Why is it so unreasonable that Apple wishes to protect their business model.
Leopard isn't $129 because that's what Leopard costs. Leopard costs $129 because it runs on hardware purchased from Apple, and the price takes into effect the hardware profits as well. This is quite well understood, I thought.
Apple doesn't make any money on hardware selling me a copy of 10.5 for a machine I already own, Apple branded or not. They've already made every dime they are going to on the hardware sale before I decided to buy Leopard. When looking at an "upgrade" purchase like a retail OS, hardware profits don't enter into whatsoever.
They want to claim they made all the money they are going to make on the iPod touch at the moment of sale, and so then be "required" to charge for software updates down the road, and most people here seem to support that. They can't have the reverse for the Mac because it's convenient for them.
I am of the opinion (and seem to be in the minority?) that if I buy and pay for something (in this case OS X) I should be able to put it on whatever machine I want to.
However, I don't agree that a third party
company (Psystar) should be able to
sell their machine for profit with someone else's (Apple's) operating system installed without their permission to do so.
Now, if Psystar wants to sell me a system that has the
ability to run OS X, I'm OK with that as long as I'm the one who is paying for and installing the operating system.
I gave this a positive vote simply because I think Apple has become greedy and is demanding way too much a premium for what you actually get. Where's my Blue Ray? Why is Apple RAM so expensive? Maybe a few more of these "Cloners" could perhaps force Apple to take a look at what they're doing. I doubt it but, maybe.
Should Best Buy be allowed to charge you for the service of installing a new OS on your computer for you? That's, in effect, what's going on here. You are buying a computer from them. You are buying a copy of OSX from Apple (although they may be acting as a reseller, which is a 100% protected right under First Sales doctrine), and you are paying them for the SERVICE of performing a software install for you.
The first statement is a complete oxymoron. The reason there IS a great experience with the OS is not only the OS itself but the solid hardware base on which its built. Apple could sell cheap crappy computers like Dell and thats what you'd get, a cheap crappy computer.
Not really. Apple sells low to mid-range PCs of a very specific feature set. They then install software that works with that feature set. If someone else builds a machine with the same hardware configuration, which we know is easily possible, you're level of hardware/software integration should be the same. If it's not, it's an intentional gimping of the software by Apple.
Apple has about 14 billion more dollars in the bank than Psystar, including a full-time legal team. It's very clear who will win this case... if it makes it that far.
Which doesn't speak to the actual legality of this case, and is more a sad statement about the state of the American legal system than anything else.
conspiracy to break EULA is one way to get around this
Conspiracy connotes a crime. Contract violation isn't a criminal case, it's a civil matter. I don't think you could claim conspiracy in a civil court... IANAL, though.
I mean, if this works out for Psystar and it turns out they can do this, Dell or HP is going to march in slap them with a marketing campaign that will make people go Psy-who?
Wouldn't be worth it for the big names. It's clearly a hobbiest target market and since they wouldn't be able to offer their "world class support" (ya, I know, I know, but that's what the corporate logic would be) they wouldn't have much incentive to do it.
To put OS X on anything short of a premium machine is begging for trouble with the user. Yes, I'd like to be able to install OS X on a machine I build myself, but anything less is nothing but a mistake.
If that were true (which I don't believe it is) it would be a huge testament to just how crappy of software OSX is (which I know isn't true). The simple matter is that Macs are pretty much middle of the road hardware wise, especially after the Intel switch. They're getting the same components as everyone else, and have about the same hardware failure rate.
What they do have is a very small group of potential hardware configurations to support, so they are able to really focus the software to improve stability, security and reliability. Putting that same software on a machine that, while not built by Apple, has the same components installed should, and does, typically result in it functioning much like "the real thing". Any issues that do arise are entirely artificial ones created by Apple's attempts to lock their software down.
What Apple needs to do, since I really don't think they can win this case on its merit (they might win it through throwing money at it, which isn't a win, just a delay of fighting the battle with someone else), is start selling two versions of retail OSX. One as an "upgrade" box that can be installed as an upgrade to a previous version of OSX for $129 or better $99 and a full install that they can charge whatever they want for - say $399. Want to install OSX on your own hardware? Give us $400 and go to town.
As much as I love Apple's products, and I'm willing to pay a premium for them, I'm growing more and more frustrated with their business practices with each passing month. And, on a related note, as much as I love the Mac community for it's, typically, intellegent, thoughtful members, I'm growing more and more disgusted with the rabid fanboyism with each passing month.
