Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Psystar Winding Down Business as Web Site Goes Dark

Michael CM1 said:
No competition? Are you nuts? Apple makes PCs. So do HP, Compaq, Toshiba, Dell, Sony, etc. Apple developed Mac OS and decided it didn't want to allow other companies to install it on their hardware. Microsoft developed Windows and decided to license it to hardware-makers. This is the same deal as movie companies selling movies on BD or DVD but saying you can't play them to a big theater audience.

Why has computing made people not understand laws? I had someone this morning try to tell me that because he bought an MP3 it was his and he could do with it whatever he wanted, including giving the files to other people. Just wow.
Click to expand...

Well, by your analogy, Apple hasn't licensed the right to put Windows on it's computer, yet it does the same thing Psytar was doing. It created software - bootcamp - to allow Windows to be put on it's computers. I guess I'd have to check the licenses of each, and I'm guessing there's nothing in a single user copy of Windows that says anything about what kind of computer it can be put on minus the hardware specs, but it does make one wonder about the legality of selling someone a product, OSX, and then telling them they have to purchase something else to use it. If I have purchased OSX and can get it to work on a PC, I feel I'm free to do that. And Apple is free to continue to try and break the code, because they never guaranteed it would work on a PC. But I don't feel they have any right to come after me for damages. There are none. So, having the legal right to install it wherever I want would also give someone else the right to sell me software to help me do that. Even if it is illegal for me to do it, it shouldn't be illegal to sell me software that helps me do it. Analogy: I can't buy pot legally or smoke it legally. However, it's perfectly legal to sell bongs, right? :)

So there may be precedent, but I think there would be a good chance Pystar would win the software case.
 
I'm very happy to see Psystar close down-the injuction basically took away their main sourve of revenue.

Thia could inspire other illegal clone makers to shutdown, as well to stop others trying to run OS X on a PC.
 
bretm said:
Well, by your analogy, Apple hasn't licensed the right to put Windows on it's computer, yet it does the same thing Psytar was doing. It created software - bootcamp - to allow Windows to be put on it's computers. I guess I'd have to check the licenses of each, and I'm guessing there's nothing in a single user copy of Windows that says anything about what kind of computer it can be put on minus the hardware specs, but it does make one wonder about the legality of selling someone a product, OSX, and then telling them they have to purchase something else to use it. If I have purchased OSX and can get it to work on a PC, I feel I'm free to do that. And Apple is free to continue to try and break the code, because they never guaranteed it would work on a PC. But I don't feel they have any right to come after me for damages. There are none. So, having the legal right to install it wherever I want would also give someone else the right to sell me software to help me do that. Even if it is illegal for me to do it, it shouldn't be illegal to sell me software that helps me do it. Analogy: I can't buy pot legally or smoke it legally. However, it's perfectly legal to sell bongs, right? :)

So there may be precedent, but I think there would be a good chance Pystar would win the software case.
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't need to license anything. Apple wrote boot camp and the Windows license allows it to be used on any computer. Apple uses no Microsoft code - dual booting is specifically allowed by Microsoft. This is in no way similar to what Psystar did - they created an unlicensed derivative. Using Windows on the mac (wither through boot camp or virtualization) was explicitly allowed by Microsoft.

Try again.
 
bretm said:
Well, by your analogy, Apple hasn't licensed the right to put Windows on it's computer, yet it does the same thing Psytar was doing.
Click to expand...

First, Apple doesn't put Windows on its computer. Boot camp is little more than a partitioner and drivers. In any event, even if you consider them liable for what users do with bootcamp, those users are LICENSED. The windows license allows windows to be installed on any computer.

It's not analogous to what Psystar was doing at all.

Oh, and as for your "it's not illegal to help someone else do it" argument, yes it is. It's called indirect copyright infringement, and is either inducement or contributory infringement or both.
 
bretm,

I never thought about it that way.
Apple creates software to run Windows on their hardware.

Microsoft as a software company of course has no issue with this.

Psystar creates software to run OS X (Along with a triple boot of Windows and Linux) on their hardware.

Apple as a hardware company doesn't like this and sue.

Love the do as I say not as I do mentality.
 
synth3tik said:
bretm,

I never thought about it that way.
Apple creates software to run Windows on their hardware.

Microsoft as a software company of course has no issue with this.

Psystar creates software to run OS X (Along with a triple boot of Windows and Linux) on their hardware.

Apple as a hardware company doesn't like this and sue.

Love the do as I say not as I do mentality.
Click to expand...

Microsoft charges enough for Windows to earn its income from it. It's business model is designed that way.

Apple charges less for OS X because it knows the OS will be run on hardware it sells. It's business model is designed that way.

There's nothing wrong with this at all.
 
cmaier said:
Maybe, but I can't count the number of posts that say things like "if apple would just give us a headless tower we wouldn't do it" and "apple is being arrogant by not giving us what we want."
Click to expand...

I think that if Apple really wanted to take on Hackintoshes, the most effective approach would be to sell a comparable product for a couple of hundred dollars more. My guess would be that they don't want to do that because it would hurt Mac Pro sales and because Hackintoshes aren't really hurting Apple - quite the contrary.

With regards to arrogance, I think Apple make a lot of smart business decisions and they seem to think they are always right. That is arrogance but they actually ARE right a lot of the time.

Apple have definitely benefitted by this type of "hacker" mentality (in the old sense of the word). In fact, Wozniak is pretty much the archetype of an original hacker. OS X would not have been possible without tons of software that Apple got for free, all thanks to this mentality.

The line has always been where you start profiting by essentially ripping people off - a line that Steve and Steve crossed in the old days. Psystar certainly crossed this line as well so it's entirely reasonable for them to be shut down. However, Apple might not have existed if AT&T had been as vigilant as Apple are today.
 
synth3tik said:
Love the do as I say not as I do mentality.
Click to expand...

How is it working out for you, being clever ?

Seriously, both of you are very wrong in many assumptions and your premise is flawed. Apple doesn't break any EULA or circumvent any protection measures in order to have Windows working, in a fully licensed way by the user, on a Mac.

Psystar circumvented Apple's protection mecanism, which is contrary to the DMCA, broke Apple's EULA and finally infringed on Apple's copyright by redistributing a derivative work without being licensed to do so.

Apples and oranges.

synth3tik said:
This is said. The end of something that could have been. Then end of something that needed to be.
Click to expand...

Someone else that doesn't understand history :rolleyes:

This is not the first time there were Mac clones on the Market. The last time, the legitimate Mac clone market almost killed Apple. Steve Jobs put an end to it and returned Apple to profitability. Why again would we need Mac clones if we want Apple to keep existing ?
 
ferrous said:
I love Apple and what they make. I use quite a few gadgets from them.
However, I can't help but to feel sad that Apple's competition has been shut down. I know, legally they violated this and that... nevertheless, I am often taken back by the prices of Apple products and since there is no direct competition in their line, they can price things at higher level. One may argue the quality, etc., but still.
Click to expand...

As others have pointed out, Psystar was not "competition" for Apple, they didn't make anything different from what Apple made, they didn't invent new things, all they did was use Apple's OS on their hardware. For an example, Microsoft is competition, since they aim for the same (similar) market by using different products.
 
Slarti Bartfast said:
You are not buying OSX, but a licensed copy of Apple Mac OSX, same as a licensed copy of The Beatles Greatest Hits.The Beatles allow you to listen to it at home, but not broadcast it. Don't like, then don't buy. It is a clear distinction
Click to expand...

Plus, Apple is not saying "you bought OS X, now you must buy a mac." They are saying "you bought a mac, and it includes OS X and the right to buy upgrades to OS X." (Not that tying is illegal absent a monopoly or equivalent [such as Walker Process claims).
 
I love how there are still the Apple haters who use Macs everyday posting here to try and justify Psystar.

Apple has always been this way, aside the times of Power Computing etc.

It will not change for some time and if ever.

I hate this, Apple has started to gain traction again the last 3 years in the computing world - you now have bunch of Microsoft scrubs moving over but bashing the company.

Delete these users from this forum, they don't deserve a Mac, simple as.

Arm chair experts thinking they know more than Steve Jobs and Apple.
 
Berio said:
oh i do remember, we bought a UMAX clone, a dreadful machine, kept crashing, multiple repairs etc. it was my first contact with apple-related stuff, (using amiga and atari before the UMAX).

any yes, it did lead me to think the whole apple-thing wasn't worth it, and i bought a windows machine instead. only years later did i buy an apple - a pismo laptop - and quickly understood that apple stuff works best when hard- and software are both delivered by apple.

i don't know how things are today, whether hackintosh stuff runs smoothly, but i can understand apple wanting to avoid a repeat of the 90's clones.
Click to expand...

+1 Those clones were a disaster!
 
synth3tik said:
I never thought about it that way.
Apple creates software to run Windows on their hardware.

Microsoft as a software company of course has no issue with this.
Click to expand...
Except you're over-simplifying the situation. Imagine this instead:

Apple creates software to run Windows on their hardware that violates Microsoft's copyright and their EULA (say by avoiding Windows activation) and the DCMA.

You still think Microsoft as a software company would have no issue with that?
 
dejo said:
Except you're over-simplifying the situation. Imagine this instead:

Apple creates software to run Windows on their hardware that violates Microsoft's copyright and their EULA (say by avoiding Windows activation) and the DCMA.

You still think Microsoft as a software company would have no issue with that?
Click to expand...

But Apple DOESN'T create software that ... violates Microsoft's copyright and their EULA. If they did (by avoiding windows activation), Microsoft would have a problem with that, of course.
 
dejo said:
Yeah, I was proposing a hypothetical. Hence the "imagine" phrasing. :)
Click to expand...

Right, but what is the point of the hypothetical? People were arguing that Apple is as bad as psystar. We pointed out that apple isn't violating MS's license.

Where does your hypo come in?
 
as i would doubt that you would find an apple user who hasn't had issues with their "first party" laptop either. To me, you shouldn't beach ball when using a browser no matter the "experiance".

VTMac said:
Hackintosh is a great thing for hobbyists / enthusiasts. I have no problem with it.

But I crack up laughing every time I read how it "works perfectly except..."

Unless the definition of perfect has changed, I'm pretty sure most Hackinstoh advocates are abusing that term.
Click to expand...
 
more like the hardware/software supporting it were a disaster. There is a reason why some of the windows stuff doesn't work that well with the bootcamp drivers and that is because all mighty apple is the one delivering it. If you support your product, doesn't matter

scottness said:
+1 Those clones were a disaster!
Click to expand...

Funny as i would ask the same of you :)
*LTD* said:
I keep wondering why you make the kinds of comments you do. Do you ever consider what you'll be typing before you blurt it all out onscreen?

Can you please stop commenting? Just for a week. We can use the vacation.
Click to expand...
 
synth3tik said:
bretm,

I never thought about it that way.
Apple creates software to run Windows on their hardware.

Microsoft as a software company of course has no issue with this.

Psystar creates software to run OS X (Along with a triple boot of Windows and Linux) on their hardware.

Apple as a hardware company doesn't like this and sue.

Love the do as I say not as I do mentality.
Click to expand...


Psystar violated Apple's IP. The law said so (not me.)

Windows can be used on any computer. No IP issue involved. It's to MS' advantage to do this. They don't "allow" it out of charity. Apple runs on Intel. Windows runs on Intel. MS makes money.

Two different business models, two different issues.

Nor did we need Mac clones. Ever. No one bought any. Apple's market spoke loud and clear when they opened their wallets - again and again (and will continue to do so), to buy REAL Macs. In a recession. Despite the Laptop Losers ads telling them not to.
 
cmaier said:
Right, but what is the point of the hypothetical? People were arguing that Apple is as bad as psystar. We pointed out that apple isn't violating MS's license.

Where does your hypo come in?
Click to expand...

It came from somebody who was making an inaccurate statement about Bootcamp being equal to hackintoshing - Dejo was saying that wasn’t the case though and proposed a scenario where it would be equatable. He is not saying that is what Apple is actually doing though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back