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 Winding Down Business as Web Site Goes Dark
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I didn't say they weren't "great." I said that every tom, dick and harry ain't using them. People are buying their music on itunes, amazon, lala, etc.
Well what he's saying is that even though there's a hydra effect with those sites (one dies two take its place) if the average user doesn't know how to find those places then they it's a victory for the record companies. I'm sure when the well knowns died (kazaa, napster, morpheus, etc.) a lot of not-so-savvy users lost their free music.
I think you are conflating your specific needs with those of all professionals. I hear lots of we, we, we, when it feels more like me, me, me.
Umm, the Mini is 599. How hard is it for people to understand that the Mac Pro is not the only desktop that is not an iMac that Apple makes? Yea, so you can't upgrade the video card. Seriously, if you are a gamer, get a Windows PC and quit whining.
Explain why other than the video card that a Mini will not meet your needs for a desktop PC? Cause really gaming, the games are Windows anyways. Want more drives? Get one of the externals that are the exact same size as a Mini and stack them, like they are designed to do.
Chef Jay
First, if you think Apple is somehow not making a profit you're dead wrong. If you think they're not reaching their target, you're dead wrong. If you think a Mac Pro is a desktop computer, you're dead wrong. You seem to not understand the difference between a desktop and a workstation.
If you're suggesting that something like a Psystar computer would be a good business purchase you obviously don't know much about the business world (which is troubling considering your line of work). Why would a company buy machines that have absolutely no software support from the OS manufacturer? No smart company would ever consider Hackintoshes.
There are doubtless people who need the ability to add pci cards, swap drives, etc. but for whom the mac pro is overkill and makes no monetary sense. And it's a shame that Apple doesn't serve their needs. But that's doesn't give them the right to violate the EULA, etc. Personally I don't care what they do, but it's a bit disturbing to see so many people attempting to justify their actions.
I don't get why nobody complains about BMW not making a car that has more than 400 horsepower for less than $10,000. But somehow Apple needs to make the computer for the price that they want.
you own everything you buy, including the bits! the only restricton is that you can't make other copies and distribute/dell them...
you own the music and you can make as many copies as you want(for exampe one copy for your computer, one copy for your ipod, one copy for your car, etc.) as long as you don't distribute/sell them... broadcasting is a different problem... also, if you buy a DVD with a move you have the right to copy it and even rent it, no matter what is written on the case/printed material/the beginning video of the dvd/whatever... see? this is the problem with all these "licensing models"... there are lots of pretended "restrictions" that have absolutely no legal value...
so... to sum it up:
- many EULA's pretend that you don't have the right to make even one backup copy >> FALSE!
- many EULA's pretend that you don't have the right to decomplie/reverse engineer the software >> FALSE!
- many EULA's pretend that you don't have the right to resell the software >> FALSE!
- most media products (music and movies included) have all kinds of warnings that claim that it's illegal to copy or rent those products >> FALSE!
all the false statments above are an integral part of the "licensing model" which is obviously flawed!
the license model only makes senseto producers of copyrighted material, not for customers and the courts tend to side with the customers, even though there are some absurd exceptions like the pystar case... it seems that a minority of judges tend favor the companies...
LOL!If I prove you wrong with a picture, do you agree never to return to Macrumors ? Viewing the following picture means you are in agreement and will abide by the terms of this comment if it indeed proves that it is you who is full of BS :
1. don't you first have to open the package in order to read that agreement? (a thing which, as I understand, voids the right return the product)
2. where's the EULA, in the process of shopping, if buy the product online?
Ok, cool. Watch offices like mine, who are all Mac go Windows. It's coming, trust me. They're already talking about it. Why in the hell would anyone pay $3,000 per workstation (just for the computer), when they can get the same power for less than half? My office has been all Mac for over a decade. But with this economy, they're now talking Windows 7. 7 is pretty good too. It's not the Windows we all dread anymore.
Take the Mac arrogance and shove it. Apple is going to dig their grave on the Pro side if they don't make some changes.
I've been in the ad business for over 10 years, jim. Psystar is gone. But what need they fulfilled was the freelancer's. Apple has turned their nose up at them. Now- my company is considering going all Windows. I don't want to see that happen. But given today's economy, what would you suggest?
Please point to a workstation with comparable specs to the Mac Pro for less than half the money.
Not the point and my mistake. The point is that most people don't need that kind of power in a workstation, but they do need a tower. And Apple refuses to offer that tower.
I'm gonna build a hackintosh. Are you gonna turn me in to the Apple police or force me to buy a computer I don't want or need?
I had exactly the same kind of experience with a Power Computing system in 1996-7, and I brought up the point about hardware compatibility in a previous thread here in the forums.
Someone proceeded to say that I made poor hardware upgrade decisions.
Was it too much to ask to allow a digital video capture card to work on the PCI bus of a PowerWave 604|120? Was it too much to ask that a Power Computing 604e processor card that worked in a PM9500, to work in the PowerWave. The PowerWave was based on the same chipset as the PM9500.
I saw the same problems in the Amiga world. Some vendors would tweak things just a little to get a better benchmark. But then timings would be off and cause other problems.
In my opinion, the MacPro *is* the Mid-Tower. It's only got 4 PCIe slots. The PowerMac 9500 and 9600 had six slots. Before that was the Quadra they called "Slots and Watts"!
While I think the MacPro / PowerMac G5 case is superb, I'm still waiting for Apple to build the Full-Tower.
I'm gonna build a hackintosh. Are you gonna turn me in to the Apple police or force me to buy a computer I don't want or need?
Of course not. I fully support hackintoshing for personal use. I think it's a cool project and I plan on doing it soon (as soon as I can gather some more parts). However, I think it's foolish to rely on a machine without any support from the OS manufacturer for anything professional. A small business could be devastated by data loss, and a big business would never even consider doing something like that.
reference: https://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/15/apple-wins-permanent-injunction-against-psystar/
1. Copying, selling, offering to sell, distributing, or creating derivative works of plaintiff's copyrighted Mac OS X software without authorization from the copyright holder;
2. Intentionally inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting, or encouraging any other person or entity to infringe plaintiff's copyrighted Mac OS X software;
3. Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff's copyrighted Mac OS X software, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers;
4. Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff's copyrighted Mac OS X software, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers;
5. Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively protects the rights held by plaintiff under the Copyright Act with respect to its copyrighted Mac OS X software.
So I now take the opportunity to thank them from the bottom of my heart:
"Thank you Psystar for bringing the wraith of Apple on the OSX86 scene, due to your greed, you have sounded the death knell of the hackintosh scene. Apple now have the legal recourse to shut the OSX86 scene down as a precedent has been set (see point 2 above).
Thank you for ruining it for everyone you greedy stupid ******* (insert your own word here)"
Psystar have caused Apple to force it's hand and now it has been deemed illegal to supply software or hardware which allows non-apple hardware users access to the OS X software platform.
This includes rebel-EFi(points 3,4,5) Chameleon(points 3,4,5), ALL the distro discs(point 1), and more likely, kernel, driver and other software patches (points 3,4,5) used in the adapation of Apple's operating system.
Thank you very much.
Most of chameleon&co developers is outside of US and doesn't care
Goodbye Psystar but what about the scam Efi-x and ASEM
Yep - nobody messes with Apple and it is a pity that Psystar did not take this action earlier.
Although the main aspect of the Psystar case was selling Apple Clones loaded with OSX, there are others equally fraudulent operations that like of ASEM's Efi-x (Art Studios Entertainment Media started off in Germany and opted to move to Taiwan). ASEM claim that their Efi-x units which plugs into a PC's first USB header on the motherboard alows multiple OS to be loaded including OSX, and although it does support both windows and Ubuntu an Efi-x is NOT needed to load the two latter.
The whole story was very well highlighted by TomsHardware in September 2009.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/asem-efix-mac-chameleon,8617.html
Yet ASEM have been brazen and despite the adverse publicity they continue to sell the unit and they are charging people a great deal to break Apple's EULA. IF ASEM ignores the precedent set out in the Psystar court case, then Apple needs to look hard at those companies profiting illegally from the OSX product and assisting people to load OSX on non Apple hardware.
Yep - nobody messes with Apple and it is a pity that Psystar did not take this action earlier.
Although the main aspect of the Psystar case was selling Apple Clones loaded with OSX, there are others equally fraudulent operations that like of ASEM's Efi-x (Art Studios Entertainment Media started off in Germany and opted to move to Taiwan). ASEM claim that their Efi-x units which plugs into a PC's first USB header on the motherboard alows multiple OS to be loaded including OSX, and although it does support both windows and Ubuntu an Efi-x is NOT needed to load the two latter.
The whole story was very well highlighted by TomsHardware in September 2009.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/asem-efix-mac-chameleon,8617.html
Yet ASEM have been brazen and despite the adverse publicity they continue to sell the unit and they are charging people a great deal to break Apple's EULA. IF ASEM ignores the precedent set out in the Psystar court case, then Apple needs to look hard at those companies profiting illegally from the OSX product and assisting people to load OSX on non Apple hardware.
What is the legal basis for preventing Psystar from doing "anything which might annoy Apple in any way", rather than just preventing them from doing something which has been specifically identified as in some way against some law?
Don't forget, guys, some countries only recognise contracts where terms are seen before exchange of consideration, and don't regard various attempts to regulate sale of one's own property as enforceable. Which is why, in Europe, there's PearC continuing to do exactly what Psystar does.
The more I learn about Apple's history, the more I find that SJ's worth is in marketing and choosing good talent, but Apple does so much to restrict that talent. Apple's been a long time battle between innovating engineers and restricting marketeers. Imagine Apple engineers under the combined entrepreneurial and engineering spirit of Hewlett and Packard!
Don't forget, guys, some countries only recognise contracts where terms are seen before exchange of consideration, and don't regard various attempts to regulate sale of one's own property as enforceable. Which is why, in Europe, there's PearC continuing to do exactly what Psystar does.
The more I learn about Apple's history, the more I find that SJ's worth is in marketing and choosing good talent, but Apple does so much to restrict that talent. Apple's been a long time battle between innovating engineers and restricting marketeers. Imagine Apple engineers under the combined entrepreneurial and engineering spirit of Hewlett and Packard!
Very unlikely as the majority of small outfits like Psystar don't have the resources to deal directly with such companies.
According to Internationalstaff.net the cheapest in the Pakistani-Indian market you are going to see is $7 per seat per hour with $12 to $16 per seat per hour on the high end (ie with American staff)--not much of a savings from doing it here in the US for $12 per seat per hour. Chinese call centers exist but their focus is mainly on the Asian not North American or European markets as the Indian and Philippines with their larger pool of British or American English speakers can give more even if they are more expensive.
The hardware was most likely bought from local stores as these offshore companies sale in bulk. Psystar was a akin to a featherweight deluding himself that he could take on the heavyweight champion of the world.
I was just on their site...... seemed to be up.
I hope prystar releases their Rebel EFI for free!
I'd like to use one of my family pack lic. of 10.6 and try it on my PC.
I hope prystar releases their Rebel EFI for free!
I'd like to use one of my family pack lic. of 10.6 and try it on my PC.
all of the following is simply wrong. The courts have said so time and again, an much of it contradicts the plain language of 17 USC. You may think it would be better if your statements were true, but they are not.
When you buy a medium containing a copyrighted work, you own the medium, not the work. In some cases you may only have a license to the medium, though this is rare. Even without a EULA you may not copy, distribute, publicly perform the work, or create a deriative work, even for personal use. Exceptions exist for fair use, right of first sale, and copies of software necessary to get it to work. You may not break copy protections, even for fair use. There are some enumerated exceptions.
A EULA is enforceable as long as you have an opportunity to reject it and get your money back, or if you have an opportunity to read it ahead of time. A EULA can restrict what you can do with the copyrighted work, including limiting what hardware you can use, limiting how often you can use the software or how many people can use it, etc.
All of the above is true in the US.
When you buy a medium containing a copyrighted work, you own the medium, not the work. In some cases you may only have a license to the medium, though this is rare. Even without a EULA you may not copy, distribute, publicly perform the work, or create a deriative work, even for personal use. Exceptions exist for fair use, right of first sale, and copies of software necessary to get it to work. You may not break copy protections, even for fair use. There are some enumerated exceptions.
A EULA is enforceable as long as you have an opportunity to reject it and get your money back, or if you have an opportunity to read it ahead of time. A EULA can restrict what you can do with the copyrighted work, including limiting what hardware you can use, limiting how often you can use the software or how many people can use it, etc.
All of the above is true in the US.
you own everything you buy, including the bits! the only restricton is that you can't make other copies and distribute/dell them...
you own the music and you can make as many copies as you want(for exampe one copy for your computer, one copy for your ipod, one copy for your car, etc.) as long as you don't distribute/sell them... broadcasting is a different problem... also, if you buy a DVD with a move you have the right to copy it and even rent it, no matter what is written on the case/printed material/the beginning video of the dvd/whatever... see? this is the problem with all these "licensing models"... there are lots of pretended "restrictions" that have absolutely no legal value...
so... to sum it up:
- many EULA's pretend that you don't have the right to make even one backup copy >> FALSE!
- many EULA's pretend that you don't have the right to decomplie/reverse engineer the software >> FALSE!
- many EULA's pretend that you don't have the right to resell the software >> FALSE!
- most media products (music and movies included) have all kinds of warnings that claim that it's illegal to copy or rent those products >> FALSE!
all the false statments above are an integral part of the "licensing model" which is obviously flawed!
the license model only makes senseto producers of copyrighted material, not for customers and the courts tend to side with the customers, even though there are some absurd exceptions like the pystar case... it seems that a minority of judges tend favor the companies...
LOL!
1. don't you first have to open the package in order to read that agreement? (a thing which, as I understand, voids the right return the product)
2. where's the EULA, in the process of shopping, if buy the product online?
You're wrong. You know you're wrong, yet you keep insisting it is not so. I know you feel you're entitled to everything and you don't quite grasp the concept of buying a license, but that doesn't mean the world works the way you think it does.
The fact remains, when buying software, you are buying 2 things : The media and a license to use the bits on that media.
This model has been upheld in court numerous times and even recently in Psystar vs Apple when the judge threw out Psystar claims that the EULA was unenforceable.
This is false. First, you don't own the music. Otherwise you could get royalties from any distribution and performance on said music. That is of course limited to the rights holder. To own the music, you need to own the rights to the music.
Fair Use provision don't give you any of those rights. In fact, the only copy right under fair use that has ever held up is the backup copy. Any other copy has no legal support, but it's not quite cost effective to sue you because you ripped a CD to put it on your iPod. As long as you don't share the result with the rest of the world, you have no visibility and thus get ignored by the RIAA/MPAA or any other right holders.
Same thing as the hackintosh community gets ignored, but mass distribution (which wasn't that massive it seems) like Psystar tried to do did not.
LOL!
1. don't you first have to open the package in order to read that agreement? (a thing which, as I understand, voids the right return the product)
2. where's the EULA, in the process of shopping, if buy the product online?
1. No. See 2
2. http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/
3. Before you say it : All computers in the Apple store have Internet access, so you can freely consult the agreement in store while shopping for products.
So will you stop posting now ?
One correction, Knight- there are other fair use situations (for example, excerpts for commentary, news and reporting, educational exceptions, etc.)
Yes, I know (I did read up on the subject before replying to him to make sure). These are limited to partial copies though, no full copies like he was claiming, so I didn't think I needed to specify it.
There's also parody exceptions so that things like SNL can do Harry Potter parodies without having to pay anyone.