goals to save enough money to buy a Mac when I need one?
Wait, what? Macs are for people who live off savings, but Dells are for people who live off over-extended credit? That one's almost quotable.
I don't know how you got from "saving money" to "living off savings" but whatever floats your boat.
I wouldn't be surprised if quite a lot of people do put Dell's on their over-extended credit and they justify it to themselves by telling themselves that they "saved" money since it only added $899 to their CC instead of $1200.
It's not an issue of being rich or not, its one of self-control and discipline.
Why would I take a Mac to a repair shop? If its suffering from some kind of defect or hardware failure I expect the warranty to cover any issues, at no cost to myself.
Also the financial benefit for a Mac is you don't have to take it in to Best Buy and get screwed by the "Geek Squad" because the OS suddenly FUBAR'd or because you got a virus since your 15-day trial of McAfee expired 3 months ago.
If you're employed then being tight on money is mostly a self-control and time issue.
There are a lot of users on this forum, both long time Mac users and recent PC switchers who could tell you the price difference for a Mac is worth it.
I know, I just meant that the casing/trim is really the only "Apple" part of the computer. I am just sick of everyone talking about Apples as if you open up the case and every capacitor, resistor, hard drive, stick of ram, chip and LCD has "APPLE" stamped on it. Maybe--MAYBE--if that were the case then Apple's arguments--and those of many here on this thread--would hold water. Maybe.
I just flipped over my 2006 vintage white iMac keyboard to make out:
But I do need new glasses.
Hm, perhaps I ought to clarify: unless you have some needs-based justification for your Mac, your Mac is a trinket. If you can afford such trinkets, you're well-off - almost by definition.beg_ne said:
Semantics. You're either living off money you do have (savings - even if they just entered your bank account the day before) or money you don't (credit).
On the contrary, I, err, applaud your self-control and discipline and its making you rich enough to be able to regularly buy a family of Macs.
I thought we were talking about people who weren't well-off. That tends to mean not buying a new computer every 1 year (or 3 years, if they can afford the "because it isn't user-serviceable" tax) just because they've bought something that isn't user-serviceable.
(1) Why would a price-conscious consumer not learn how to backup and reinstall his own machine?
(2) Why is it that Mac fanboys find they need to reinstall Windows so much more than anyone else? My XP installs have lasted for years. (Incidentally, my XP licenses have also lasted since 2002 - not something that can be said for any OS X 10.1 license.)
(3) Lots of fair free AV out there. Or invest $20/year in cheap Kaspersky licenses (at least, that was the Amazon UK price for a 3-pack last time I ordered).
If you are employed in a well-paid job relative to local cost of living then it might hold true, but there are full-time workers who are paid low wages and who still struggle to pay for basics, let alone a family of new Macs every <=3 years! Such low-paid groups are certainly not going to be offered generous lines of credit to abuse, either. A low-end Dell&co. will serve them fine, and will certainly not cost them $899. If the economy takes a turn for the worse, no new machine will be affordable.
To be fair, the circuit boards are all designed by Apple but the parts themselves are no longer unique.
Well I think you are getting to the heart of the matter here--and I think Apple knows this, too. Of course they have to cling to this absurd "legal" logic that only Apple machines (again defined by Apple casing/trim) can run the software. The second this argument falls apart they can no longer charge a 2x premium for their casing.
But you are still using Windows, I mean natively. Once you run Windows on a Mac your Mac turns into the Dell you guys hate so much.
What's funny is that the number 1 software (non-free) for the Mac (besides iLife which is included anyways) is Microsoft Office. Funny how many companies hardly support the Mac with their software yet Microsoft releases their second most important software (behind Windows) for the Mac? Hell, they even release Windows on the Mac. So basically, Microsoft releases their top 2 software for the Mac.
If MS stopped releasing Office for the Mac, Macs would become extinct.
MS released software (Excel I think) on macs before they started making windows. No one is bagging MS and ever heard of OpenOffice?
Yeah---um-----by nature a motherboard has to be made to fit into wahetever machine it is installed in. A motherboard is just another form of casing. It is just a board that holds all of the chips and capacitors and resistors. That's all. Just like the case holds the hard drive and the optical drive and the power supply. Same concept.
Think of it this way, if you did that to one, or maybe a couple copies and then sold it to your friends, or on eBay, or to a used book store you couple probably get away with it fine. Not that many people would want to buy it in that condition though...
That is like building your own hackintosh for yourself.
Now if you went and bought a thousand books, ripped out the pages, and crossed out a bunch of stuff and called it JohnnyLemonhead's The Great Gatsby and setup a business around it I'm sure you'd get sued into oblivion.
This is like Psystar.
Oh--did Psystar call the OS "Psystar's Leopard?" I guess I missed that...
They did put the whitebox together, right? They didn't rename the OS, did they? Your argument is that it's OK to mod things in small quantities but not large ones? Next point?
Calling people elitist fanboys just made your entire post pointless because you've gone at the entire thing with an obviously biased view (further evidenced by your need to guard yourself from being called a Windows fanboy). Alot of us aren't simply Apple fans, we're also legal scholars. And to be perfectly blunt, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what alot of us are arguing over.
Whether you'd like to run OS X on generic hardware or not, you have no legal right to do so. That's simply all there is to it. Businesses have the right to protect their intellectual property the same way that people do. Were that not true, then capitalism as a principle simply would not work on any level because everyone would just copy everyone and there'd be no real reason to ever strive for anything.
With Apple specifically, you need to understand that Apple is not selling you software, it's selling you hardware. All of its profits are derived from its hardware sales and you can see that throughout all of its products. The iPhone is a good example: Apple has sold millions of iPhones, but barely made anything from the App store because the software is simply a vehicle to sell the hardware.
By the nature of that relationship, Apple's competition is not truly Microsoft, but OEMs like Dell and Hewlett-Packard, & Toshiba. The only thing distinguishing those OEMs from each other is the design of their cases and some minor specification differences. Which is why Apple makes OS X: in order to distinguish itself from the competition. That is Apple's entire business plan and that's why it has to fight so fiercely to protect it.
Now, I will say to you personally that what you said about computers being just "tools" and the operating system not mattering is just complete and utter ********. This is the digital age, computers are a part of everything we do (even when they're not actually computers, but things like TVs and appliances). The idea that a computer is just a tool is complete lunacy. As a law student, most of the things I do revolve around my computer (notes, research, etc) and I spend alot of time online as a result. My Mac is a tool, yes, but that's by no means all that it is. I use it for television and photography and communicating with friends among many other things. If you think a computer is just tool, you are one seriously jaded human being.
And while Apple gets its parts from the same manufacturers as Windows OEMs do, the quality control on Apples has always been higher than its Windows counterparts. Try using even a high end Dell and see how long it lasts. The XPS 13 selected in the last "I'm a PC" commercial has one very well known and very substantial flaw: when its lid is open, it blocks its main air vents and causes system wide parts failures as a result. Not everything is just the sum of its parts. PC OEMs sacrifice quality because one of the few ways they can differentiate themselves from each other is to play the price game and to keep investors happy under that practice they have to cut corners to retain profit margins. Again, few things in this world are just the sum of their parts.
Also, your idea that the operating system counts for nothing disgusts me. Were it not for Apple, there would be no real choice in anything. Microsoft would have 97% of the market and various forms of Linux that only people with a tolerance for command line prompts would use would make up the rest of the market.
And were Apple to compete amongst cloners the way Microsoft deals with OEMs, there would be no real point in its existence because it would just be a prettier, safer Windows by the nature of having to, like Windows, be everything to everyone. And under that auspice, Apple, as a company would fail because everyone would still buy Windows because that's what they're used to and all of the advantages Apple has in stability and features would quickly become moot.
But as an even bigger point: if I were to even believe your claim that they're all completely the same because they're made from similar parts, then the most important part of the computer is thereby the operating system because it's what takes advantage of all those parts. It's kind of like the human body, the mind is what ultimately makes the person, not simply the size or strength of his or her appendages, muscles, etc.
Finally, Apple doesn't want you to buy a new computer just for OS X, but when it comes time for you to replace what you have, it certainly hopes to be on your list of choices.
Tell me where you can walk into a PC parts store and buy a motherboard that fits in a mac? You can't it's made for apple.
Yeah but MS could easily not release it on the Mac. And OpenOffice - as great as it is, is not really a competitor to Office (if I remember correctly, Office has an even more dominant market share than Windows does). Most schools/workplaces require Office/Word.
I just think it's funny that as many companies that do not support the Mac with their products, Apple's number one "enemy" not only supports the Mac, but allows the Mac to run their 2 most popular titles (which just happen to be the most popular software titles out there). Excluding games here are some programs I'd love see on the Mac: Nero, AutoCAD, YouTube/Orbit Downloader, a few hobby titles (like my Family Tree/Learn Spanish software) and Dragon Naturally Speaking.
Claiming you are in law school does not add any validity to your arguments. Just want to state that for the record.
So you're OK with me installing OSX on the hackintosh I built in an old G5 case?
Because that case is certainly apple branded.
Legally, Psystar had no ground. In my opinion.
In reading through this thread, and following the Pystar story here since the beginning, I notice that some claim that Apple's EULA isn't valid legally and they have no right to enforce it.
Well, to my knowledge, they don't enforce it. Not blindly, anyway.
Think of it this way. If I legally purchased a copy of OS X and installed it on my own Hackintosh system, Apple is not going to enforce the EULA in regards to your own personal use. But, and this is addressed to everyone who says Psystar is perfectly within their rights to sell computers with OS X pre-installed, that's not what Psystar was doing. They were using it to make a profit.
The home user, who does it on their own, has every right to do so, because Apple will not claim violation of the EULA, because the user who does it for their own personal preference isn't selling Apple's software on their hardware without paying licensing fees to Apple. But Psystar did, whether preinstalled or not, and that is the problem.
Even if Psystar legally purchased every copy of OS X they installed or shipped with their Open Computer, they are still not within their rights.
As a filmmaker, if I make a film, and I want to put a Springsteen song FROM A CD THAT I OWN (thus, the COPY of the song is mine) on the soundtrack, I can, and Springsteen and the record label won't care, UNTIL I decide to release the film to market and sell tickets. I am legally obligated to pay for the rights to do so, both to the record label and the publishing company, and in some cases the artist as well. Why? Because it is not my intelletual property to do with as I please.
So, the argument that Psystar could do whatever they wanted, even if they paid for each copy, is wrong. Not necessarily logical, or even fair, but still wrong.
In reading through this thread, and following the Pystar story here since the beginning, I notice that some claim that Apple's EULA isn't valid legally and they have no right to enforce it.
Well, to my knowledge, they don't enforce it. Not blindly, anyway.
Think of it this way. If I legally purchased a copy of OS X and installed it on my own Hackintosh system, Apple is not going to enforce the EULA in regards to your own personal use. But, and this is addressed to everyone who says Psystar is perfectly within their rights to sell computers with OS X pre-installed, that's not what Psystar was doing. They were using it to make a profit.
The home user, who does it on their own, has every right to do so, because Apple will not claim violation of the EULA, because the user who does it for their own personal preference isn't selling Apple's software on their hardware without paying licensing fees to Apple. But Psystar did, whether preinstalled or not, and that is the problem.
Even if Psystar legally purchased every copy of OS X they installed or shipped with their Open Computer, they are still not within their rights.
As a filmmaker, if I make a film, and I want to put a Springsteen song FROM A CD THAT I OWN (thus, the COPY of the song is mine) on the soundtrack, I can, and Springsteen and the record label won't care, UNTIL I decide to release the film to market and sell tickets. I am legally obligated to pay for the rights to do so, both to the record label and the publishing company, and in some cases the artist as well. Why? Because it is not my intelletual property to do with as I please.
So, the argument that Psystar could do whatever they wanted, even if they paid for each copy, is wrong. Not necessarily logical, or even fair, but still wrong.
You also can't buy one for a Dell or an HP or any other PC makers' models. Only generic whiteboxes. This doesn't mean they are special, however. The motherboard is the medium for the electronic parts, similar to a canvas being a medium for a painting. If you want to argue that a canvas is what makes a great painting then fine. because Apple has to have a motherboard made to fit their machine does not mean that Apple "made" the machine. They designed the machine, sure. I'll give you that.
Although this still doesn't fundamentally change my opinion on these matters, I have to say that this is the best point that has been made on Apple's behalf in this entire thread.
Most of the software listed already have mac equivalents: Nero/Toast...
Anyway you're turning this thread into a Apple vs Microsoft when it's about Psystar going bankrupt.
They didn't rename the OS, they did call their computers "OpenMac". The point is you can't muck around with someone else's copyrighted work make a business out of it and not expect to get used.
It is basically seen as fine to do something on a personal scale since it doesn't have an impact on copyright holder and it's basically impossible to track.
I suppose if Apple really wanted to they could track down every hackintosh user and sue them RIAA style. But it's not really worth their time or money.
I just want to see how far your "it's only casing" excuse goes. Maybe Psystar should be able to sell OS X because once you put it on a HD since the HD is nothing more than a case with a shiny disk inside Apple has no rights over OSX since you can't own the concept of casing...
Also if Motherboards are just "casing" and you know, not a complex piece of electronics that had to be designed then how come Dell was sued for patent infringement over a motherboard design, in which Dell ended up paying the company almost $50 Million to settle the case?
http://www.computerweekly.com/Artic...and-dell-settle-three-year-patent-dispute.htm