How do YOU KNOW? lol.
Maybe I am buying your weapon because it looks good and I am getting a hard on when I touch it.
Do not forget that presumption of innocence is still valid in most countries.
So, no argument.
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 to Challenge Mac OS X EULA?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How do YOU KNOW? lol.
Maybe I am buying your weapon because it looks good and I am getting a hard on when I touch it.
Do not forget that presumption of innocence is still valid in most countries.
So, no argument.
No it would not.
Personally I would gladly buy machines like Mac Pro from Apple, they fit my business and offer good price / performance ratio.
Although I would probably replace some of my MBPs which run as Desktops now (How pathetic) with lower cost desktop. Hopefully made by apple.
But I welcome alternative manufacturers, this will help OSX to gain market share.
Then Apple would simply go after them using the same grey importing ("brand protection") laws that Levi used to stop Tesco selling its jeans at a discount - despite them being the genuine article, just not intended (by Levi) for the European market. To my mind shameless restraint of trade, but now legitimised.
To quote Dr. Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Why don't you think Apple would be able to compete.
I'm sorry, but this is as absurd as the argument for licensing OS X. You may still buy Apple hardware, but how many others?
Market share means nothing to Apple if Mac sales go down.
It's not like anything new has been done here, all they are doing is selling a generic PC with a bunch of free tools distributed in the OSx86 community. I doubt Dell etc.. would jump onto this bandwagon because it isn't 'rock solid' and 'supported' if you know what I mean.
If Psystar prevails, it would be a win/win for consumers because it would probably bring down the price of Apple products.
personally i need a mac better than mini (esp on graphics!) but cheaper than Mac Pro (and Mac pro is too large to be placed nearly living room TV...)
Psystar's Mac may cover my demand, but I won't buy from them because the case looks so.....well its not my cup of tea.
In this case does Psystar fall into any clause on reverse engineering? I am not quite familiar on this.
Psystar's Mac may cover my demand, but I won't buy from them because the case looks so.....well its not my cup of tea.
In this case does Psystar fall into any clause on reverse engineering? I am not quite familiar on this.
You do not sound very secure about Apple, like it is a card house ready to collapse with slight wind.
Hmm and I always thought Apple makes great HW (no fun indeed). Am I wrong? Does Apple really makes crap which needs hardcore protectionism to survive?
Apple is more then capable to survive, the offerings they have are good, with excellent design and performance. What they do miss is a mid-range box and I am sure that enough people / organizations will continue to buy from them purely to have the system and OS from one hand.
On a sidenote, the "Oh my, do not let OSX get popular, we will have viruses" argument is a good laugh too. Hey, I thought OSX is best in the world and secure OS? Could that be not true and it is really not better then Windows? Seems like some Apple fanboys have that feat in their heart.
the "expensive" psystar has nearly the same price as apple, so whatfor .. ?
i mean the "open pro" machine.
i mean the "open pro" machine.
If people can not bother putting a generic PC together on their own that can run OSX, it is not likely that they will know enough to know what updates are good and what update will brick them. This company would have to support them with modified patches or with additional hacks.
Most people do not want to loose the ability to use their PC and their data for a week or two every other month.
Gamers will not stay away from their game for a week or two while they wait for the new hack.
After a while most people other than die hard, will just give up.
Apple will not make it easy on them either and will provide them no support.
Most people do not want to loose the ability to use their PC and their data for a week or two every other month.
Gamers will not stay away from their game for a week or two while they wait for the new hack.
After a while most people other than die hard, will just give up.
Apple will not make it easy on them either and will provide them no support.
I haven't read all 340 or so posts, but Psystar better have some deep pockets behind them. My guess is that Apple will seek an injunction against them selling their product while litigation is ongoing. If Apple prevailed, then Psystar would have no revenue stream (not that it's likely to be high in any case.)
As much as I'd like Apple to sell a mini-tower, I'd be wary of buying from a company that might not be around in six months. Plus, I'd always be worrying that the next software update would break something. Heck, I worry about that now when I install updates on my Macs.
As much as I'd like Apple to sell a mini-tower, I'd be wary of buying from a company that might not be around in six months. Plus, I'd always be worrying that the next software update would break something. Heck, I worry about that now when I install updates on my Macs.
There would undoubtedly be a forum about the issues up and running as soon as a substantial number of people bought these things. Besides which, having had so many incompatibility issues updating my Macs, I never install anything these days until it's been out a few weeks and I've checked on MacFixit for known problems.
This happens with monotonous regularity even on Apple gear.
That will make a change.
Apple wouldnt want OSX to run on any old machines, primarily because it has the potential to make the OS look bad. And secondly revenue from there hardware. "Who would buy a MAc from apple when u can get better spec for half the price..!!"
When MS make an OS, the permutations of hardware that it might be installed on is huge.. Which is one of the main reason i think MS will never be able to produce a good OS until they stop wanting to support old hardware /software.
At the moment Apple have it easy.. the amount of different motherboards, processors etc their kits runs on is minute compared to the PC market. Much easier to produce a stable OS if you know most of the hardware its going to run on.
Funny.. if MS started building PCs and said you could only run their OS on their PCs, que mass hysteria, Monopoly's commision would have a field day....but how much better would windows be..!!!
I would have thought Psystar would have a better case if they just produced a boot up disk which assisted you installing MAC OSX on one of their machines. Then the onus would be more on the end users, as its was their decision to violate the agreement.
When MS make an OS, the permutations of hardware that it might be installed on is huge.. Which is one of the main reason i think MS will never be able to produce a good OS until they stop wanting to support old hardware /software.
At the moment Apple have it easy.. the amount of different motherboards, processors etc their kits runs on is minute compared to the PC market. Much easier to produce a stable OS if you know most of the hardware its going to run on.
Funny.. if MS started building PCs and said you could only run their OS on their PCs, que mass hysteria, Monopoly's commision would have a field day....but how much better would windows be..!!!
I would have thought Psystar would have a better case if they just produced a boot up disk which assisted you installing MAC OSX on one of their machines. Then the onus would be more on the end users, as its was their decision to violate the agreement.
Nope. I would be best for the consumer.
If i had to choose from the options above, i would choose "i hope, that Psytar will win".
I'm did not buy Apple hardware in the past because for it's design, but because (only) it did run MacOS operating system. If there were alternatives to Apple hardware, i would not hesisate to buy that.
In the past i had two UMAX Pulsar clones. These were great machines.
http://www.osx86project.org/
You don't need to necessarily buy their product, they are selling what is already free.
There's the rub, though - it seems like Psystar haven't actually produced anything themselves: They're apparently using the EFI Emulator without permission of the Author and directing users to the insanelymac forum for support!
There is a pretty big "if" in there. And how would it do that? Apple would just start selling "retail" versions of Leopard for $599 and "Upgrade" versions for $129, with all "Upgrade" versions doing a rather thorough check that the machine in question is actually a Macintosh.
I don't understand how anyone can want Psystar to win here.
OS X has built up a fantastic reputation for being reliable, feature rich and incredibly easy to maintain. If Psystar does win the battle, then as people have already commented, others will follow! This means that there will be a bunch of people who want a high spec computer running OS X for the same price of a Mac Mini and they will be buying the Psystar or equivalent computer.
However, the Psystar computer will have a few problems in my eyes:
- It's a hackintosh - there has to be stability issues there.
- It's running hardware it wasn't designed to run.
- It'll be impossible to upgrade (to 10.6 for example) without you're a hackintosh geek.
- Software update wont work nice and seamlessly for graphics drivers etc. In fact, how will you get OS X computable drivers for third party graphics cards?
Most of all though, it's the fact that Macs work because they run on Apple's hardware and the understanding between the software the hardware it runs on is great. Apple's products are still of great quality compared the the PC market in general today. Almost all PCs use the cheapest components available simply to boast a seemingly impressive spec sheet.
I can just see that if this takes off, it'll take down Apple's reputation - and who on here would want that to happen?
OS X has built up a fantastic reputation for being reliable, feature rich and incredibly easy to maintain. If Psystar does win the battle, then as people have already commented, others will follow! This means that there will be a bunch of people who want a high spec computer running OS X for the same price of a Mac Mini and they will be buying the Psystar or equivalent computer.
However, the Psystar computer will have a few problems in my eyes:
- It's a hackintosh - there has to be stability issues there.
- It's running hardware it wasn't designed to run.
- It'll be impossible to upgrade (to 10.6 for example) without you're a hackintosh geek.
- Software update wont work nice and seamlessly for graphics drivers etc. In fact, how will you get OS X computable drivers for third party graphics cards?
Most of all though, it's the fact that Macs work because they run on Apple's hardware and the understanding between the software the hardware it runs on is great. Apple's products are still of great quality compared the the PC market in general today. Almost all PCs use the cheapest components available simply to boast a seemingly impressive spec sheet.
I can just see that if this takes off, it'll take down Apple's reputation - and who on here would want that to happen?
You know what other company had that same kind of publicity and failed horribly? The phantom console.
I think Psystar is just going to get its 15 minutes of fame and that's it.
Note that the "EU" in "EULA" stands for "end user". End users are allowed to do lots of things that that companies can't do. Nothing can stop you as an end user to buy your Levi's jeans anywhere you like and take them to the country where you live, even though they can stop Tesco. And nothing stops you, as an end user, to install Leopard on any single machine you want in the EC, but Apple can stop anyone from selling it for that purpose. (And I think the Family Pack is different, because it contains only one DVD, and it is only the EULA that allows you to install it on five computers, so you cannot ignore the EULA).