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 Working on Mac OS X Netbook?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sadly the only time I can recommend the iMac to anyone is when they are just hell bent on getting it.
Even worse, is that most of the time they are going to be using apps that run just fine on XP and Vista. With Windows 7 looking as good as it does, it's going to make me cry when people pick up an iMac solely for the hardware and universally available on every OS software.
Unless someone needs iLife, iWork, and other Apple apps, just skip it.... and even then you can Hackintosh it.
[
A copy of OS X. Not the copy in the box, the copy that they installed on the PC.
What are they stealing?
A copy of OS X. Not the copy in the box, the copy that they installed on the PC.
I know apple's line, thanks, and i'll point out that the Mini has a bit of plastic on it as well. Before the unibody models everyone was happy with plastic, but now that apple has aluminum cases the fanboys act like plastic is the worst thing to ever happen to a computer, regardless of the fact that everyone was happy with plastic a year ago.
I know how mac clones were made back in the 90's, which is why the term "mac clone" is laughable today. Psystar s no more of a mac clone than my Dell XPS 420 (which runs osx perfectly). Psystar isnt "cloning" apple technology, they are just bypassing the synthetic OS restrictions apple has.
I am not an Apple hater, so please stop accusing me of such. I use OSX every day because i love it, Apple's hardware, on the other hand, is where i have issues. If you cant handle admitting something bad about apple then dont even bother posting any more because your fanboy opinion is worthless.
I've often asked the same thing and nobody could ever answer me. Afaik, Psystar buys copies of Leopard to install, so Apple is actually making money on every Psystar sold, just not near as much as they would make with their ridiculous hardware profit margins.What are they stealing?
Make the computers we need?
Like what?
Apple "dictating" is a large part of their success. They do some pretty good dictating, and spekaing for myself, I'm perfectly happy to let them go on doing it.
And then modifies it and resells it on their hardware without a license to do so. And that's a major part of the problem.
You CANNOT do whatever the hell you feel like with the OS, even if you've purchased it. Even ownership of a product prevents you from using it (and especially reselling it) in certain ways. The EULA is there for a reason. It's to protect Apple and to protect the userbase as a whole, so that OS X will be used as intended in order to ensure a certain level of quality in terms of the user experience across the board, and to protect Apple's property from being misused by the likes of Psystar, which will in turn affect the first point.
Apple locks OS X onto specific hardware because that's the hardware it gets tested the most on. This means that OS X works as intended on this hardware. It ensures a certain level of user experience, all the time, across the board. This is why they have such a sterling repuation and this is why so many of us choose Macs. If there was no lock and if any old company produced a PC that ran OS X, Apple would have less control over the hardware being used and OS X might not work as intended on it. This would pose a serious problem for the average user (not to mention Apple) which comprises the bulk of Apple's market. Meaning, we'll stray into Windows territory and the ocean of problems that come with it, which we as Apple users are trying to avoid in the first place!
Like a mid-range tower, not a $2500-3000 one just to start. They did make those, you know. Like a durable, powerful professional laptop that isn't made from a soft metal for those of us who need truly portable power. Ya know...little things like that. Apple's computers up until recently always made sense. That's why we loved them. They're beginning to not make sense and are beginning to look more like form over function.
Good for you. I'm not happy. Now I have an option, and I think I'm going to take it.
That isn't what I was responding to. The fact is that they don't "steal" anything.
They are. They are modifying and reselling Apple's property without a license to do so.
Umm...they already bought it. That's not stealing. Cry about it all you want, but it's not theft.
It seems Psystar doesn't have any invoices that show they bought anything. At least that is what they apparently told Apple, who wants to know how many customers Psystar has to calculate damages.
Apple would love to know these two people as well. Unfortunately it seems that Psystar doesn't keep any records.
I wonder what they would keep buying OS X with? At $129 a pop it can get quite expensive for a small operation like them. Perhaps they make enough in sales already to cover all of that.
Or they buy a few copies and just start pirating. I should hope that each of these Psystar computers come with a genuine copy of OS X. Or perhaps they're preloaded onto the machines as per the current non-exsistent license they have with Apple to do so.
And I know four who don't. Now what? LOL.
I am going to be purchasing a netbook in 2 months. If Apple doesn't get off their asses and release a netbook then I will be buying an alternative.
Which ever one I decide to go with will need to be able to run OS X and Linux. (Chances are, I will use OS X though ... but I want the option) If Psystar creates one that runs OS X, they might get my business.
Which ever one I decide to go with will need to be able to run OS X and Linux. (Chances are, I will use OS X though ... but I want the option) If Psystar creates one that runs OS X, they might get my business.
He just finds it hard to believe. And it would be good to know in terms of how Psystar does (and doesn't, more like) keep records. Which goes back to other missing records, like invoices for all of these supposed legally purchased copies of OS X, invoices which apparently don't exist. Kind of important for court, and such.
Don't hold your breath. If they do release one it won't conform to the current netbook paradigm, and might be priced differently. Apple has made it clear they won't make anything Dell-like.
Yes, and that people (in large numbers) would actually be satisfied with them. Mind you, I'd love to see how Joe Average makes out with a Psystar product a few months into the purchase.
stop and think about it for a moment. a true netbook is a small laptop ish device for internet functions -- email, web surfing etc. it lacks the power of a full computer. but would hopefully have wi-fi and a cellular data connection.
Apple has already made that. in two versions. one with both connections and one with only wi-fi. why should they then turn around and build something else when they can focus on improving the extremely portable devices they already made.
also, the current mood is that Psystar is going to lose and lose big. and it wouldn't be a shock if the damages owed are based on how many infringing machines they sell. so if they release this netbook they could put themselves into more hot water. they are better off stopping all shipments until they have legal clearance (if they get that lucky) than risking the entire company when they have to pay Apple a fortune for what they sold
oh and those of you taking the piss on the whole EULA and "I bought it so it's mine and I can do what I want" issue. there's a thing in the US called Copyright and it gives someone the legal right to control what is done with what they create. if you choose for your own use to hack the copy of the OS you just bought for yourself and you keep your mouth shut about it, whatever. you will likely get away with it. but if you do it and try to make a profit, you get what you deserve. and while a lot of the underpinning of the MacOS are based on open source, Psystar did copy without permission the parts that were not. it's no different than me copying my roommate's thesis paper instead of writing my own.
You are arguing semantics. From merriam-webster.com:
steal: "to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully"
You may be right if you are trying to argue a legal definition of theft, but to use the word steal in the context of this forum and post seems perfectly appropriate.