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
Yet you fail to grasp the connotations.
If that claim were true, then wouldn't the capitalistic marketplace force them out of business?
Yet the business case demonstrated here is that those who try to sell for less go out of business, with a $250,000 debt racked up in just a few months. Apparently, your business sense is that the only good business is one that uses a non-sustaining revenue model?
Hmmm... "Cut Taxes! Raise Spending!" ... sound familiar?
In the meantime, Mac programs are far superior to their PC alternatives, just read the reviews...
...and Microsoft is just catering to people who just want to manage their vacation memories thusly:
-hh
All I am saying is that Psystar offered Macs at a decent price. I don't care about their profits (or lack of).
It almost did until the iPod saved them.
Okay and now why would I care about what Apple or Psystar or whoever makes?
For Mac users, they are superior because that is all they know.
...and Microsoft is just catering to people who just want to manage their vacation memories thusly:
-hh
Your opinion, not a fact. Apple's hardware is just fine for most users if you believe the sales number to be accurate.
Please explain the MacBook, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, iMac, and Mac Pro then.
Actually, it is a fact. Apple hardware is overpriced and underpowered. Very outdated.
[/quote]
As I said they aren't Macs, just wanna bes.
Do you even pay attention to PC hardware? PC hardware blows away Macs 10 times over. Core i7, 6GB DDR3 RAM, 1TB hard drive, plus a Radeon 4870 1GB from Dell for $1500... Apple's graphics card selection is a joke and their CPUs are out of date.
That doesn't prove Apple's hw offering to be either overpriced or underpowered - all it proves is that Dell offers cheaper hardware.
Dell offers far superior hardware to Apple. Apple for example sells a 4850 upgrade for $200 - that is more than what it really costs, and 4850 is hardly high tech anymore anyways. The Imac uses laptop CPUs (yet cost well over $1000). The MacBook is $1000 but has the specs of a $700 machine. Why do Mac fanboys even argue about hardware? Apple has always been behind in hardware lol.
In any major city, one can find stolen goods being fenced at a "decent price". By saying that you don't care, you've announced your ethical values.
Except that the historical facts are that Apple's Mac recovery began 3 years before the iPod.
Apparently, you don't recognize the irony of hypocrisy, since these are your exact words with merely the two names flipped (PC<-->Mac).
The swiss army knife paradigm is also quite ironic, since the real one made by Wenger back in 2007 (cite) showed that since it was nearly 9" wide and 3lbs, it was merely marketing Bling hype, since it was not actually useful as a real pocketknife tool.
This is reminiscent of the old 'Features Race' in the Personal Computer market of the 1980s.
Since you're apparently not mature enough to remember, suffice to say that the lists rapidly became self-defeating, since as the lists became longer, they rapidly became less significant, in no small part due to competitors adding utterly useless crap to simply make the list longer. And the clueless bought it...for awhile. The problem was that all of those extra Bells & Whistles add to the Bloatware which hurts performance and utility.
And speaking of bloatware...there's also still that niggling little problem that studies have shown that Norton AV eats up very roughly 25% of your Windows computer's performance. Thus, a 2.4GHz Windows PC really should be baselined to a 1.8GHz non-Windows PC when it comes to comparisons for cost & value.
I just hope that anyone that works there can find a new job in this economy
They all knew that they were working for a company whose business model was to try to rip off another business, and was on shaky legal ground since Day 1. As such, its IMO not too callous to hope that every unemployed honest person finds a job before any of these guys do.
-hh
There is more to the cost of a machine than just raw component cost. In those areas apple is ahead while other companies such as dell cut costs.
Of course people who argue that macs cost more always forget to count the cost of OS and software. Sure, if you steal all the software and budget build a computer in a cheap £35 case then you managed to pay less, but then you are a criminal so who cares?
As one legal battle with Psystar ends, probably another one is in the making. Quo computers certainly expect to be sued by Apple:
Quo Computer to start selling Mac clones
I guess that in future more such outfits will be prepared to take Apple on in often lengthy & expensive legal battles, so it'll be interesting to know who's backing these clone makers.
Quo Computer to start selling Mac clones
I guess that in future more such outfits will be prepared to take Apple on in often lengthy & expensive legal battles, so it'll be interesting to know who's backing these clone makers.
The problem is that you will not admit that Apple has 100% of the hardware for OS X market. You will reject that notion because you do not consider that a "market" even though monetarily it has meant that a maker of less than 10% of the OS market sells a substantially higher percentage of the hardware for that market relative to other manufacturers. Namely, if Apple is so insignificant as you seem to want to assert, then why are they consistently the #3 or #4 hardware manufacturer out there? That's big business and Apple's profits and cash reserves prove their "non-market" is incredibly significant. Even if you want to call it a market "segment", they still control 100% of that segment. 100% of a 10% market is still a lot of pie compared to someone getting 2% of a 90% market (small hardware makers in the Windows/Linux/Everyone_Else_But_Apple Share).
So sorry, but your entire case for Apple being allowed to do anything they want in their EULAS is based on a definition of what a market is. Hooray. You've skirted the spirit of the law. It reminds me of companies who use off-shore tax shelters. They get America's tax benefits without paying their share of taxes. Whether it's "legal" on a technicality is irrelevant. They are squatters regardless. And if there's a loophole, then that loophole needs to be closed. We have to stop catering to lobbyists and do what's right for the country and its citizens that are supposed to be the ones represented by the government, not special interest groups. If you don't like that, then move to Russia or China where everything is about the special interest groups.
Tying is only legal for monopolies??? Did you read the Xerox case? How do you explain that Xerox case, then that set the precedent for product tying? Xerox is not a monopoly. They simply tried to prevent service/parts for their products from other companies. The court ruled after the sale, it is none of their business whom the owner gets to service or products from for that machine beyond the patent extents they control (i.e. if another company didn't violate their patents for say a toner cartridge design, then you have every right to buy your toner from that other company for a Xerox machine; the same would be true of the operating software, the paper tray, etc.). The only difference with Apple is that they are trying to force you to use their hardware for their software whereas Xerox was trying to force you to use their parts and service for hardware you already bought. But again, Xerox is not alone in the copying business. They were and are not a monopoly and yet they define the existing precedent for tying services and products that are AFTER the sale of the product you bought. Xerox sought to tell you what you could buy for their product after you bought it. They have no right to do so. It's your hardware. Similarly, Apple has no right to tell me what I can put on my Mac after I bought it. Yet they seem to think they can tell me what I can put on my Dell after I bought it.
So you're taking the "prove you actually exist" route of thinking? If someone pointed out every part (short of resistors and capacitors, etc.) were exactly the same on both computers and only their motherboard was different you'd still maintain that Dell is simply "cheaper" even though the opposite of cheap is "overpriced". (shakes head)
Underpowered is easy to prove in the real world. Take two computers of equivalent price and similar build quality and see which one is faster with the same ancillary hardware. The problem with Apple is that they have no product in the consumer mid-range desktop. I can build a Quad-Core Hackintosh for about $900 that will be faster for most applications than a $2500 Mac Pro. No, they are not exactly the same computer. But for the consumer that is 100% MOOT! I don't need a workstation. I need a home computer that will do what I need it to do. Apple doesn't even offer that computer I need. They don't want to offer it and they don't want to let anyone else to offer it and that is why I am against Apple on the cloning issue. If they offered a reasonably priced mid-range tower, I would not even have to look elsewhere for a solution. But they want even offer an overpriced mid-range tower. They only offer an extremely high priced professional workstation. Everything else is a laptop or a laptop in a monitor case and those are unacceptable. Certain people on here want to tell me that Apple does not have any kind of monopoly on hardware. I can just go and buy a Dell and my problem is solved...EXCEPT that my existing software library requires OS X to function. I can go buy OS X (in fact, I already own it on the computer I'm looking to replace), but I cannot put it on my Dell...OK I *CAN*, but Apple says I'm not ALLOWED to. I *HAVE* to buy my computer from them. And yet these people don't think Apple is violating anti-competition or tying laws by doing that in their Eulas (shakes head again).
Magnus,
The problem with your argument is that, regardless of the "spirit" of the law or your actual opinions, the judge ruled that Apple is not guilty of unfair tying, nor are they guilty of anti-trust violations. This is not up for debate or discussion - according to the courts of the United States Apple is guilty of neither of the practices you claim. The courts agree that you can not have a "monopoly" on your own product; so long as other products exist that are capable of doing the things that your product can (which Windows and other PC compatable programs are more than capable of) then you DO NOT have a monopoly on the sector. While this particular court is not the final say in the matter, this is the legal standing until such time as a different court overturns this ruling or Congress passes laws changing the legality and enforcibility of SLAs/EULAs.
What I think most people fail to realize is that Apple is not guity of "anti competative" practicies, rather, they are simply competing in a different way. Apple developed OSX in order to sell their hardware offerings; it is not designed to work on any other system and in Apple's eyes the hardware and software is meant to be part of the same total product. What I see most people here arguing is that OSX and the hardware are different products, which Apple and the courts (virtue of the judge's ruling) disagree with.
Apple had to come up with a way to compete with Dell, Lenovo, Sony, etc. and rather than compete in the price arena they decided to develop a software system for their hardware. That buisness plan is not illegal or unfair competition - it is simply Apples competative advantage in this marketplace.
A competative advantage is not unfair or illegal as some here would like to think. The fact that Apple is choosing to compete in a way that you disagree with or in a way that does not support your particular goals does not make that choice illegal. Apple may not make the particular product that you require at a pricepoint that you find acceptable and that is understandably frustrating. It does not make that practice illegal, nor does it make it acceptable to break established laws in order to correct the situation. Apple is allowed to make whatever products they choose at whatever price they decide. If you, as the consumer, do not find those offerings adequate then you are free to select a different hardware/software manufacturer that does meet your needs. That is how a free market works.
The problem with your argument is that, regardless of the "spirit" of the law or your actual opinions, the judge ruled that Apple is not guilty of unfair tying, nor are they guilty of anti-trust violations. This is not up for debate or discussion - according to the courts of the United States Apple is guilty of neither of the practices you claim. The courts agree that you can not have a "monopoly" on your own product; so long as other products exist that are capable of doing the things that your product can (which Windows and other PC compatable programs are more than capable of) then you DO NOT have a monopoly on the sector. While this particular court is not the final say in the matter, this is the legal standing until such time as a different court overturns this ruling or Congress passes laws changing the legality and enforcibility of SLAs/EULAs.
What I think most people fail to realize is that Apple is not guity of "anti competative" practicies, rather, they are simply competing in a different way. Apple developed OSX in order to sell their hardware offerings; it is not designed to work on any other system and in Apple's eyes the hardware and software is meant to be part of the same total product. What I see most people here arguing is that OSX and the hardware are different products, which Apple and the courts (virtue of the judge's ruling) disagree with.
Apple had to come up with a way to compete with Dell, Lenovo, Sony, etc. and rather than compete in the price arena they decided to develop a software system for their hardware. That buisness plan is not illegal or unfair competition - it is simply Apples competative advantage in this marketplace.
A competative advantage is not unfair or illegal as some here would like to think. The fact that Apple is choosing to compete in a way that you disagree with or in a way that does not support your particular goals does not make that choice illegal. Apple may not make the particular product that you require at a pricepoint that you find acceptable and that is understandably frustrating. It does not make that practice illegal, nor does it make it acceptable to break established laws in order to correct the situation. Apple is allowed to make whatever products they choose at whatever price they decide. If you, as the consumer, do not find those offerings adequate then you are free to select a different hardware/software manufacturer that does meet your needs. That is how a free market works.
Heh. Gainestown. Out of date. Funny.
Tell us another one. I particularly like the one about the iPod killer called Zune.
Actually Apple's Gainestown is out of date (There is 3.2GHz versions now). Apple was (of course) 6 months late to the Nehalem party, and are still late to offering a decent GPU selection.
Yeah, because one clock speed exists that is better, what they have is out of date.
Guess what? The 3.2 Gainestown is out of date. Gulftown exists.
Oh, wait. Intel has talked about Haswell. Looks like even Sandy Bridge is out of date.
Give it a rest. Everything that you can buy is out of date; that's how tech works.
Yes, 3.2 is better than 2.93, but Mac fanboys wouldn't understand, being stuck with Apple crapware (crappy hardware).
What I am saying is Apple offers a limited selection of hardware, its GPU selection is truly out of date (we are talking years out of date), and way too expensive for what you get.
I will admit that freely. Even though it is not quite true. Plenty of other companies sell hardware that functions with OS X.
As I said, I do not reject that notion. Of course, like Psystar, you are acknowledging that OS X competes with Windows and Linux in the OS market. Since they compete against companies with significantly higher market share in the OS market, there can be no legal finding of monopoly.
By claiming that Apple has a monopoly in the OS X market, you are claiming that there is no significant competitors to OS X. That claim is obviously untrue.
First of all, "Apple's profits and cash reserves" are significantly impacted by iPods and iPhones which have nothing to do with this discussion.
The fact that Apple is able to make money just means that they are competing well. Yes. OS X is an advantage. Finding an advantage is the basis of competition.
From the FTC guide. "For the courts, a key factor in determining what is unreasonable is whether the practice has a legitimate business justification."
Are you claiming that Apple has no legitimate business reason to tie OS X to there own hardware?
I do not believe they can do whatever they want.
Wow. There is no loophole. Apple has not met any threshold that would subject them to antitrust laws.
Tying is only illegal for monopolies. (I assume that is what you meant.) As monopoly is defined by the FTC. It does not require a literal monopoly.
XEROX was a monopoly as defined by the FTC.
Alright, but then riddle me this, Batman... Mac OS X costs $129. However, the difference between building an i7-based tower in the PC world and a Mac Pro (the point being the i7 will either meet or beat the Xeons in the MacPro) is substantially more than $129. So if Mac OS X is worth $129, then why the h*ll are you going along with paying anything from double to ten+ times the price?
Don't get me wrong, I love Mac OS X and I've been a Mac user since, well, take a look at my signature down below. However, what others here are saying on here vis a vis the disparity in hardware out there in the PC world and what Apple is willing to sell is significant, and that's without even trying to build an "ultimate" PC. Just building a typical one will more likely than not result in having higher-end hardware than what Apple uses. Heck, in some cases, buying a typical PC may even result in having hardware that's higher-end, particularly if you factor that basically everyone else's desktop systems use actual honest-to-God desktop components, and Apple's whole line-up (MacPro excluded) are laptop-based.
And frankly, folks, I'm more than a little bit tired of hearing many/most of you bang on and on endlessly by trying to ignore the fact that Apple's hardware is generationally behind, and yet Apple still commands a premium price. I love Apple's designs. They have and probably continue to win all sorts of awards for them. John St. Ive is a freakin' genius in terms of aesthetics. That being said, I'm tired of seeing him being used to crank out system designs which make use of substandard components and I'm really sick and tired of hearing you people all just drool over them.
I want real hardware, I want it modern, I want it at a decent and fair price, and I want Mac OS X on it. I don't believe any of that to be unreasonable or unrealistic, excepting for the moment Apple's business intentions not to do that.
Not to mention the words "monopoly" and "anti-competitive" have legal definitions along with common definitions. What one considers to be a monopoly in the common sense may not be do under legal standards.
And to end all discussions about anti-competitive behavior, Apple has multiple competitors in both hardware and software. Not liking or desiring said competition (in other words hating Microsoft) does not change the fact that competition exists. You hating Microsoft's operating system and loving Apple doesn't change the fact that Microsoft still sells way more than Apple does. Not liking the existing competition in a market != lack of competition in that market. Guess whose in charge of deciding markets - the courts.
No, I'd assume someone with any amount of intelligence whatsoever would understand that the increase in performance between 3.2GHz and 2.93GHz is not cost-effective for any operation, due to several factors; not the least of which being that absolutely nothing takes worthwhile advantage of the chips yet.
Then GO. AWAY. and buy something else.
Complaining about it endlessly (HERE, ESPECIALLY, SINCE WE DON'T CARE) won't get you anywhere.
We all want something that nobody offers. I want to be able to have a Toyota with a BMW engine - I want to be able to get a Big Mac at my local Burger King. I want to buy KFC's recipe for chicken in the store (even though its made form off the shelf ingredients) I want the radio stations to only play music that I like and nothing else. That doesn't mean that BMW is obligated to sell its engine to Toyota, it doesn't obligate McDonalds to provide its products to BK, it doesn't mean that KFC has to sell its recipe in stores, and it most certainly doesn't mean that my local radio station must hire me as program director. It doesn't matter
As the Rolling Stones said "You can't always get what you want" They need to add the line "you can't always force to court to give you want you want" but that just isn't all that melodic