Psystar to Change Tactics and Sell Mac OS X-Ready Computers?

[PeterQVenkman]

Analogies are only useful if they have some bearing on the issue in question. Yours doesn't.

Hey man, no insult intended so don't be so oversensitive. I thought my analogy was pretty fun. No need to be the fun police.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hokiefacs/2172080549/

And do you buy watches from people in back alleys?

I don't buy watches anymore. Not after I got my first cell phone.

Aside from the notion of trying to do what's right, what ever happened to the practical benefits of buying from a reputable company? You know, stuff like honoring a guarantee, or providing customer service.

If psystar can legally sell their machines (which I'm hoping this means) I'll buy one and be perfectly happy to service the machine myself. That's clearly not for everyone, so to each their own.

 

[cmaier]

The point would be that they would be properly competing with Microsoft in the OS marketplace instead of hiding away in the luxury end of things. Its all very well for Apple to sneer in their adverts when they only support a fraction of the hardware. The fanbois love to bash MS but Apple don't have the balls to come out of their niche.

First of all, there's nothing "improper" about avoiding direct competition. Second, the fact that MS chooses not to sell integrated hardware/software in the PC space (ignoring xbox, zune, etc.) is their problem, not Apple's. From the earliest days of PCs, OS has been integrated with the hardware (Apple ][, TI-99/4A, Commodore Vic-20, TRS-80, etc.) It's not like Apple is doing something unheard of.

And, yes, the reason Apple can "sneer" is they support a fraction of the hardware. I'd much rather be able to buy hardware that works than buy cheap hardware that doesn't work, but which is still supported. But if you prefer the opposite, go buy a cheap PC and install windows or linux. But don't take away MY choice.

Bollocks. Its not crippled if the feature is unnecessary. There are different versions of Windows for different segments of the market. Just because OSX comes in a one package for all version does not mean that all OSes should. IN fact, should we argue that OSX is crippled because it doesn't include server components? There's a server version of OSX, why doesn't the desktop version come with email and a user database?

Bollocks. If the feature is unnecessary, by definition it isn't worth anything, and there should be no price premium for Ultimate.

 

[pdjudd]

Bollocks. Its not crippled if the feature is unnecessary.

Crippled
From Merriam Webster:

2 : to deprive of capability for service or of strength, efficiency, or wholeness

Seems to fit the definition of Windows Home Premium compared to the Ultimate.

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

When I read threads like this, I am saddened by the continuing disrespect for intellectual property rights. It seems that there is a generation of people who believe they have a "right" to whatever they desire:

"I like that song. Burn me a copy?"

"Cool movie. I downloaded it from a torrent site."

"Man, I like Macs, but I really want an inexpensive tower, and Apple doesn't offer one. I'll just hack together one of my own."

"Apple never goes after end users for violating their EULA's, so they must not be legally binding."

Blah, blah, blah...

If you like great music, fantastic software, great films, or even new medications that can help keep you alive, you should pay the people who provide them to you what they ask for under the terms they set. Or make your own.

The net effect of rampant intellectual property right infringement is to essentially defund the research teams, engineers, artists, musicians, and authors that provide the products you enjoy.

Apple most certainly COULD go after people violating EULA's and sue them RIAA style. Perhaps they will someday if they want to make examples of a few--the entire process would be a huge money-loser on a case-by-case basis. Apple has decided for the time being that it isn't worth the trouble. The percentage of people actually assembling and using "hackintoshes" is probably ridiculously small. If it became a widespread practice, however, losing money in the processes of winning a few cases might be worth it.

 

[axual]

Who buys this Psystar stuff?

The least expensive Psystar product is $699 ... plus now you will have to buy Mac OS X.

So why not just buy a Mac Mini at $599, add a $69 Apple keyboard and $69 mouse, and buy nice $150 LCD display and be done with it.

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

For the same reason that Windows doesn't in their consumer products. They are completely different products entirely. This isn't a home/business comparison with the consumer windows versions. Just like with Windows Server they are completely different products that are not marketed toward consumers at all. MS markets all of teh versions of windows from Basic to Ultimate as consumer versions (in fact they are all on the same disc).

No they are not different products entirely. Under the hood of OSX server is the same OSX that powers the desktop, just with added features. Same with Windows. The difference is the way they are marketed and packaged, same with Windows.

The fact that they are on the same disc is simply a manufacturing convenience. There is no way the Business edition is marketed at consumers, and Ultimate is only marketed at those who really want all the features Windows can offer. In fact, since most people will be buying Windows as part of their new PC, and those PCs will come pre-installed with the necessary version of Windows (usually Windows Home Premium). I can' think of a single person I know who would feel put out if they didn't have Bitlocker, extra backup or the ability to join to a domain. Anyone who did want those features would be savvy enough to know which version to buy.

 

[cmaier]

Good riddance

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/12/01/psystar_agrees_to_pay_apple_1_3m_in_settlement.html

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

Crippled
From Merriam Webster:


Seems to fit the definition of Windows Home Premium compared to the Ultimate.

No-one is being deprived of features they don't need. If you think that my PC is crippled because it doesn't have bluetooth, or your Mac is crippled because it doesn't have Blu Ray then I feel sorry for you.

 

[pdjudd]

If psystar can legally sell their machines (which I'm hoping this means).

No, that does not mean that. This is a Pystar filing in response to Apple's injunction filing earlier on a cash settlement on Leopard. It does not mean that this case is over and it does not allow Psystar to continue doing anything. This has not even been accepted by the court.

This is just a response to an Apple filing. Apple has yet to file anything in agreement. No decision has been rendered outside of the summary judgment by Allsup.

No-one is being deprived of features they don't need.

Prove it. If I buy home premium and I need to connect to a Windows Domain, I have a crippled copy of Windows. "needs" are variable.

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

Bollocks. If the feature is unnecessary, by definition it isn't worth anything, and there should be no price premium for Ultimate.

The feature is unnecessary for the particular user its aimed at. A home user does not need to join to a domain, a home user does not need the extra backup facilities. Businesses do. The person buying Ultimate clearly thinks he needs all those features.

Prove it. If I buy home premium and I need to connect to a Windows Domain, I have a crippled copy of Windows. "needs" are variable.

Buy the business version then.

 

[macshill]

They still have to violate Apple's trademarks, such as Mac OS X in their advertising, if they were to do that.

They hope that the lawsuit will provide free publicity to help them find an investor. It's actually their business plan.

They are just scammers looking for a quick buck.

Yeah, 'cause it's not like Apple would NEVER use "Microsoft" in their advertising, thereby violating Microsoft's trademarks. But, hey, wait a minute...

 

[cmaier]

Yeah, 'cause it's not like Apple would NEVER use "Microsoft" in their advertising, thereby violating Microsoft's trademarks. But, hey, wait a minute...

It's not a trademark violation to refer to a product by its trademark. It's a trademark violation to use a mark in such a way as it is likely to confuse a potential customer as to the source of a good or service.

One can "referentially" use a mark (sometimes called "trademark fair use") to refer to products or services, so, for example, Apple can say "we're better than windows" because there is no chance someone seeing that would think Windows is an Apple product.

 

[pdjudd]

An update from Apple Insider:

Clone Mac maker Psystar has agreed to pay Apple $2.7 million in damages in a deal that will likely bring the company's sale of unauthorized computers preinstalled with Mac OS X to an end.

In a joint filing from Apple and Psystar Corporation in a San Francisco court Tuesday, Psystar agreed to pay Apple $1,337,500 in damages over copyright infringement, breach of contract, and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Additional damages and attorneys fees amounted to another $1,337,500, bringing the total to $2.675 million. Psystar had already lost those complaints in a summary judgment from Judge William Alsup in November.

In exchange for the payout, Apple has agreed to not refile claims of trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, state unfair competition, and common law unfair competition -- items that were not ruled on by Alsup in his summary judgment.

The agreement was signed by attorneys James G. Gilliland, representing Apple, and K. A. D. Camara, counsel for Psystar.

Both parties have also agreed that the terms of the deal will not be argued in favor of or against the venue in the ongoing, separate lawsuit filed by Psystar against Apple in Florida. In that suit, Psystar has alleged that Apple is engaged in "anticompetitive attempts to tie Mac OS X Snow Leopard to its Macintosh line of computers."

Of course this just covers everything that Psystar is not been found guilty of already (copyright DMCA, etc) - these are almost certainly going to be used in the Florida case and Apple can still argue on Rebel EFI which is not covered. note:

But a separate filing from Psystar Monday indicates that the Florida corporation hopes to continue to sell its Rebel EFI product. The $50 application, released in October, allows individuals to install Mac OS X on unauthorized third-party machines. It is compatible with Apple's latest operating system, Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard. That issue will likely be contended by Apple, which previously alleged that the Rebel EFI product amounted to "trafficking in circumvention devices."

and this

Apple, in seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Psystar sales, told the court last week that it believed the company would be unable to pay any damages.

I don't think this excludes the injunction that Apple already filed.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

No, that does not mean that. This is a Pystar filing in response to Apple's injunction filing earlier on a cash settlement on Leopard. It does not mean that this case is over and it does not allow Psystar to continue doing anything. This has not even been accepted by the court.

This is just a response to an Apple filing. Apple has yet to file anything in agreement. No decision has been rendered outside of the summary judgment by Allsup.

if cmaier's link is right, it looks like psystar got a good old fashioned pimp slap from Apple and now must hand over money.

Well, there goes a cheap apple tower! Come on Apple! Fill the void! I'm begging you to let me give you my money.

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

First of all, there's nothing "improper" about avoiding direct competition. Second, the fact that MS chooses not to sell integrated hardware/software in the PC space (ignoring xbox, zune, etc.) is their problem, not Apple's. From the earliest days of PCs, OS has been integrated with the hardware (Apple ][, TI-99/4A, Commodore Vic-20, TRS-80, etc.) It's not like Apple is doing something unheard of.

And, yes, the reason Apple can "sneer" is they support a fraction of the hardware. I'd much rather be able to buy hardware that works than buy cheap hardware that doesn't work, but which is still supported. But if you prefer the opposite, go buy a cheap PC and install windows or linux. But don't take away MY choice.

There is nothing wrong with avoiding direct competition, but there is everything wrong with Apple and its fans talking about them as if they are God's gift to computing. Until Apple can support a wider range of hardware Windows will always have advantages in certain areas.

There is nothing new about tying an OS to hardware, what is new is tying an OS to hardware that is not unique to that OS. The Commodore Amiga was unique hardware, Macs are not. Macs are PCs.

I am not trying to take away your choice at all, I am trying to argue the case for Apple providing more choice, and more importantly trying to stop their sheer arrogance.

 

[AidenShaw]

...a home user does not need the extra backup facilities.

For the home user, a Windows Home Server system is a better choice for remote backups.

For little more than the price of a Time Capsule, you get an automated home network file, media and backup server. It can also mirror directories across two drives, and protect you from hard drive failure (something Time Capsule can't).

 

[pdjudd]

Buy the business version then.

That's not the point though. Home premium is crippled since it cannot do what the ultimate can do (and what mac OS X can do out of the box too).

Comparing a crippled product to one that is not crippled (since there is only one OSX version) is not valid. It matters not oif teh crippling doesn;t affect someone, it doesn't change the fact that it is still crippled in some way. The only uncrippled version of Windows that is available to consumers is Ultimate.

The Commodore Amiga was unique hardware, Macs are not. Macs are PCs.

Not really. Apple does use custom boards from Intel. They are not exactly the same thing.

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

That's not the point though. Home premium is crippled since it cannot do what the ultimate can do (and what mac OS X can do out of the box too).

Comparing a crippled product to one that is not crippled (since there is only one OSX version) is not valid. It matters not oif teh crippling doesn;t affect someone, it doesn't change the fact that it is still crippled in some way. The only uncrippled version of Windows that is available to consumers is Ultimate.

No Home Premium is not crippled, its very capable. The Ultimate can simply do more. Is a car crippled if it doesn't have fully heated seat covers and power steering? No, its perfectly useable, but if you want those features you can buy a car that has them.

Is the Mac Mini crippled compared to the iMac? The Macbook crippled compared to the Macbook Pro?

 

[cmaier]

There is nothing wrong with avoiding direct competition, but there is everything wrong with Apple and its fans talking about them as if they are God's gift to computing. Until Apple can support a wider range of hardware Windows will always have advantages in certain areas.

There is nothing new about tying an OS to hardware, what is new is tying an OS to hardware that is not unique to that OS. The Commodore Amiga was unique hardware, Macs are not. Macs are PCs.

I am not trying to take away your choice at all, I am trying to argue the case for Apple providing more choice, and more importantly trying to stop their sheer arrogance.

1) Why is it wrong to talk about "them as if they are God's gift to computing?" Do you oppose free speech? Are people not entitled to different opinions than you?

2) "Macs are PCs." Disputable, but so what? When Franklin bought the same off-the-shelf parts as used in the Apple ][, were they allowed to sell them with Apple's OS? Nope. The fact that hardware is similar doesn't suddenly change the underlying fact that there is nothing weird or unprecedented about selling hardware combined with an OS, and tying the OS to the hardware.

Think about it - by your argument, all Apple would have to do to moot your objection is to add one additional chip that serves no purpose other than to allow Mac OS to run. Since no one else could buy the chip or make the chip without infringing their patents on the chip, Macs would no longer be "PCs" and therefore you would be ok with the OS being tied to them?

Your argument makes no sense.

3) the repeated "arrogance" thing is nonsense. There is no arrogance. There is only market reality. Apple doesn't want to be a commodity PC maker because that's a bad long-term business to be in. There is no barrier to entry, so eventually all commodity PC makers will make zero long-term economic profit. (i.e.: they will make profits, but minimal and no more than any other market participant). So they need to differentiate themselves. They chose to do this by investing heavily in creating an OS. They subsidize the cost of this OS by tying it to hardware sales. This makes their shareholders a lot of money, which is the entire point of a business enterprise in the U.S.

Apple used to sanction clonemakers (UMAX, Power Computing, Motorola) and it nearly put them out of business. At that point NO ONE would have OS X. What would be the point of that?

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

Not really. Apple does use custom boards from Intel. They are not exactly the same thing.

The differences are there simply because Apple added them. The Commodore Amiga was not simply a PC without a BIOS.

 

[pdjudd]

No Home Premium is not crippled, its very capable. The Ultimate can simply do more. Is a car crippled if it doesn't have fully heated seat covers and power steering? No, its perfectly useable, but if you want those features you can buy a car that has them.

Is the Mac Mini crippled compared to the iMac? The Macbook crippled compared to the Macbook Pro?

Not really - they are different product types. An iMac is an all-in-one. The Macbook pro is a laptop. You cannot compare them and call one crippled. OSX and Windows are operating systems. Windows is the same core if you get the home premium or ultimate - it's just that certain features are locked down in lower editions. OSX has no such analogue so the only valid comparison is to look at the version that is not disabled in any way by a paywall.

Crippled != inferior. Again, I am not arguing that home premium is not capable. Understand that. I am saying that it is not a valid comparison to compare a crippled (because it does not have the complete feature set within Windows) compared to the OS that does not divy up its features in editions.

If you want to compare valid editions, you have to compare complete editions. You do not compare the unabriged version of one novel and compare it to the abridged version of another in the same genre. It's not a valid comparison.

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

1) Why is it wrong to talk about "them as if they are God's gift to computing?" Do you oppose free speech? Are people not entitled to different opinions than you?

2) "Macs are PCs." Disputable, but so what? When Franklin bought the same off-the-shelf parts as used in the Apple ][, were they allowed to sell them with Apple's OS? Nope. The fact that hardware is similar doesn't suddenly change the underlying fact that there is nothing weird or unprecedented about selling hardware combined with an OS, and tying the OS to the hardware.

Think about it - by your argument, all Apple would have to do to moot your objection is to add one additional chip that serves no purpose other than to allow Mac OS to run. Since no one else could buy the chip or make the chip without infringing their patents on the chip, Macs would no longer be "PCs" and therefore you would be ok with the OS being tied to them?

Your argument makes no sense.

3) the repeated "arrogance" thing is nonsense. There is no arrogance. There is only market reality. Apple doesn't want to be a commodity PC maker because that's a bad long-term business to be in. There is no barrier to entry, so eventually all commodity PC makers will make zero long-term economic profit. (i.e.: they will make profits, but minimal and no more than any other market participant). So they need to differentiate themselves. They chose to do this by investing heavily in creating an OS. They subsidize the cost of this OS by tying it to hardware sales. This makes their shareholders a lot of money, which is the entire point of a business enterprise in the U.S.

Apple used to sanction clonemakers (UMAX, Power Computing, Motorola) and it nearly put them out of business. At that point NO ONE would have OS X. What would be the point of that?

1. Wrong, no. Unhealthy, yes. Narrow minded and arrogant.

2. Erm, that is what Apple are doing. They are simply adding a chip and calling it different hardware then saying "We will only support this hardware which is slightly different from your PC". Its a fairly pathetic attempt to differentiate Macs from normal PCs, and only people without a great deal of technical knowledge (i.e. most people) are fooled.

3. The arrogance is in their advertising and the forums of their fans.

4. They sanctioned clone makers when they were in bad financial shape and had only Macs as their source of income. They have other products now and plenty of money.

Not really - they are different product types. An iMac is an all-in-one. The Macbook pro is a laptop. You cannot compare them and call one crippled. OSX and Windows are operating systems. Windows is the same core if you get the home premium or ultimate - it's just that certain features are locked down in lower editions. OSX has no such analogue so the only valid comparison is to look at the version that is not disabled in any way by a paywall.

Crippled != inferior. Again, I am not arguing that home premium is not capable. Understand that. I am saying that it is not a valid comparison to compare a crippled (because it does not have the complete feature set within Windows) compared to the OS that does not divy up its features in editions.

If you want to compare valid editions, you have to compare complete editions. You do not compare the unabriged version of one novel and compare it to the abridged version of another in the same genre. It's not a valid comparison.

If you notice I compared a Macbook to a Macbook Pro not the Mac Mini. And you are saying Crippled != inferior but I highly doubt that word is used by many here in the same fashion. There is no point in comparing "complete" editions of OSX and Windows since they are there to serve different purposes.

 

[pdjudd]

The differences are there simply because Apple added them. The Commodore Amiga was not simply a PC without a BIOS.

So? That's just arguing semantics. Besides, the hardware underlying doesn't mean much. Looking at the X-box or modern consoles, they are computers in their own right. An Xbox is basically a PC - it uses off the shelf components and it can legally be tied to the XBox OS.

PC, is just a monicer that means personal computer. It is not processor specific. Macs when they used PPC chips were PC's too. You might be thingking of IBM PC's or their compatible cousins - those are specifically Intel based systems. The Amiga is a PC computer - it wasn't an IBM PC computer, but it was still a general personal computer.

 

[cmaier]

2. Erm, that is what Apple are doing. They are simply adding a chip and calling it different hardware then saying "We will only support this hardware which is slightly different from your PC". Its a fairly pathetic attempt to differentiate Macs from normal PCs, and only people without a great deal of technical knowledge (i.e. most people) are fooled.

3. The arrogance is in their advertising and the forums of their fans.

4. They sanctioned clone makers when they were in bad financial shape and had only Macs as their source of income. They have other products now and plenty of money.

2. That's not why they added the chip (assuming you are referring to EFI). They did it because BIOS is an ancient and outdated system. And they are not "calling it different hardware" in the sense you mean - they aren't saying "since it's different we will only support it and not other PCs." They don't have to say that, because they need not justify not supporting other PCs. They simply support the boxes they sell. They don't "differentiate Macs from normal PCs" based on lack of BIOS; they differentiate it by pointing out that only Macs are licensed to run Mac OS X. No one is "fooled."

3. What arrogance in their advertising? Is it arrogant to take advantages of real and perceived weaknesses in one's competition? Is it arrogant to compare oneself favorably to one's competition? I should think not. That's how all business is done. MS does the same thing ("Apple tax! Apple tax! Choice! Choice!") BMW does the same thing. Kelloggs does the same thing.

4. It's not your money, so you don't get to decide how much is "plenty." And the only reason they make money on other things is because they had the base source of income from Mac OS machines to pay for their R&D in these other areas. You presumably have two legs. One is plenty. Please cut one off and give it to me, because I have some fundamental right to your leg.

Your arguments are silly.

 

[pdjudd]

And you are saying Crippled != inferior but I highly doubt that word is used by many here in the same fashion. There is no point in comparing "complete" editions of OSX and Windows since they are there to serve different purposes.

But Windows at it's core is the same product wether its's the Basic or Ultimate. The only differentiator is the features that are unlocked by your product key. The disc you get has the same software bit by bit reguarldess of the edition. The whole edition thing is only there because of Microsoft's business model of selling licenses. Apple does not do this - they sell the complete package. MS sells the complete package as "Ultimate" not "Home Premium" The whole editions thing is just MS trying to get businesses and entusiasts to pay more money because MS can do that.