Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Apple finally sues unlicensed Macintosh cloner Psystar
arstechnica.com — Psystar surprised the industry in April by announcing an extremely cheap but unlicensed Mac clone for $399. Everyone waited for Apple to fire off a lawsuit, and it finally has.
MrBabyMan- 1840 diggs
- digg it
- ThreeDee912, on 07/15/2008, -3/+122I think Apple was trying to keep Psystar's clones on the "down low" and let everyone forget about them, as a lawsuit would simply draw more attention to them. But because that didn't really work, and Psystar kept selling their clones, so they switched to Plan B and sued them.
- slifty, on 07/15/2008, -17/+25They were simply not going to spend time and effort trying to crush something if they didn't have to -- according to http://seekingalpha.com/article/85049-apple-sues-m ... Apple was "waiting to see if Psystar was legit and finding customers before launching its lawsuit."
And please, digg me down for highlighting an alternate yet still legitimate, perspective. That's a great way to facilitate an intelligent media conversation.
Then again who really cares about this stuff anyway;)- JohnM5, on 07/15/2008, -6/+24I would have dug you up(or left you alone), but I hate when people try to act better than others by saying why they think they will be dug down.
- slifty, on 07/15/2008, -3/+7Yeah -- I didn't include that part until after people started to digg me down. Sorry for appearing pompous.
- spectre_25gt, on 07/15/2008, -2/+3It was a childish statement, but diggers are often childish in the way they digg people down, too.
- scaliacheese, on 07/16/2008, -0/+0This is clearly correct. There are multiple reasons:
1) It doesn't make sense to sue, get an injunction (or forced licensing), and have a company that can't pay up.
2) If the ruling is forced licensing (or something similar, not sure of the remedies in TM and copyright law) the harm would be measured by the number of units sold and future sales. If there weren't going to be that many future sales, the risk wouldn't have been worth it.
3) It is more difficult to get an injunction nowadays (since eBay v. MercExchange). - Charlotte_Web, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1No doubt Apple took the time to do this right. They probably bought a few Psystar machines and tore them apart to figure out every way they violated Apple's copyright, so they could lay the smackdown on this and any future clone makers.
Oh, and Woz wants to buy one because the price is right. No doubt Kathy Griffin has almost bled him dry.
- themouth, on 07/15/2008, -7/+3If you're a company like Psystar, no publicity is bad publicity. Legally even if they expect to eventually lose they can shelter the money in various ways (primarily paying themselves) and never pay that much to Apple. This is just a larger, more techie version of your standard fly-by-night.
- Jimzip, on 07/15/2008, -13/+4I think Apple's doing this now because they realise psystar isn't going to stop. You don't hear of Apple suing many people (usually it's the other way around..) so they must be sure this is deserved.
Jimzip :D- Jimzip, on 07/15/2008, -8/+5Oh yeah, I forgot to mention to make sure you digg me down because I'm supporting Apple's decision.
I don't know why I comment on digg anymore..
Jimzip :D - javaroast, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4You are being dugg down for, "You don't hear of Apple suing many people." not for supporting the decision. Check Apple's history and you'll see why. On the other hand the decision was inevitable the second Psystar started selling their clones.
- Jimzip, on 07/15/2008, -3/+2I've been on this site long enough to know why I'm being dugg down. Usually the trend goes something like this: if you're dugg up initially, people digg you up, if you're dugg down, people follow suit, it doesn't actually have much to do with the content unfortunately. People tend to glance at the number and ignore the comment. If the first two people that read it didn't agree you're done. I think the comment voting system it's one of diggs biggest flaws actually. Thanks for the explanation though. I don't care whether people digg or bury me in the end, I'm just stating an opinion.
Jimzip :D - dezholling, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2If that were indeed the trend, then you wouldn't see many +24/-17 digg numbers, which I know I see all the time. No, the reason it "appears" that way is because digg is fairly united on lots of topics, giving the appearance of mob mentality. One of those topics seems to be an anti-Apple sentiment, so it happens to your comment above.
Really, though, if you jumped to that conclusion I would guess (though I may be wrong) that you are projecting your own habits onto the digg community, and if that is the case, shame on your habits.
- Jimzip, on 07/15/2008, -8/+5Oh yeah, I forgot to mention to make sure you digg me down because I'm supporting Apple's decision.
- Cowboy1015, on 07/15/2008, -22/+8Who cares? Mac is gay.
Oh yeah, them.- kelly, on 07/15/2008, -4/+1What a terrible thing to say
- MacParrot, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3Thanks for joining the conversation Heath
- Kanidia, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3Translation: omg mac is gey it haz no rite click and i cant play gaems on it its 4 hipies. u r 2 rich and waste ur mony u r al gey and u shud go dai.
- geoken, on 07/15/2008, -3/+34"You don't hear of Apple suing many people"
You must be new.- Galaxylander, on 07/15/2008, -7/+3You don't! People usually sue Apple...
- schneb, on 07/15/2008, -7/+3You may be right, however, copyright law requires that you fight every violation in order to show that you are serious about its protection. I think Apple was using the response as an "unofficial poll" regarding their unit design vs. pricing structure. The result? People want a low-cost, upgradeable product that will run OSX. Ok, results are in... Lawyers... SICK!
- javaroast, on 07/15/2008, -0/+7No you are confusing copyright with Trademark. Trademark law requires that you defend every violation.
- jabberwolf, on 07/15/2008, -4/+8I'm glad this is happening and I think Apple is making a large mistake to the benefit of everyone else.
I hope the FEDs look into this and file an action again Apple for breaking anti-trust laws.
Regardless if a company is a monopoly, it is their legal right to be so.
However,
A company cannot practice predatory or monopolistic practices even if not a monopoly.
This is what Apple is and has been doing with OSX for awhile now.
Put it this way: What if MS decided to lock down their OS, so you could only purchase hardware produced by them. People would want MS's head on a platter! But saying that it's ok for Apple to do this is hypocritical at best.- brownfallleaves, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1right on
- mrsteveman1, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2You mean tying? The products, os x and mac hardware, are related. Thats not really what tying is. Tying would be "buy this phone and you must buy a new blender, from us"
- Tenoq, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4"A company cannot practice predatory or monopolistic practices even if not a monopoly."
Well actually, they can, because they're NOT a monopoly. If they don't have the market power, pretending to be a monopoly isn't going to do squat. Your comparison to Microsoft is flawed: because THEY ARE a freakin' monopoly!
Your argument makes about as much sense as complaining that Adobe is employing monopolistic practices by NOT releasing their software on Linux... or NOT releasing a version that works on a Sparc processor. - grumpyrain, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3> Tying would be "buy this phone and you must buy a new blender, from us"
You seem to be under some illusion that Mac hardware is somehow different to PC hardware. Those days are long gone. The Mac you buy today is has Intel chipset, Xeon CPU, ATi video cards and SATA hard drives. There is no technical reason why Dell or HP could not be configuring and selling Mac OSX hardware, except that Apple want the hardware sales.
Apple does not provide a version of OSX I can legally run inside a VM on an IBM laptop. Even if I specifically purchased a Mac mini, I could not transfer the license to my VM. If I wanted to run OSX on a laptop, the only option they leave is to purchase a Macbook.
The lines between hardware and OS are now a lot more blurred. My 2c for the reason Apple delayed suing Psystar was to get legal advice, not specifically against this company as anyone could see they are breaking the law, but to see whether they may find a court forcing them to sell a Mac OSX license distinct from their hardware.
- diggmaddy, on 07/15/2008, -2/+1Actually, a similar Mac is what everybody has been craving for a long long time now. A regular desktop Mac. As of today, only two options in the desktop mac area are the mac mini (crippled, underpowered), or the insanely priced powerhouse Mac Pros. Apple should be taking hints for their future product line from this company, not just suing them (which is fair enough since Apple needs to protect their innovative designs).
- Jimzip, on 07/15/2008, -2/+1What about the iMac, which has a very reasonable amount of power and is priced cheaper than all of Apple's notebooks?
Jimzip :D
- Jimzip, on 07/15/2008, -2/+1What about the iMac, which has a very reasonable amount of power and is priced cheaper than all of Apple's notebooks?
- ATLien74, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1Yeah, like I didn't even know about these until just now....
...and now I want one. :-) - VodkanLemons, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3I didn't know about Psystar.
Now I'm gonna have to buy one. - ahvi, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I honestly can't understand the appeal of the cult of Apple. To me, Apple seems as proprietary and confined as M$.
- Tenoq, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2It is. But some people prefer the user experience. Hell, as a full-time Windows user, I still appreciate the simplicity of the MacOS when I get a chance to use it.
- ahvi, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2I guess the reason Linux seems so delicious to me is because it has close to the simplicity of OS X with OS's like gOS or Linux Mint, but it also gives you an incredible amount of power to do whatever you want. I also love being able to try out different OS's using my same configuration files and personal files with a mounted home partition. You really can't beat Linux standards, and it's really hard to understand why standards are so important until you've really been using Linux for a while.
- slifty, on 07/15/2008, -17/+25They were simply not going to spend time and effort trying to crush something if they didn't have to -- according to http://seekingalpha.com/article/85049-apple-sues-m ... Apple was "waiting to see if Psystar was legit and finding customers before launching its lawsuit."
- MikeSetera, on 07/15/2008, -23/+53I couldn't care less.. I'm building my own Hac Pro. XP for gaming, OS X for important stuff.
- iashraf, on 07/15/2008, -19/+8Following any tutorials? if so, which?
- ruddy, on 07/15/2008, -57/+9OS X for important stuff? Gaming IS important stuff.
You really are a *****.- MRintheKeys, on 07/15/2008, -4/+22***** meet Douche, Douche this is *****. Play nice now fellas.
- PoopStick, on 07/15/2008, -5/+2Mac's attract both... it was their business model and it seems to work well.
- MacParrot, on 07/15/2008, -0/+16Yes, because playing Crysis looks SO good on your resume
- MikeSetera, on 07/15/2008, -2/+17*I was implying that I'd have both OS X and XP on the rig...
also.. here are a billion install resources http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showforum=1 ...- DyceFreak, on 07/15/2008, -9/+2good luck getting a 100% fully working hackintosh...
Takes more work than friggin slackware... not to metion the computer you have to CUSTOM BUILD just to get the best results... not worth the attempt IMHO
Not even psystar could put out a fully working hackintosh if any of you have seen the vids... - truspect0r, on 07/15/2008, -3/+3Works and installs pretty easy on tested hardware.
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_P ... - stizz, on 07/15/2008, -1/+13My hackintosh is the *****.
True I built it to spec, and true I cant get hardware sleep to work perfectly, but other than that it is a beast.
I have a quadcore mac pro now for half the cost.
- Protools? check
- Final Cut Pro? check
- XP thru parallels for when I need Visio? check
- Dual Boot to Ubuntu? check
Cant wait till the 8 core chips come down in price.... - zeeky, on 07/15/2008, -2/+4My hack pro is the ***** dude, god i love it. I have some legitimate macs, too, but for heavy duty stuff and if you want a mac pro without the $$$$$ hackintosh is the way to go..
- damndj, on 07/15/2008, -3/+4My Hackintosh works 100%. Owned.
- kitsua, on 07/15/2008, -3/+2@stizz - that's a pretty impressive machine dude.
All that and you've got Pro Tools stable on it as well? Props. - DyceFreak, on 07/15/2008, -5/+3I still believe any "Operating System" that has "Compatability Requirements" should not be used for "important stuff"
Anyone with me on that?
For example, allow me to quote the first couple motherboards listed about compatability from here http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/HCL_10 ...
"AB9 QuadGT : Audio Needs patching"
"IC7-G : LAN has auto-connect problems"
"IP35 Pro : No; Audio needs patching"
"LG-95 : No, audio and video need patching"
"F190 HD : No audio needs patching and onboard graphics don't allow resolution change or QE/CI due to no graphic kext."
Note that 90% of thoes are INTEL based motherboards, the same that Apple uses, and there are still problems...
I have treid installing this on 4 different intel machines, and of course the best results I could get was on a custom built intel quad, and I still couldn't get the sound working..
I mean considering that there are a total of like, 3 out of several hundred motherboards that work fine... I say f it, unless of course you had one of thoes 3.. - patm1987, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2@DyceFreak
Most operating systems maintain lists of working and non-working hardware, and I would probably refust to use one that doesn't maintain such a list.
For example:
Windows: http://winqual.microsoft.com/HCL/Default.aspx?m=x
Ubuntu: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardwareSupport
BeOS: http://www.beatjapan.org/mirror/www.be.com/product ...
Solaris: http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/
The fact that there is a definitive list of non-working hardware is neither a bad thing nor unexpected. Not only do I know what hardware definately will work, but I know what will semi-work and won't work so I can anylise my own theoretical success and determine if the operating system is worth my time. Since OSX was not designed with arbitrary beige box systems in mind and still does not officially support that market, it would be expected that it won't run on most hardware. That would be like trying to run BeOS when they still only sold it with the BeBox.
With Windows, you are fortunate enough to know that most consumer hardware will be designed to work with the operating system and there will be some effort to have windows supported now or in the near future. But if you tried running Windows on Sparc hardware or even some x86 rack systems designed for server use you will find yourself on the short end of the compatibility stick. - mrsteveman1, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1There are recent examples of why Apple doesn't like to let hardware manufacturers support their own hardware on the machines themselves, apple likes to be the middleman for stuff like video drivers, chipset drivers etc.
Vista got lots of bad press recently because Nvidia ***** up their own drivers, which in turn was because Microsoft changed the driver model right before release. Screwy situation I'm sure apple wants to avoid, so they release everything as one usable machine. When something doesn't work, you blame Apple and they sometimes fix it :D
Now, that's not to say Macs are free from problems, there are LOTS of examples of Apple neglecting to fix stuff, or problems occurring anyway even with Apple doing quality control, but they seem to not want to play that 'we make the os, you make the hardware and drivers' game.
In fact Apple discourages programmers from writing kernel extensions for that very reason, there is potential to make the system unstable.
I was however under the impression that Vista video drivers were in userspace, so how they could make the system so unstable i don't know. - DyceFreak, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1@patm
do you realize that over 90% of thoes motherboards have 0 audio support? That aint no Ubuntu, which would even have audio on the old IBM MACs...
The point is, one of an operating systems main elements is the hardware it can run on, and with a dismal state like that of incompatabilities (you thought vista was bad), I can hardly see a reason to attempt to use it.
I aint some rich motherf that has the money to build a computer custom designed for a hacked up OS... it defeats the whole ***** point!
- DyceFreak, on 07/15/2008, -9/+2good luck getting a 100% fully working hackintosh...
- PhillyMJS, on 07/15/2008, -17/+27"XP for gaming, OS X for important stuff."
Funny how people called the Mac the "toy computer" for all those years.- Syphon8, on 07/15/2008, -9/+25People? You mean Apple, who based their entire marketing campaign on the fact that most people couldn't turn on a computer?
- Elranzer, on 07/15/2008, -16/+27...or right-click.
- zeeky, on 07/15/2008, -10/+7you can right click on macs now. its two fingers for laptops and the mice have 2 butons even though they look like they just have one.
- damndj, on 07/15/2008, -5/+7That was before OS X
- MacParrot, on 07/15/2008, -5/+17People called the Mac a "toy" back in the DOS days. Command line guys couldn't stand the fact that people were actually able to work with a computer without archaic command line codes. Most of them are now dead or have shut up since Win95 came out.
Well...except obviously for Elranzer who still needs to hang onto ten-year old complaints since that's really all he has. C'mon! NOW say something about fanboys, you know you want to. - kraetos, on 07/15/2008, -10/+8@Syphon8:
Do you derive pleasure out of deluding yourself that Mac users are morons, and by extension, you as a Windows user, must be a genius? (I am assuming you use Windows and not Linux, most of the Linux users I know don't malign Mac users for the sake of inflating their egos.)
I find you to be pathetic and humorous. The fact is, both platforms attract their share of idiots. But the more interesting fact is that just about every computer professional I know uses either Mac OS X or some Linux variant, and considers Windows to be a cruel joke which pales in comparison to any alternative OS, for basically any task but gaming.
@Elranzer
Enough with the right clicking already. Macs have been capable of right-clicking natively since 2001, and have been shipping with right click mice since 2005.
Of course, now you're going to tell me that Windows users have been right clicking decades before that, and I'm going to tell you that doesn't matter, because maligning anyone for a mistake they've made and since fixed is stupid and sophomoric.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th4mXXBNV38 - mrsteveman1, on 07/15/2008, -0/+5People have trouble with lots of things you would think could be explained easily. If you've ever done tech support with the normal population, they seriously do have trouble with the idea that the left side of the mouse does one thing, and the right side does...gasp, SOMETHING ELSE!
- Syphon8, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2@Kraetos I use Windows Vista, XP, Mac OS X, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Debian on a semi regular basis. Mac OS X is the cruel joke.
- xsquirrel378x, on 07/15/2008, -23/+10Whats the point of a hackintosh? seriously there are far more competent Unix based alternatives to OS X and they're free :)
- mockupscaledown, on 07/15/2008, -0/+8Point me to the Unix-based alternative that runs Logic Pro, Adobe's Creative Suite, and has drivers for my pro audio interface, and I'll switch today.
- mrsteveman1, on 07/15/2008, -2/+3Competent how...competent like watching Linux break constantly? Read the Ubuntu forum for a while and tell me thats competence.
I've seen OS X break a few times, and there are STUPID ASS problems Apple doesn't fix quickly or ever, but the state of desktop Linux is much worse in most situations.
- Tezdoll, on 07/15/2008, -9/+16and by important stuff you mean.... your boyfriends anime collection?
- MikeSetera, on 07/15/2008, -4/+3Go suck a *****. Yeah I just watched Donnie Darko, great movie.
- cawpin, on 07/15/2008, -2/+13MikeSetera - I dugg you simply for using the correct form of the care less saying.
- digitallysick, on 07/15/2008, -4/+2Nice, i have one myself runs great join us at insanely mac forums
- kraetos, on 07/15/2008, -0/+7Exactly, having both is the best. I have my Mac laptop, and then a PC I built for gaming.
- FireXtol, on 07/15/2008, -12/+10Oh wow! A 15 year old has 'important stuff' to do on his 'Leopard'.
- MikeSetera, on 07/15/2008, -3/+3Yeah it's almost like I have schoolwork and a proxy business to manage.
- jabberwolf, on 07/15/2008, -13/+6OSX has important stuff? haha sure it does little buddy!
- Pake, on 07/15/2008, -7/+2If you're dual booting, why would you use OSX when you could be using Linux?
- mrsteveman1, on 07/15/2008, -3/+4Because Linux annoys me and breaks easily in ways OS X doesn't, and a lot of the software that comes with a Linux installation is substandard.
- Pake, on 07/16/2008, -6/+1My philosophy is this: If you want security, you use Linux. If you want compatibility and software, you use Windows. That covers all areas and basically means OSX is just for hipsters.
- Resiroth, on 07/15/2008, -0/+7I dualboot vista and OSX ( Vista for DX10 gaming ) and honestly OSX is a breeze compared to windows for creating projects ripping movies etc. I can't think of something other than games that I can't accomplish on OSX. If I ever need to I can always boot into windows which takes only 30 seconds anyway. That is the beauty of a hackintosh; a powerful machine running apple software without apple prices.
- NSResponder, on 07/15/2008, -0/+5As long as you don't offer that computer for sale with OS X installed on it, Apple probably couldn't care less.
-jcr
- galvo, on 07/15/2008, -123/+223I hate Steve Jobs and Apple.
- akuma, on 07/15/2008, -80/+13Classic troll is classic.
- benman587, on 07/15/2008, -2/+32Classic troll is getting more diggs than you are.
- galvo, on 07/15/2008, -0/+22I believe "owned" is the word I'm looking for...
- unitedatheism, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Classic bury is even more.
- evilesttoast, on 07/15/2008, -49/+12are you trying to raise hell on digg?
- sanosuke001, on 07/15/2008, -30/+121No, he is expressing an opinion.
And ya, Steve Jobs is a yuppie douchebag :P- xaxxon, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3YUPpy=Young Urban Professional.. he's not exactly young..
- reformation, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2You said 'ya' for ***** sake
- NLS87, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1He's a douchebag, but he can manage a company: Apple (only lost it's greatness in the era that Jobs was put out), Pixar (the most sucessfull animation company in the world) and NeXT (a failure, but built the future for Apple's OS X, the most capable Operating System in the world)
- jcannonb, on 07/15/2008, -38/+17I am sure Steve doesn't give two ***** about you either. So, it's all good.
- FutureGuy, on 07/15/2008, -4/+17He doesn't give "two ***** " about you either, but your wallet, now that's a different story.
- galvo, on 07/15/2008, -0/+9***** owned by the FutureGuy!
- flashback99, on 07/15/2008, -28/+5***** you and your opinion
- runeasgar, on 07/15/2008, -17/+7Like it or not, Apple sucked without Steve. His charisma drives the company.
- greevar, on 07/15/2008, -0/+18You mean his megalomania.
- gradivus, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2I thought it was toilet brush white plastic?
- unitedatheism, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1The only difference is him, Apple never stopped in the sucking business.
- WaveRunningNakd, on 07/15/2008, -16/+4yeah, like bill gates and microsoft is any better.
at least people get excited about apple stuff.- galvo, on 07/15/2008, -4/+17People get excited because Steve Jobs is as good as a speaker as Hitler. He sells the product. The product doesn't sell itself. However, Apple managed to sneak their way into the MP3 player market early and have completely monopolized the industry.
Oh yeah, and Bill Gates donates %58 of his earnings each year to charity. How about Stevie? - FireXtol, on 07/15/2008, -4/+6*cough* DIRECTX 11 (to mention just one SUPER BIG THING PEOPLE GET HYPED ABOUT) ... YOU UTTERLY ABSENT-MINDED MORON *cough*
Steve Jobs parks in handicap parking spaces.
- galvo, on 07/15/2008, -4/+17People get excited because Steve Jobs is as good as a speaker as Hitler. He sells the product. The product doesn't sell itself. However, Apple managed to sneak their way into the MP3 player market early and have completely monopolized the industry.
- supaklaw, on 07/15/2008, -13/+3Yes, we know you're mad you didn't buy stock 3 years ago.
- RetlawST, on 07/15/2008, -13/+5He's expressing an opinion but it brings absolutely nothing to the conversation. Fanboy's are annoying, but haters for the sake of hating are just as annoying.
- HookmasterCH47, on 07/15/2008, -11/+3And Steve Jobs hates you.
- mishaneah, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2Why you gotta be sipp'n on the hatorade
- flashback99, on 07/16/2008, -3/+3lame windows fanboys. don't cry losers.
- akuma, on 07/15/2008, -80/+13Classic troll is classic.
- Ilyanep, on 07/15/2008, -1/+21If I had a guess, I'd guess that something within Apple's strategy/plans shifted in the last three months that changed Psystar from a "let's ignore them" thing to a "this is in our way" thing.
Or what ThreeDee912 said.- mrsteveman1, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4Or they were waiting for a pattern of infringing behavior to show up that they can clearly document for a court.....like distributing software updates.
- klank, on 07/15/2008, -2/+73It was inevitable.
- FutureGuy, on 07/15/2008, -11/+4wtf, such greedy pigs, EULA are for losers, blah blah blah.
"pst, its apple they are talking about not MS"
Oh then never mind this was inevitable, Psystar had is coming, those greedy pigs. - FlyingSpaghetti, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4It is your destiny!
- FutureGuy, on 07/15/2008, -11/+4wtf, such greedy pigs, EULA are for losers, blah blah blah.
- drlha, on 07/15/2008, -3/+46Should be interesting to see how this plays out if Psystar decide to stand up to Apple. As Apple's main legal argument would be the fact that the OS X EULA specifically doesn't allow installation on non-Apple computers, a court case to support that would answer some difficult questions about whether a EULA is really enforcable. Of course Apple might just be going the easier route here of attacking Psystar for distributing modified/hacked versions of the 10.5.4 update.
- hotsoda, on 07/15/2008, -9/+4If you look at the article, they're argument makes no mention of the EULA.
- drlha, on 07/15/2008, -1/+12I read the article and there's no mention or knowledge of what is in the actual suit beyond vague words about license, copyright and tradement infringement, so we don't know on what basis Apple is suing Psystar yet. It could well be the EULA amongst other things.
- richiewrt, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3Probably suing for dilution of their trademark.
- wonderchemist, on 07/15/2008, -11/+3Apple isn't suing over a EULA violation, Apple is suing over authorized distribution of OS X 10.5.4. In this narrow context, Apple will win, since it is no different than MS suing a clone maker for distrubting copies of Windows it didn't pay for.
- drlha, on 07/15/2008, -2/+6The article states that Apple is accusing Psystar of "violating Apples licenses" which could well mean the EULA.
- Bleue, on 07/15/2008, -3/+4drlha: No it couldn't. EULA stands for end user license agreement. It is a document of questionable force and effect attached to a bunch of stuff including but not limited to software (it includes anything not bought per se but licensed, meaning media and software mostly) but it definitely has some force and effect.
Psystar, however, is not an end user, they are an OEM that is trying to be an osx reseller. For any and all licensed works, if you are to be a bulk reseller, IE not an individual using the right of first sale to sell your copy of some licensed work through ebay or whatnot, there is no EULA, instead you must sign an agreement, often a specific non boiler plate agreement, meaning an actual licensing agreement, not a just agreeing to a EULA, with the rights holders to do this. The law here is very clear on this issue.
There could be some antitrust laws Psystar may use to try and get out from under this, but I very much doubt they are likely to get anywhere.
- MacParrot, on 07/15/2008, -2/+17I hope Psystar stands up to Apple and I hope Apple loses. I don't own a Psystar as a computer that makes more noise than a 747 in full reverse thrust doesn't appeal to me personally, but if Apple was truly serious about breaking away from being "just" a computer company, then it's getting near time to put up or shut up.
Their previous attempt at cloning was a disaster. Why? Because they attempted to compete on price with the very same people they gave OS 7 licenses to. Add in their market-share was at less than three percent and the cloners all marketed to the same people Apple was trying to sell computers to. A bad and foolish try.
Apple is now sitting (depending on whose numbers you believe) on 7-10% market-share overall. They could design 3-5 motherboards for desktops and perhaps 3 or so notebooks and allow others to make computers that run OS X. Heck, it's not that far from what they do now. By limiting the hardware to a pre-defined set, you still make it easy to keep OS X running without having to account for every piece of gear out there. Sell the license for the current retail cost of OS X. Between not having to keep assembly lines open, they don't incur manf costs so it'll still be about what they make in profit on the Mac line overall.- Smoozle, on 07/15/2008, -2/+6So basically you are saying that since Mac sales are now growing strongly and steadily after all the money and effort put into the development of Mac OS X, Apple should share the spoils (i.e. profit) with a bunch of two bit companies like Psystar.
- mrsteveman1, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1They would have to force OEMs to get approval hardware to ship with these hypothetical systems, and have some method in place to compel OEMs to fix problems if they arise. Otherwise you'd have bargain basement OEMs shipping machines and not supporting them, while Apple gets blamed when stuff doesn't work.
They might end up doing what you suggest but may be waiting for even larger marketshare gains. Its also clear they are aiming at the high end the of market, so they could at some point let the low end go to some OEM. - MacParrot, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1@Smoozie
I'm not saying that at all. How much profit a cloner makes would depend on what they set the retail price at. Apple no longer makes their own computers. They design them and then have any number of Asian companies manufacturer them. Apple buys each one at some set contract price. They then sell them at whatever the retail price is. The difference would be that Apple makes their money up front regardless of how many machines are sold. The licensed reseller sells them at the price they can still make a profit.
Whether or not Apple ever allows clones again, I doubt Psystar will be one of them
@mrsteveman
Hoping that the clone makers only sell to the low end is one of things that doomed the earlier Mac clones. If Apple is going to allow OS X licensing, they'll need to stop making most of the Mac lines.
- hotsoda, on 07/15/2008, -9/+4If you look at the article, they're argument makes no mention of the EULA.
- Elvaanish, on 07/15/2008, -20/+26I still dont get why Apple doesnt let users install OSX on thier own rigs.. more users buying licenses, more money for them, right?
- acevoncash, on 07/15/2008, -4/+68not enough. their economy is built on hardware sales. not os sales.
- Elvaanish, on 07/15/2008, -9/+4Why not beef up the OS sales department then? MS does it, why couldnt Apple?
- fowleryo, on 07/15/2008, -2/+22different business models, plain and simple.
- Elranzer, on 07/15/2008, -3/+18No, they want total, Nazi-like control over the hardware and the software. This business model hurts consumers, who have to pay extra for the same parts in a similar Dell computer (especially in the graphics cards).
- kraetos, on 07/15/2008, -7/+5It would never work.
There is no balance point between price and volume - I mean it, not one - that would turn a profit for Apple. Either it would cost too much and they wouldn't sell enough, or it would cost too little and the margins would be too thin.
Apple hardware costs more because most of that "extra" cost is for Mac OS X. It isn't going straight into Steve's pockets, not all of it anyway. It's going to cover the salaries of 21,600 employees, the wages of which Apple hasn't lowered, bucking the current trend, and in spite of a weak economy. It's going to cover things like Snow Leopard, which will probably cost Apple more to engineer than any other OS X release since the original, yet they are probably going to charge *less* for it, because it has very few end-user features.
Whether you love or hate Apple hardware, that's where Apple makes the money, and it's probably the only place Apple could realistically make as much money as it does. - cawpin, on 07/15/2008, -0/+6While you are correct, ace, they are dumb for not offering it. They could simply publish a list of supported hardware and release the OS. I would have bought a copy, or several, far sooner than I was able to buy my MBP. Hell, I would still buy several copies and build new machines for my house.
- umbrellainabin, on 07/15/2008, -2/+1whereas microsoft was hell bent on world domination
- MacParrot, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2@capwin
My arguments notwithstanding above about Apple allowing clones, if they tried to do what they did before it would fail just as miserably. Apple has to make up their minds what kind of company they want to be. If selling Macs is their core then they can't authorize clones. If creating and selling consumer electronics is becoming more of their focus (with the iPod/iPhone/AppleTV and who knows what else in the future), then why not split the Mac away from the company with a tight engineered design to keep OS X simple?
- Elvaanish, on 07/15/2008, -9/+4Why not beef up the OS sales department then? MS does it, why couldnt Apple?
- Ilyanep, on 07/15/2008, -4/+32More hardware to deal with/support.
- klank, on 07/15/2008, -5/+22I am for one that would love to buy OSX and install it "legally" on my PC
Apple is not just a software company however and they have to sell their hardware too. The other likely reason that they don't allow OSX on PC is the vast amounts of different devices and drivers that it would require not to mention supporting said installations.- digitallysick, on 07/15/2008, -3/+1*cough hackintosh*
- lacsapper, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2And yet Microsoft manages to support all those vast amounts of devices/drivers...and more than reasonably well. ;)
Personally, I'd love to give OSX a try, but I refuse to buy pre-built machines. I've been building my own for so long now that I don't want to give up that control (plus it's waaaaaaaay cheaper!).
I *hope* that Apple changes their business model as I think they are losing out on a large segment of the population who would *love* to buy their OS but refuse, as I do, to buy their hardware. However, I'm pretty skeptical as I think they're too leery of having the same issues MS has; namely having to support so many, many different components.
Oh,well. Maybe they'll give it a go A.S. (After Steve) - diggimator, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Digg me down I messed up.
- horsepie, on 07/15/2008, -2/+14More users thinking it would work fine on their current Dell and having it crash, more work for Apple to support the influx of new users and the main one is more work for Apple to incorporate new drivers while keeping the system stable (which is difficult when you start to rely more on third party drivers)
- TheSpook, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1True, but they could agree only to license it to approved OEMs, which would take care of the support and compatibility issues. However, the fact remains that they want to sell machines, not OSs.
- Evilena, on 07/15/2008, -8/+19Apple is a hardware company not a software company.
- Elvaanish, on 07/15/2008, -7/+8Ooooookay... then what is OSX again?
- VeritasAequitas, on 07/15/2008, -2/+10Apple is a hardware company, Macintosh could be thought of the OS division of that software company. They combine the two and limit the number of hardware options to improve ease of use, limit technical issues, and control OS bloat.
- id000001, on 07/15/2008, -13/+1OSX is their motherboard bios.
- zephc, on 07/15/2008, -3/+9OS X is what is called a "value-add" - an incentive to buy the main product. Why buy their hardware if you are running only Vista or Linux, which you can get anywhere. But Apple has a good, solid OS as a huge value-add, exclusive to their computer hardware.
- ez12a, on 07/15/2008, -2/+7@id000001
no it isnt - Syphon8, on 07/15/2008, -6/+4@Zephc Did you honestly just call Mac OS X more solid than Linux?
Hah. - DAllenJ, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Plus, Apple has built its image on building devices that "just work" (current iPhone activation issues notwithstanding)... OSX on random hardware would be buggy and destroy that image... It's like Jobs says, "If you want to be really serious about software, you've got to build your own hardware."
- Evilena, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Elvaanish, is writing okay with 6 o's your way of acting like you said something clever?
Yes, OSX is software. Like Nintendo, Apple is a hardware company that writes and sells lots of software because it helps them sell more hardware. Apple's shareholders agree with this strategy because its been very successful for them. Back when Apple last allowed clones, their stock fell to a 12-year low.
If you want to say that you wish you could install OSX on your 'rig' and get support from Apple that is fine. Claiming that Apple would make more money if they did it the way that you like is rather silly. - kraetos, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2@Elvaanish
Mac OS X is the software they install on their and only their hardware to differentiate it from generic Wintel PC hardware, which otherwise compete purely on a "OMGZ GIGAHERTZ!!1one!" level. Spare HP, all of these companies are losing market share, while Apple is gaining it. - umbrellainabin, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1erm......am i the only one who sees why this person is wrong.
- getsaf, on 07/15/2008, -6/+39• WAAAAY More support issues
-> New mboards / busses / chipsets etc.
-> Way more complexity of min-requirements to figure.. IE If a user has X model iMac it's easy to determine if it'll run OSX ver G but if it's a custom-built machine, it could be damn-near impossible.
-> Way more complication in the OSX Installer
All this leads to much less revenue due to excess support staff and ultimately it will lead to bad-press for APPLE because of dumbasses complaining that OSX craps out on their craptastic machine..
Imagine how many computer-don't-know-it-alls will try to put OSX on their piece of crap box and it runs super-slow.. It would kill the reputation of the OS (imo).
I think APPLE has a good thing going with their hardware/software packages.. It ensures good quality-of-service from your product.- Elranzer, on 07/15/2008, -2/+1This concern could be solved if hardware vendors released OSX drivers with all of their hardware (which most of them do... except for motherboard manufacturers).
- cawpin, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3Or Apple could simply publish a list of supported hardware, just the stuff they already use, and it wouldn't be a problem at all.
- jabelar, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0I think Apple could limit the support burden by just letting people try to install OS X at their own risk, and forget any support. If some cloning company makes a little money in the middle then who really cares? I think there must be more to it than the support -- either an image thing (Jobs doesn't like the idea of running on something that doesn't look like an Apple product), or else they need the hardware money and are worried about eroding that.
- mrsteveman1, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Except then Apple gets blamed and suffers in the public eye when stuff doesn't work. I don't blame them for not wanting to be in MS position. Microsoft just got hit hard, and probably lost millions in potential sales, perhaps some to Apple, because of how incompetent Nvidia is at writing drivers.
- diggimator, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1If Apple were to free OS X, they could start with a small list of supported hardware, and other hardware companies that want OS X compatibility will have to write drivers, support customers, etc. by themselves.
- colincornaby, on 07/15/2008, -4/+16Because last time they allowed people to purchase the OS for 3rd party rigs they lost so much money they almost went out of business.
They are very much supported by their hardware business. - Vegabondsx, on 07/15/2008, -1/+8The macintosh is the full package, Hardware, software, operating system. All optimized to work with eachother. Selling the OS would mean that would end and millions of hardware components would have to be supported, which would cost the company lots of money.
- clyde2801, on 07/15/2008, -3/+1But that was also before iPods, wasn't it?
I think apple should allow people install older versions on their machines, like 10.2 or 10.3, and restrict newer versions to their own machines. - mrsteveman1, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2there was no retail intel version of 10.3 or 10.2. But if you own a POWER arch machine that runs openfirmware and can read the HFS+ filesystem, by all means go ahead, i don't think there are any restrictions at all in the PPC version.
Then again i don't think apple supports 10.2 at all anymore, even on real macs, and 10.3 is only getting security updates as far as i know.
- clyde2801, on 07/15/2008, -3/+1But that was also before iPods, wasn't it?
- Syphon8, on 07/15/2008, -10/+11Then people would realise OS X isn't as stable as everyone thinks it is, and Apple is too lazy to make drivers for everything when it's easier to continue saying Windows is unstable and crash prone when it isn't, and hoisting their product to Godlike status.
Also, they overprice their hardware so much they'd easily lose all the money they make off die-hard OS X fans with little technical knowledge. (i.e., 90% of their income.)- kraetos, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4Lazy? Try smart. Rather than waste time supporting eleventy-billion hardware configurations, they can focus on actually improving their products.
Overpriced hardware? I really wish this little FUD-nugget would die already. MacBooks and Mac minis are priced damn close to what a comparable box from Dell would. The MacBook Air and the Mac Pro cost *less* than competing products from Lenovo and Dell respectively. The iMac is hard to pin - competing All-in-Ones cost the same or more, but traditional beige-box + monitor configurations are obviously cheaper. Only the MacBook Pro is grossly overpriced; about 20% by my estimates. But spec/price comparisons are stupid, because they don't take aesthetics, or, more importantly, the cost of OS X into account.
What Apple doesn't produce is crappy hardware with cheaper components. But it's not like Apple is selling for $1100 the same parts that Dell sells for $600. Unsurprisingly, Apple is selling the same parts Dell sells for $1100... for $1100. - clak, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3Dude, the fact that OS X runs smoothly on supported Apple hardware is actually Apple's main selling point. Apple has admitted this is their Get-A-Mac commercials. Watch the "Breakthrough" commercial listed here:
http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/ - nycmac247, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2lazy -- you mean like Solaris and IRIX machines that also don't support every hardware ever made?
- MacParrot, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3Good God, where to start? OS X IS a very stable product. It's stability is due to a number of factors one being a very tight hardware set.
You say Apple is "too lazy" to make drivers. Is it really your contention that Microsoft makes the drivers for every piece of equipment that works with Windows? Is it? Really? Even if that was true, what would that say about your OWN contention that it leads to Windows instability? Bad drivers has lead to Windows instability in the past, which has nothing to do with Windows itself (which I use every day and have no problems with). Who makes these drivers? The hardware makers.
As far as saying that OS X users have no technical ability? Sorry chuckles, you'd lose that bet. What do most people look for in computers? Windows and cheap prices. That's about how far MOST people buying computers think. I'm sure you're just a WHIZ with a soldering iron and can program C in your sleep, but don't believe for one second that your average Windows user is any more competent at computers than others.
Since Macs aren't available at every Joe's Computers and Llama feed store you actually have to go and look and want one. Doesn't make Mac users any smarter than Windows users either, but don't believe for a second because you can buy parts off TigerDirect and put together a box that you're so special.
- kraetos, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4Lazy? Try smart. Rather than waste time supporting eleventy-billion hardware configurations, they can focus on actually improving their products.
- Taiyoryu, on 07/15/2008, -2/+5Easy fix. Certify hardware. Companies pay to have their hardware certified by Apple. They already do it for accessories. Apple still continues to sell Apple-brand hardware. 3rd parties who pay get to sell Apple-certified hardware. Apple still gets money, 3rd parties get to make money, consumers have more choice. Win-win-win.
- runeasgar, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Easier to do for small, limited software than a large, complex operating system.
- mrsteveman1, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I would love to make the claim that the first time some driver screws the system Apple would get blamed (and its still valid) but it seems recently that even stuff apple has control over has serious bugs so....
- TVarmy, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1One issue: It seems more likely that two third-party items would conflict with each other internally than a peripheral, so this introduces that issue. I'd say Apple is smart to leave it to the hackers.
- kenok, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Imagine... driver issues.
- pensivewombat, on 07/15/2008, -2/+4Didn't Microsoft have to go through a huge anti-trust suit when they tried to do what apple has been doing for years (sell hardware with their own software one it)?
- diggimator, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2What Microsoft tried to do was the exact opposite. Instead of selling their own hardware with their own software like Apple, they licensed their OS to third party PC sellers. They got in trouble for having restrictive licensing agreements that prevented OEM manufacturers from installing other operating systems. In other words, they got in trouble for wanting to spread their OS a tad too eagerly than what is legal. This is just the tip of the iceberg of a collection of MS anti-trust accusations.
- WaveRunningNakd, on 07/15/2008, -3/+1i agree.
microsoft climed to the top of the ecosystem due to sales of microsoft windows. i don't see why mass marking osx couldn't do the same for apple.- kraetos, on 07/15/2008, -0/+5Part of the reason Mac OS X is so good is because Apple controls the entire system, top-to-bottom. Apple couldn't just release OS X for Wintel hardware without seeing a steep decline in the quality of OS X. And they would have to charge a lot more than $130 to make money off it.
The end result is an Apple that is making less money while trying to do more. They would probably go out of business quickly and gruesomely - you know, just like they very nearly did in 1997 doing exactly what you're proposing.
- kraetos, on 07/15/2008, -0/+5Part of the reason Mac OS X is so good is because Apple controls the entire system, top-to-bottom. Apple couldn't just release OS X for Wintel hardware without seeing a steep decline in the quality of OS X. And they would have to charge a lot more than $130 to make money off it.
- unitedatheism, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1What's the difference between developing 5 drivers and 5 thousand drivers?
I bet most of you who ever tried Linux had some sort of driver-related problem of Windows-only hardware.
- acevoncash, on 07/15/2008, -4/+68not enough. their economy is built on hardware sales. not os sales.
- superkendall, on 07/15/2008, -2/+18Apple was probably waiting for some time to build a solid case against Psystar. But it will be interesting to see if they succeed, and if so how - I don't think generally EULA's have held up well in court. I'm not sure what leverage Apple can apply against them other than that.
Then again Blizzard was able to stop the Gilder bot people, so that might indicate Apple has a chance.- haikuFU, on 07/15/2008, -1/+4They were probably waiting for them to sell enough of them to where Apple could sue them for an amount derived from each machine sold. This would enable them to put them out of business for good if they lost.
- paradexes, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2I doubt they will put the EULA to the test. It puts them on very shakey ground. More likley they will invoke some kind of DMCA provision, seeing as they had to hack the OS in order to make it work on Psystar's machines. Considering how easy it is to get a kalyway CD and the patches, This route seems more likely for Apple to pursue and easier to win.
- prophetpimp, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1DMCA allows reverse engineering for compatibility sake. Apple will lose on this ground.
- superjunaid, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1The reason Apple took so long to respond or Sue Psystar is because they were busy working on the iPhone 2.0 SDK. And now as it has been released they've freed up people to sue Psystar.
- ThirdPrize, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1They probably just had to wait 3 months while they asked em nicely to stop doing it and then see if they would. More of a legal nicety than anything.
- so1980, on 07/15/2008, -20/+9totally lame. i'd actually buy a mac if the hardware wasn't on lockdown.
- Ilyanep, on 07/15/2008, -3/+7You'd actually buy the Apple hardware if the Apple hardware weren't the only hardware? Doesn't that defeat the point?
- so1980, on 07/15/2008, -3/+5no, not really. i'd like to think the competition would make the prices lower, and i'd have more options for upgrading. but that's probably too naive.
- mroboy, on 07/15/2008, -3/+2Don't be a douche. You know so1980 meant that they would buy apple compatible hardware if apple wasn't the only one selling it.
Sort of like I'd like to buy an electric car that could do 0-60 in 4 seconds if I didn't have to buy it from Tesla and pay $100,000 for it.
- coreyb, on 07/15/2008, -11/+1So, what I am hearing is you would buy a Mac, if you could afford it on your McDonald's pay...
- Syphon8, on 07/15/2008, -2/+3Burried for being elitist douchebag.
- banik2008, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2This is just one of the reasons I really dislike Mac users.
- Ilyanep, on 07/15/2008, -3/+7You'd actually buy the Apple hardware if the Apple hardware weren't the only hardware? Doesn't that defeat the point?
- gcnaddict, on 07/15/2008, -21/+62I hope Psystar wins, not because of any malice towards Apple but because if Psystar wins, Apple might be forced to allow people to install Mac OS onto any x86 machine, which would be great given current prices for Mac OS licenses. It would also force Microsoft to worry more about messing up and create more reasonable developer schedules, thus leading to better software (There's a whole backstory to what happened to Longhorn/Vista involving developer mismanagement if you haven't heard it already). Yay for competition!
Unfortunately, this will likely force Apple into worrying about hardware compatibility and jacking up OS 10.5 prices to compensate for a drop in hardware sales... which might just kill any reason for Microsoft to compete should Apple drive OS licensing prices too high.- haikuFU, on 07/15/2008, -7/+10The Psystar machines actually suck. If you don't get it pre-installed, you basically have to image a drive to do it. You're better off building a Hackintosh on your own. Also, if Apple was forced to allow people to install on any machine, OSX would suck from a compatibility standpoint. One of the reasons it works so well is they don't have to support all sorts of weird hardware (other than USB and firewire devices).
- Syphon8, on 07/15/2008, -11/+4Hence it doesn't actually work so well, it's just an illusion.
- Proteus1935, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1so true!
- hexydes, on 07/15/2008, -7/+5It won't force them to do anything; Apple can still make it hard to install a standard out-of-the-box version of OS X onto non-Apple hardware; they just don't have a legal stance to stop people from doing it, should they figure out how (which they always will).
- colincornaby, on 07/15/2008, -2/+7It's likely that they will when. Multiple court cases have shown that EULA's are enforceable (most recently Blizzards court case.) They're fighting precedence.
Plus, even if Psystar won, that doesn't stop Apple from not supporting other machines, not writing drivers, and locking down OS X install discs. A court can never compel Apple to support other machines, they could only stop Apple from suing other vendors.- colincornaby, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Woah, win, not when. Boy, I was sleepy this morning...
- clak, on 07/15/2008, -4/+26I keep hearing people say that Apple could make so much more money licensing OS X and that's just baloney. Apple would die if they licensed their OS X and here's why.
You can only make money licensing an operating system if you have a MONOPOLY like Microsoft.
Microsoft licenses Windows to PC manufacturers, also known as OEMs, for 20 dollars a license (this is their volume pricing). Apple has about 25 million users. So do the math. Even if licensing OS X doubled Apple's market share to 50 million over night using Microsoft's pricing scheme, that would only be 1 billion dollars of revenue.
50,000,000 users X $20 = 1,000,000,000.
Of course, this is in an ideal world where Apple doesn't lose licenses to piracy, but I digress. Even if Apple sold OS X for the full 129 dollars, the most they would make would be around 6.5 billion and that's assuming again that licensing would double their current install base to 50 million users.
50,000,000 users X $129 = 6,450,000,000.
I have no hard data to back this up, but I think it's reasonable to say that Apple makes around 1000 dollars on average selling Macs to its customer base. Every Mac, except for the Mac Mini is at least 1000 dollars, right? So do the math.
25,000,000 users X $1000 = 25,000,000,000.
So, you see, Apple is making at least 25 billion (it's almost certainly more) selling Macs to its current user base. Would you rather have an imaginary 6.5 billion or a very real 25 billion? What's that? Yeah, I thought so.
This entire scenario, of course, ignores the fact that licensing their operating system would mean that Apple would have to SUPPORT literally thousands of different hardware configurations, which would create a horror show of driver problems, which would almost certainly dilute the stability of OS X and the Mac brand. So as you can see, licensing OS X makes absolutely NO SENSE and it's never going to happen, so stop talking about it.- andymadigan, on 07/15/2008, -2/+5You're calculating revenue, not profit. Apple machines do have more of a markup than Dell, but that's not saying much as many Dell sales have razor-thin margins.
I'm not saying you're wrong about support or stability, just that you're using math that no CFO would ever dream of using. - Elranzer, on 07/15/2008, -2/+2I do believe Michael Dell said he would be thrilled to sell Dell workstations with Mac OS as an option. I'm sure HP, Toshiba and others are all drooling at the prospect too. This would also make Microsoft actually try hard on their next OS.
- javaroast, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1Hey it's clak with another cut and paste duplicate post. Now the troll fest officially has all the participants
- Resiroth, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2It worked for windows. The average american doesn't want to spend more than 800 dollars for a computer. They don't care that it is a box either. It's not like a phone that they have to carry around and look at every day. For 800 dollars you can get amazing performance.
Mac mini: 950 dollars
HP Pavilion Media Center: 800
Specs: Mini first HP second
2gb ram 667mhz
4gb ram 800mhz
160gb hard drive
750gb hard drive
2ghz dual core
2.4ghz QUAD core
So is it worth 1/3 the performance and 150 dollars more for a smaller case? The average american doesn't think so.
http://www.netaffilia.com/ads/electronics/frys/HP- ...
I love OSX and I can say honestly that it is less bloated than vista ( I have a hackintosh ). But until mac OSX is open it poses no real threat to windows. - DestroyFascism, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1So selling MAC on any x86 / x64 machine will return only 6.5 billion dollars....
Yeah you are right, turning over 6.5 billion would not be worth it.
I fail to see how it would erode profits making a separate machine specific OS. Considering how poorly Microsoft software performs I really thing Apple is missing too many opportunities. PC MAC OS1 + MAC OS X ... - dysonlu, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Software profit margin is significantly higher than hardware profit margin. You should compare net income, a.k.a profit, not revenue.
- andymadigan, on 07/15/2008, -2/+5You're calculating revenue, not profit. Apple machines do have more of a markup than Dell, but that's not saying much as many Dell sales have razor-thin margins.
- Evilena, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2There is nothing stopping you from installing OSX onto any x86 machine now http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_P ...
Psystar is advertising their OpenMac machines as Mac clones that machines can run Leopard off the shelf. - 1legend, on 07/15/2008, -1/+4That is also why Apple will never seize the majority of the market share. If they did, they would be forced to allow other hardware vendors to package their OS with their systems. Their success is also what holds them back.
- Tribis, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Why would a judge force Apple to license OS X to anyone? What precedent or law would the judge have on his side to allow him to do this?
- TVarmy, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2I think the best verdict would be one requiring Apple to mint new OSX discs without the code to check if they are on Apple hardware and integrate BIOS support in addition to EFI, but not require Apple to support their software running on third party machines. I am a loyal Mac user, but I also often use Windows for games and Ubuntu because it just makes me feel that much more geekier. I don't want Apple to be bogged down trying to help out clueless PC users (not all PC users are clueless, that's not what I'm aiming at) figure out how to dual-boot Windows and OSX on third party hardware, or have to explain over and over that not every internal PC accessory comes with Mac drivers.
Hackers are better equipped to deal with this, and as OSX has Unix roots, I suspect it'd be easy to bring homebrew drivers written for Linux to OSX although many wouldn't be up to the cut to make it in an official apple product.
- haikuFU, on 07/15/2008, -7/+10The Psystar machines actually suck. If you don't get it pre-installed, you basically have to image a drive to do it. You're better off building a Hackintosh on your own. Also, if Apple was forced to allow people to install on any machine, OSX would suck from a compatibility standpoint. One of the reasons it works so well is they don't have to support all sorts of weird hardware (other than USB and firewire devices).
- AboveandBeyond, on 07/15/2008, -28/+19***** APPLE.
- anagoge, on 07/15/2008, -3/+9***** RIAA.
- DaDrake, on 07/15/2008, -13/+5Its odd because Apple months ago said they were going to ignore it; they essentially said their product would prove superior (obviously, the message was directed at share holders). Wonder what changed their mind? From what I understand, license agreements when you install software have little weight in court.
- drlha, on 07/15/2008, -1/+7"Its odd because Apple months ago said they were going to ignore it" - citation please? I don't member anything other than silence from Apple in regards to Psystar.
- koft, on 07/15/2008, -23/+4You know that Steve Jobs is naked right now, and he's slithering around in a pile of psystar boxes greased up with gear oil.
- WELLDOITLIVE, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3Why did you choose gear oil?
- MacParrot, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2It's koft's own personal favorite. It's so much easier than actually attempting and failing miserably to meet girls.
- WELLDOITLIVE, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3Why did you choose gear oil?
- santaliqueur, on 07/15/2008, -8/+32I'd never buy a Psystar, because I want to know if I'm going to be able to get important updates the day they are released. However, I hope Apple realizes there is a market for a mid-priced tower. Somewhere between the Mac mini and the Mac Pro. Like an iMac without the monitor. I would buy one, and I feel many more people would too.
- pelayostyle, on 07/15/2008, -2/+4Psytar boxes use the vanilla kernel which DOES allow for updates.
- HolyChimp, on 07/15/2008, -2/+4"Updates released by Apple may not appear on your machine immediately but should appear within a few days if they are safe."
That wouldn't be the day they are released then would it...
http://www.psystar.com/can_i_run_updates_on_my_ope ...
- HolyChimp, on 07/15/2008, -2/+4"Updates released by Apple may not appear on your machine immediately but should appear within a few days if they are safe."
- j.carcinogen, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1With the proper efi emulation and close enough hardware and a EFI string in the com.apple.Boot.plist... updates are no problem.
- cwhitaker, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Exactly.. the osx86 community is so large now. Im running a AMD Athlon X2 6400+ with Mac OS X 1.5.4, updates are easy as cake now a days.
- TVarmy, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1What I think Apple really needs to bring back is the Cube form factor. Maybe make it a bit smaller and add a proper (but still quiet) fan, and give it more modern looks, but it looks like a great idea to me. Small, stylish, quiet, and easy to get inside for upgrades.
One thing to note: Even though it is small, this is meant to be a mid-range HOME computer. It needs an optical drive (preferably blu-ray, but at least a dual layer DVD burner), a proper dual-DVI port (for large monitors), at least 4 USB ports, a firewire port would be nice, and a mid-range graphics card (One that would cost about $150 on New Egg).- ThreeDee912, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Basically the Mac Mini with a real graphics card?
- pelayostyle, on 07/15/2008, -2/+4Psytar boxes use the vanilla kernel which DOES allow for updates.
- NaziHatinChimp, on 07/15/2008, -12/+11Anyone remember Apple during the clone era with Gilbert Amelio? I don't care if your an Apple person but if I was CEO of Apple I would do anything to distance myself from that time period.
Apple people like to feel exclusive and that this Psystar thing will ruin that.- mroboy, on 07/15/2008, -8/+6So rather than encourage innovation, you'd like to have a select number of people determine what the next features are on a computer platform?
- monkeyrun, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1lol because there are sooo many innovations coming from Umax etc...
- themouth, on 07/15/2008, -1/+8OK, so I'm a nerd for remembering this, the old Mac magazine MacAddict ran an article shortly after he left pointing out that spell check would replace his name with "Giblet" Amelio.
- TVarmy, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2I wouldn't say it's so much that. It's more that the Mac clones looked and ran like crap.
- mroboy, on 07/15/2008, -8/+6So rather than encourage innovation, you'd like to have a select number of people determine what the next features are on a computer platform?
- catcher6250, on 07/15/2008, -12/+5finally, gheesh, what took them so long
- banik2008, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2Is there no question mark on a Mac keyboard?
- catcher6250, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1no, there isnt one on a psystar
- banik2008, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2Is there no question mark on a Mac keyboard?
- statc, on 07/15/2008, -17/+16I hope Psystar wins. As long as the OS isn't pirated then they shouldn't really be worried about it. It's a market that Apple doesn't really cater to. It's not like the people who buy a psystar, would have bought a mac pro otherwise. Also as long as it's not officially sanctioned by apple, they don't have to provide support and drivers.
- irishjays, on 07/15/2008, -12/+22Michael Dell is watching closely...
- perlabsrat, on 07/15/2008, -3/+0**** Michael Dell
The "soul of dell" indeed!!! - cawpin, on 07/15/2008, -1/+4Who the hell dugg this down? I'm sure he's at least interested. Dell could very easily offer a completely compatible PC to run OS X.
- perlabsrat, on 07/15/2008, -3/+0**** Michael Dell
- Stevethegreat, on 07/15/2008, -19/+17How Apple builds up its reputation; hitting and clubbing the competition. Of course they have all the right in the world to do so but they're far from the benign company its fans believe to be, in fact Microsoft in front of them looks like mother Teressa, at least (the later) let you buy your own hardware and customize the software..... oh well
- drlha, on 07/15/2008, -3/+4Microsoft is mother Teresa, right. I've already lost one machine (with a legitimate copy of Windows) to "Windows Genuine Advantage" and I love having to call up Microsoft to reactivate it because I've changed some hardware.
- hamobu, on 07/15/2008, -4/+3i don't think Apple has the right to tell people what they can do with Apple products that people buy anymore than I can tell you what you can do with a used car you bought for me.
- znicket, on 07/15/2008, -3/+2Intellectual property.... not the same thing.
- hamobu, on 07/15/2008, -3/+2No such thing in law as intelectual property. Intelectual property is a short hand for three totaly different things:
1. Copyright
2. Patent
3. Trademark.
Intelectual property is not realy property. - jabberwolf, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2What if MS decided to lock down their OS, so you could only purchase hardware produced by them. People would want MS's head on a platter! But saying that it's ok for Apple to do this is hypocritical at best.
Regardless if a company is a monopoly, it is their legal right to be so.
However,
A company cannot practice predatory or monopolistic practices even if not a monopoly.
This is what Apple is and has been doing with OSX for awhile now.
Apple cannot control intellectual property this way in order to lock down a market for sales only for themselves to provide. They only have the right to sell their OSX, not dictate on what it can be used. - znicket, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1Hamobu - shorthand or not, these things are not bound by the same rules as a car. If I buy a book, I am forbidden to mass distribute it, perform it in an amateur theater or in any other way distribute the content. If I purchase a piece of software, I am bound by the same rules that apply to any other authorship. It is not as simple as you try to make it out to be.
Jabberwolf - last time I looked companies were free to construct their own walled garden economies. To lock their customer in a product cycle. Gillette does it, does it and it is not considered monopolistic practice if you are not a monopoly of a given market. If I purchase music online or ebooks online, I am bound by the license to use the intellectual property as I agreed to. That means, I cannot copy the artwork to another format and do what I wish with it. I purchased the license, on that specific format and to be used in a specific way. Otherwise I would be able to bring in my old LPs and get newer formats of my old purchased songs. OS software falls under the same category - I buy it with the restriction of a special format and a specific platform. Apple can do this.. simply because they are just barely 7% of the market.
- TheZorch, on 07/15/2008, -10/+39The law may be on Psystar's side. The decades old court ruling in the case IBM vs PC Cloners which allowed other companies to make IBM compatible PCs so now we have computers from hundreds of different companies could be sighted now that Apple is using Intel CPUs. Also, in recent history EULAs haven't had much success in the court of law lately. Apple has a uphill battle on their hands, they might not win this one.
- jeffness, on 07/15/2008, -5/+16absolutely correct. case law is 100% on psystar's side. IBM lost and so will apple.
doesn't even matter what kind of cpu's apples run.. The only reason it has taken this long for clones to popup is because it never made sense to offer a low priced apple clone. now that they are gaining traction, it finally does.- drlha, on 07/15/2008, -5/+2No, it has made a different what CPU Mac OS X runs. With x86 based OS X, any douchebag with a webbrowser and a NewEgg account can make and sell "Hackintoshes" online because the hardware and knowledge of how to do so is widespread. In the days of PPC Macs, non-Mac PPC computers weren't exactly cheap and easy to find.
- colincornaby, on 07/15/2008, -2/+13@jeffness, no, that's not correct. IBM vs. the PC Cloners was about clean room reverse engineering. If Psystar had coded a new version of OS X from scratch that was not related to OS X, not based on OS X, but behaved exactly like OS X, they'd be in the clear (which is what the PC cloners did.)
The problem here is Psystar is breaking the EULA on someone else's software. EULA's are enforceable, and companies maintain rights to software after it's been purchased, as shown by the recent Blizzard vs. the bot creators.- ferrite, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3@colincornaby.
You're half-right, however it wasn't about clean-room engineering of the OS, it was the BIOS (or in this case EFI)
What the clones did then was create a BIOS that could load DOS, no different than what a lot of the Hackintosh people are doing with EFI emulators these days and OSX.
Psystar isn't breaking the EULA since they're not the End Users, the Psystar customers are by purchasing the product. Not all EULA's are enforcable if they present unreasonable restrictions. - macplenty, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1And let's add in the fact that Microsoft owned DOS and would license it to anyone with compatible hardware (several times on the super-cheap). The IBM/PC clone wars were hardware/BIOS based as ferrite pointed out. Apple owns the whole widget so the area becomes quite gray in that respect.
Also, I doubt Psystar could "clone" OS X without some sort of trademark/copyright/patent or "look and feel" suit. Yes Apple lost to Microsoft regarding "look and feel", but the terminology that Apple used was too vague. If Microsoft made Windows look exactly like the Mac GUI (albeit with different code), then I am sure Apple would have won. They didn't, Windows continued on, c'est la vie.
- ferrite, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3@colincornaby.
- clak, on 07/15/2008, -3/+2What court case are you referring to?
- jabberwolf, on 07/15/2008, -3/+3colincornaby
On hardware you correct.
But Apple has no right to dictate that their intellectual property be used only the way they want to.
Especially when they purposely and needlessly lock it down only for their hardware.
That is a n anti-trust case waiting to burst at the seems.- macplenty, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1I'm not getting where you get the anti-trust thing from. To get to the stage where the fed comes in and applies ant-trust laws, you actually have to be, I know it's tough to understand, a trust. Standard Oil, Bell/AT&T, Microsoft. What do these companies have in common that made them abusive of their monopoly status and how do those similarities apply to Apple? Im honestly curios. If you have any insights I would be more than happy to hear them.
- paradexes, on 07/15/2008, -2/+2The Law may be on their side, but the money isn't. These days it seems more like the one with more money wins. You can buy your ruling.
- jeffness, on 07/15/2008, -5/+16absolutely correct. case law is 100% on psystar's side. IBM lost and so will apple.
- n0odles, on 07/15/2008, -23/+17Apple is going to become the next Microsoft and the Apple fanboys who infest Digg will bury my comment now.
- Wolfie351, on 07/15/2008, -6/+5Become?? They already are the Microsoft of the MP3 market
- klank, on 07/15/2008, -7/+11We (as in all digg users) are burying your comment because your comment sucked.
- truspect0r, on 07/15/2008, -2/+2More like the next IBM back then.
- tmjdisorder, on 07/15/2008, -6/+1If Steve Jobs should be advocating for anyone to get sued, it's Digg sponsor (in TX) Reliant Energy, which has a Pixar inspired hopping desk lamp looking for electricity.
- revscat, on 07/15/2008, -11/+24I fail to see the controversy.
Apple, for business reasons all their own, has chosen not to structure their licenses such that 3rd parties can sell systems that come with OS X pre-installed without Apple's approval. There are plenty of operating systems around with licenses that do permit this. If Apple had a monopoloy on operating systems this would be a different beast. They do not; competition is ripe, and heating up.
Further, this situation seems analogous to one in which some third-party decided to make their own PS3 clones, unapproved of by Sony. The PS3 is Sony's property, to do with as they see fit. Suing this PS3 clone maker into oblivion would be wholly justified. Apple is no different.
So what's the big deal?- serif69, on 07/15/2008, -3/+12The big deal is people who think just because they build their own Linux boxes, they are entitled to build their own *insert OS here* boxes, irrespective of actual licensing and copyright law.
- clak, on 07/15/2008, -12/+4I keep hearing people say that Apple could make so much more money licensing OS X and that's just baloney. Apple would die if they licensed their OS X and here's why.
You can only make money licensing an operating system if you have a MONOPOLY like Microsoft.
Microsoft licenses Windows to PC manufacturers, also known as OEMs, for 20 dollars a license (this is their volume pricing). Apple has about 25 million users. So do the math. Even if licensing OS X doubled Apple's market share to 50 million over night using Microsoft's pricing scheme, that would only be 1 billion dollars of revenue.
50,000,000 users X $20 = 1,000,000,000.
Of course, this is in an ideal world where Apple doesn't lose licenses to piracy, but I digress. Even if Apple sold OS X for the full 129 dollars, the most they would make would be around 6.5 billion and that's assuming again that licensing would double their current install base to 50 million users.
50,000,000 users X $129 = 6,450,000,000.
I have no hard data to back this up, but I think it's reasonable to say that Apple makes around 1000 dollars on average selling Macs to its customer base. Every Mac, except for the Mac Mini is at least 1000 dollars, right? So do the math.
25,000,000 users X $1000 = 25,000,000,000.
So, you see, Apple is making at least 25 billion (it's almost certainly more) selling Macs to its current user base. Would you rather have an imaginary 6.5 billion or a very real 25 billion? What's that? Yeah, I thought so.
This entire scenario, of course, ignores the fact that licensing their operating system would mean that Apple would have to SUPPORT literally thousands of different hardware configurations, which would create a horror show of driver problems, which would almost certainly dilute the stability of OS X and the Mac brand. So as you can see, licensing OS X makes absolutely NO SENSE and it's never going to happen, so stop talking about it.- Wolfie351, on 07/15/2008, -4/+1That rant is so full of holes, I have no idea where to begin. You're right that Apple will never license the OS, but not for the reasons you listed.
- clak, on 07/15/2008, -4/+2Well your response to my rant is so full of holes, I have no idea where to begin. You're right saying I was right that Apple will never license the OS, but not for the reasons you didn't list.
- falstaff, on 07/15/2008, -4/+1"This entire scenario, of course, ignores the fact that..."
...profit margins on software are much higher than hardware. Revenue is only half the equation.
...they could still sell the (supposedly more profitable) hardware to the Mac snobs. - anubis2night, on 07/15/2008, -5/+1Apple has put together loads of software for their own products while limiting their products to only their devices, if for instance someone like Psystar wanted to build a computer that had OSX as the running system they could not even though the program would be purchased for full price by the customer and the hardware supported the software. Think of it this way imagine you bought a land based phone for your house but it was made by ATT and you could only use ATT service though it offered the best value for your area, now imagine if you wanted to purchase another phone and hook it into your house but wait ATT wouldn't let you use that phone to connect to their service plan. That other company would loose potential profit from you because of ATT hence a monopoly. Now substitute ATT with Apple and you have this mess here. Now many will come along and argue that Apple has this right and that there is no monopoly because they only have 14% market share, but remember this 14% market share and growing is still a rather large percentage of people. And how many of those people might have not gotten exactly what they wanted in their computer or paid too much because there were no other computers allowed to run OSX. I for one wanted to get a MAC but I wanted a quad core computer and while I wanted to spend around 1200 - 1400 total the equivalent MAC would have cost me $2700, I choose not to spend that but really what choice was I offered? OSX @ $2700 or none at half the price? While I like Apple I think that they need to have their divisions separated, they are not the company of 10 years ago. They can be 2 separate divisions and they can make money off of each entity. The way I see it right now Apple fan boys want it both ways. They claim that Apple is the superior product both hardware and software wise but when you voice your opinion that they should sell OSX separate they start off saying that Apple will loose money both by people not lining up to purchase OSX and then by lose of sale in hardware. Now correct me if I'm wrong but people can already run other OS on a mac so it shouldn't hinder their sales, especially if their product is superior as all the fans boys claim. Secondly if their OSX is really that great (and it seems so especially compared to Vista)then it's power performance and price should be more than enough to convince people to integrate it into their lives. The way I see it Dell, Gateway, and the rest of them would line up to buy and install OSX as an option for their pc's. If Apple wanted they could have a licensed deal with other companies for a seal of approval on items to be installed on any pc. That seal would be approval from Apple that the product works with OSX and it's drivers are certified by the company to be updated and maintained. The way I see it this would be the equivalent of the Iphone. Sales would grow the product and eventually if people don't get the OSX pleasures they expect from the PC they would eventually move over to the ever more stylish Apple products while those people who are happy with the OS and need a more powerful better suited computer would either build their own or order one to suit their needs. Again this can be done from Apple but anyone that's gone down that path knows it's costly to say the least. And really at the end of the day a Mac pro looks like any other pc, though the tower is smartly clad in a aluminum shell.
- Wolfie351, on 07/15/2008, -4/+1That rant is so full of holes, I have no idea where to begin. You're right that Apple will never license the OS, but not for the reasons you listed.
- neil1492, on 07/15/2008, -7/+2They will probably claim copyright infringement. I bet the reason Apple took so long was the fact that they were probably trying to get their hands on their own one to see how to disable the system via updates or something. It wouldn't surprise me if Psystar actually shipped one directly to Apples headquarters.
- monkeyrun, on 07/15/2008, -2/+3trust me, Apple doesn't need psystar to ship them one.
Any 10 year old kid with more than a few hours on their hands could download some patch and do it by following a tutorial.
Do you honestly think Apple doesn't know where to find those patches?
- monkeyrun, on 07/15/2008, -2/+3trust me, Apple doesn't need psystar to ship them one.
- hamobu, on 07/15/2008, -14/+8Apple Corp: By buying our product you agree to use the stuff we sell you:
1. 100% On our Terms
2. When we want you to to use it
3. How we want you to used it
4. And why we want you to use it.
You have absolutely no freedom when using products that we manufactured and that you own.- wildsnake, on 07/15/2008, -4/+6You do have FREEDOM. Buy another ***** product! I would assume that Windows has 95% of the market and there is Linux.
- hamobu, on 07/15/2008, -4/+3I cannot give up my freedom by buying a product dumbass! Can I dictate to you what you can do with a used car you bought from me? Why should Apple be able to tell me what I can do with products I buy from them. Once Apple gets my money, their ownership of products I purchased ends.
- jferrari, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3When you buy OSX and most other software you do not own it.. you license it, it is not like owning a car.
It's more like renting, and the owner can put as many restrictions on the use as they wish. - hamobu, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2Again, court has not upheld that position. This cay may even indicate othervise:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5628 - Matt2k, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1> When you buy OSX and most other software you do not own it.. you license it, it is not like owning a car.
Says you. I disagree that I ever entered into a binding contract.
Is my signature anywhere?
Did I sit down with a company representative and have a meeting of minds?
Does Apple concede anything in exchange for me giving up the rights of first sale?
No. I went into a store and gave a clerk money in exchange for a product. I didn't look at any papers included on the box, nor would I have agreed to them.
- RetepNamenots, on 07/15/2008, -3/+3You do also realise that when you pay for an operating system such as OS X or Windows, you don't actually own it? You're just paying a fee to Microsoft or Apple for them to give you permission to install the OS on your hardware?
- hamobu, on 07/15/2008, -2/+3That is corporate BS that has never been upheld in court. In fact someone recently won a right in court to re-sell the computer game that he bought on retail (which was forbidden to do by game EULA)
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5628
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/06/13/game-consum ... - Syphon8, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2That's why you use Linux, or pirate a corporate OS.
- hamobu, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1I use Linux
- hamobu, on 07/15/2008, -2/+3That is corporate BS that has never been upheld in court. In fact someone recently won a right in court to re-sell the computer game that he bought on retail (which was forbidden to do by game EULA)
- geogeer, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3Except that you don't own OS X. You do own the hardware that you buy. The cost of a Mac includes a fee for OS X and iLife. If you want to rip apart your iMac and try to mount it on the back of your plasma TV - go for it. You own the hardware and can do what you want with it. Apple gives you permission to use the software on the machine you bought for the life of said machine.
Pretty simple concept.- hamobu, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2First of all, EULAs have never been upheld in court.
Second, if you take that position than we are all screwed since corporations would then effectively be able to controll every aspect of everyone's life.
Luckily courts seem to have taken position that if you pay money, and you receive goods in return, than it is a sale much like a sale of cars and oranges.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5628
- hamobu, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2First of all, EULAs have never been upheld in court.
- wildsnake, on 07/15/2008, -4/+6You do have FREEDOM. Buy another ***** product! I would assume that Windows has 95% of the market and there is Linux.
- brandonmeek, on 07/15/2008, -11/+7This won't be the first time apple has won a case like this. Check history buddies.
- clak, on 07/15/2008, -1/+5Yes, they sued Franklin Computers for cloning the Apple ][ and won, so yes, history is on Apple's side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer%2C_Inc ...
- clak, on 07/15/2008, -1/+5Yes, they sued Franklin Computers for cloning the Apple ][ and won, so yes, history is on Apple's side.
- spacebuddy, on 07/15/2008, -5/+19If apple released OS/X without the copy protection it would be a nightmare for them. They would not be able to support the thousands of different combinations of hardware and have a solid performing OS. Their OS is solid cause they only work with the same limited hardware.
- ribo, on 07/15/2008, -9/+4you're so wrong, it's painful.
- tcpip4lyfe, on 07/15/2008, -2/+4You explain why he's wrong sir and I'll un-bury you. Because I know he's right.
- MacParrot, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1OS X is not sold with copy protection. You can install the single-user licensed copy on as many Macs as you wish. No license code to enter at all. No online registration if you don't want to. No OS X Genuine Advantage.
Of course you must install it on a Mac, but OS X itself doesn't have CP - ribo, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1tcpip4lyfe:
Because the kernel is largely FreeBSD, which already has extremely stable support for pretty much all consumer hardware.
- waluigi14, on 07/15/2008, -7/+4WTF is "OS/X?" If you can't spell the name right, you shouldn't be allowed to talk about it.
It's "OS X", by the way. - MacParrot, on 07/15/2008, -3/+4@spacebuddy
Here's a typical Psystar customer calling Apple witha problem
Apple Phone Support: Apple Help Desk. How can I help you?
Psystar Customer: Yes I'm having a problem with my computer?
APS: OK, which OS are you running?
PC: 10.5
APS: Alright and which model computer?
PC: It's an OpenPro
APS:...
PC: Hello? I said it's an OpenPro
APS: An OpenPro? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....GASP...HAHAHAHAHAHA...click - Resiroth, on 07/15/2008, -1/+6No apple uses magic fairy dust, everything is perfect.
- unitedatheism, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Their OS is far from solid, and would be much worse if wasn't for being able to run only on supported hardware.
But they would NOT have to support any other kind of hardware, and knowing apple as I know I wonder why they still support their own hardware.... Let the users solve their problems by theirselves.
Where do you think the 200 USD difference between an Apple and a Psystar goes?
- ribo, on 07/15/2008, -9/+4you're so wrong, it's painful.
- monkeyrun, on 07/15/2008, -3/+23lol, you can't even sell Apple products without being an "authorized seller".
What makes them think that they could legitimately resell a cracked Apple product. - wildsnake, on 07/15/2008, -7/+20Becuase Apple has every right to product their ideas and product. It's their ideas, they designed it and they manufactured it. They are not forcing you to buy their products and abide by their rules.
- Syphon8, on 07/15/2008, -2/+1They are if you want to use Mac OS X.
- LeviTheSmith, on 07/15/2008, -2/+3If you want to use Mac OS X then agree to their terms. It is that simple. If you do not agree to their terms, then don't use Mac OS X.
- Matt2k, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3> If you want to use Mac OS X then agree to their terms. It is that simple.
No, it's not that simple. This is a piece of software on the market. Apple reps don't stop by your house and hammer out a contract with you. - jabberwolf, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Levi can Microsoft now do the same thing and start making hardware that you can only use MS on?
Nope.
So why should Apple be allowed to?
Apple has no right to tell you HOW and ON WHAT you can use it's OS for if they sell it independently. - paradexes, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Use Linux instead. Plenty of choices there. Want something LIKE OSX? thinkgos.com :D
- LeviTheSmith, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1I do see both of your points and I do agree 100%. What I meant to say was that this is the way Apple want to do things and if you don't agree then there isn't anything you could really do about it. Although OS X on my PC would be GREAT! :D
- Syphon8, on 07/15/2008, -2/+1They are if you want to use Mac OS X.
- wildsnake, on 07/15/2008, -4/+16It's their product, they can dictate anything they want. They designed it and manufactured it. They do not force you to buy it.
- ironmonk69, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3Regarding Apple licensing OSX usage to non Apple machines, the biggest hurdle there would certainly be simply support for all of the different possible configurations. Let's not forget that in the PC world there are so many manufacturers for all sorts of hardware and each contribute (more or less) drivers to the Microsoft cause. Apple I am sure has their hand selected group of manufacturers such as NVidia, ATI and Intel which all produce specific units with specific drivers for these units. In being a closed system, it clearly limits the problems from users screaming that their ABC peripheral doesn't work under the latest OSX update. Right or wrong, it keeps the core users happily moving along.
- Super6, on 07/15/2008, -0/+12Apple can't afford to let people build their own systems because then they have to dedicate people to supporting them instead of making the OS, and then they'd end up like microsoft: richer, and with a bad reputation.
- beerbarron, on 07/15/2008, -2/+5It is plagiarism at the end of the day, they dont have the license to sell Mac os x on any other hardware other than apple. Its steve's choice. Be it right or wrong, its up to him.
- clak, on 07/15/2008, -7/+8I want to take the modified Windows OS that runs on Xbox 360s and run it on a PC, then resell to millions, so that they can run Xbox 360 games off their DVD drives. Why can't I do that? Huh, what's that you say? That would undercut sales of real Xbox 360s, but you advocate the same for Apple, what's the difference?
- MyBigRed, on 07/15/2008, -6/+4The difference here is that the clone company is buying and selling legit