Psystar wins legal round against Apple

[MGJulius]

Intel >>> PPC...which is why Apple finally moved over to Intel... performance, heat, and number of cores were the big reasons

[Viperius]

To tattootroy

 

are you crazy?? you say fight apple??

 

No apple mean no OSX, No iPhone, iPod mac book air ect.

 

You said that apple stole the touch click wheel. So what companies steal thing all the time people steal all the time and yeah its not like M$ never stole anything

[Ryu-ka]

Yes. It would. But Apple is committed to Intel processors. They won't go back to PPC.

 

Snow Leopard is probably already written for Intel only.

 

Good point. Apple might not want to switch back to PPC for more reasons:

-iLife

-iWork

-Other Intel only software

[Dan Druff]

Good point. Apple might not want to switch back to PPC for more reasons:

-iLife

-iWork

-Other Intel only software

 

And the Intel roadmap for their processor/chipset in the upcomming years.

 

This one of the reason to switch from PPC, the roadmap didn't shown to Apple directors that their computer (PPC) would be on the cutting edge of performance for the years to come. Look to the test recently made by some over the net, on two new machines very similar, an Apple and a homemade generic one, OSX will boot faster on the Apple one, even Windows will. As shown with this exemple, the hardware integration is a key of their success, but if the hardware isn't following, then you loose your advantage. Making the CPU switch was only logical.

 

Also, the ability to use windows was also a needed feature by their customers, look, after the switch, the sales get up dramaticaly.

 

All in all it was a good choice, they won't go back for the reason I've mentionned, plus others we don't kmow, I'm sure of it.

[CatZilla]

Maybe I should use another distro, but my experience is that one.

 

I will quote somebody's sig on this forum:

 

Ubuntu: the ancient african word, meaning "I failed at installing the real Debian".

[DJConvict]

Also, the ability to use windows was also a needed feature by their customers, look, after the switch, the sales get up dramaticaly.

 

All in all it was a good choice, they won't go back for the reason I've mentionned, plus others we don't kmow, I'm sure of it.

 

You're absolutely right about this one. I worked as an Apple rep at BestBuy for a long time and when I would tell people that Macs can run Windows without a problem, usually better than most PC's, they were surprised. It certainly helped boost my sales. Most people out there think that Macs are "locked in" only to OS X.

[PainWarlock]

I dare by personnal experience, with more than 3 different hardware setup, I've tried, for exemple, Ubuntu 7.04 to 8.10. Each time, either a component, ACPI or even GUI rendering wasn't perfect. I also experience program crashing from time to time. That said, it's not dramatic and continuous support fix a lot of problems. I still think that Linux project as a whole is a very good thing, I couldn't use my computer without it, it's more reliable than MS and safer vs malware of any sort.

 

I didn't wanted to upset you, but you should admit that in each great project, like Linux, there are always flaws. Nothing is perfect.

 

Maybe I should use another distro, but my experience is that one.

 

ubuntu is unstable in every release because its bundled with so much {censored}

 

u go for something like debian even centos is more stable than ubuntu

 

what you really should be saying is ubuntu is unstable

[Coolin93]

Hmmm I wish Psystar would win, but then again I don't cause it could kill Apple keeping OS X neat and tighty with its own hardware. If they do win(which I doubt they will) Apple could just make it so psystar has to provide fixes with updates from Apple like they were before so Apple won't have to make OS X like Windows and make it support everything. Personally I think Apple should just allow us OSx86 people to put it on our Machines like we do now but no selling, and leave the compatibly issues to us like we do now.

[Master Chief]

ubuntu is unstable in every release because its bundled with so much {censored}

u go for something like debian even centos is more stable than ubuntu

what you really should be saying is ubuntu is unstable

I was going to be reasonable with my reply, but your comments here are so far off (the truth) that I won't even bother thinking about it: Some will say that I am biased because I am a long time Linux user, someone who knows so many good people in the Open Source community, because I am one of them. Someone who passionately devoted most of his free time, and I am pretty sure that you, and most other people here, use something that I have developed. But I also know that I didn't do it for you, and never will for people like you.

 

Anyone who wants to read into this: here's a link Note this: "Lenny is the largest ever release of Debian with 23,000 binary packages (6,000 more than predecessor Etch)." Now compare that to Ubuntu. Someone here is clearly missing the point, and that someone isn't me, but this person doesn't seem to understand the relationship between Ubuntu and (upstream) Debian - but I am glad to be of help and shed some light on the matter.

 

I will quote somebody's sig on this forum:

Ubuntu: the ancient african word, meaning "I failed at installing the real Debian".

Debian is good (for a more tech oriented kind of person) but so is Ubuntu (be it for less tech oriented people) and all other distributions. At least they have the guts, brain and money (thanks to Mark) to do something good - unlike most people here.

 

No, it isn't funny to patronize people for being "less tech oriented" or to insinuate that Ubuntu users are not that smart, with stupid little remarks, simply because software, even your so much loved OS should work for you, not against you - that is why the software industry is changing so rapidly, and in a positive way.

[Jeezoflip]

I just like the fact that a small company is fighting a huge corporation and hasn't been shut down yet. Whether or not they win, it still had some sort of impact on apple and is encouraging. To be honest, as much as I would like to see apple make a version of OS X to run on pc's, I would have to say that I would also be upset. I think the fact that apple makes their OS exclusive to their hardware is one of the many things that makes apple, apple. By taking that away from them, it adds less luminescence to their company. Yet on the other hand.....it is a tad bit monopolistic. (haha, just sayin'!)

[CatZilla]

[offtopic]

I am sorry for my remark, but I just dislike Ubuntu. I also do not like when all of the linux sphere gets judged by a particular <censored> distribution.

[/offtopic]

[bobhansen]

I really don't like or dislike Pystar, they're just another company, all companies try to make money. And Steve Jobs used to allways say everytime he and Woz made something new "How can I sell this, including the famous telephone hack."But if they lose knowing how Apple has acted in the past, things could get a lot harder for anyone trying to run OS X on non Apple equipment.

 

Me personally I've used Apple since 1989 and until last year I always had an itch to make a machine but because the hardware used to be so proprietary that was impossible. Now that it's off the shelf I've built four of them since January 2008. Each one a learning experience. I love my Hackintosh more than any Apple machine I've ever owned, just because it seems more mine.

 

My machine is a ATX thermaltake Soprano

CuadCore 2.4 Ghz

8 gigs of 800 DDR2

1 Terabyte Samsung

8500GT 256 meg Nvidia

Firewire card

DVD everything using SATA

with cardreader

[keypox]

Question...

 

If you don't like Apple, what are you doing on a "mac dedicated site" where a bunch of people claim here and there that OSX is one of the best OS created?

 

Also, having tied their OS to their platform permitted to create a very stable OS, nothing to be compared to MS or linux OSs (having said that, I still use both). You should give them credits for that.

 

It's not David vs Goliath, it's not good vs bad, it's only buisness.

 

Lol this is a mac dedicated site? I think most of its traffic comes from people trying to hack a mac.

[Pirateo]

I think Psystar is pushing it's luck.

It is obvious that they are violating copyright as they install OSX on the equipment they sell without buying it. If they would have payed for the OSX they have installed for each PC thats an other story....

And I don't have to mention that Psystar also steels and uses the know how accumilated by the osx86 comunity without returning anything positive( except the openhaltrestart.kext )

we all know that Apple has already plans on selling osx for non mac equipment they have been researching this for years and thats why they went for BSD after the classic mac os and thats why we can build hackintoshes and run OSX, so that we can test every equipment inbehalf of Apple for free.

I wouldn't like if apple takes serious measures so that we can never run OSX on any Equipment except mac,

just because of some oppurtinist company like Psystar

At the end of the the day you have to respect Apple for making such a marvelous operation system and buy it if you use it.

 

We were able to build hackintoshes when Apple switched to Intel, thus making our hardware compatible with OS X. When they were purely PowerPC, this scene was a whole different story.

 

Do you even have any sources about OS X coming to non-Apple hardware?

[Faladran]

I just like the fact that a small company is fighting a huge corporation and hasn't been shut down yet. Whether or not they win, it still had some sort of impact on apple and is encouraging. To be honest, as much as I would like to see apple make a version of OS X to run on pc's, I would have to say that I would also be upset. I think the fact that apple makes their OS exclusive to their hardware is one of the many things that makes apple, apple. By taking that away from them, it adds less luminescence to their company. Yet on the other hand.....it is a tad bit monopolistic. (haha, just sayin'!)

 

Yeah, I like that too. I don't personally like Psystar as a company, but more of the principle of what they are doing. Kind of reminds of Apple vs IBM in the old days.

 

If a company had to sell hackintoshes, I'd prefer it be one that

a. had better quality

b. didn't hate Apple

and c. contributes to the osx86 project.

[holyfield]

But if Apple reverted back to PPC processors, wouldn't that kill Psystar and OSx86 because of later releases? Seeing as the whole OSx86 thing started after OS X was ported to Intel for Intel Macs.

 

Actually its impossible for Apple to go back to PPC. Problem is, that Apple is not capable to take real competition on new computer equipment market. Problem is related with other hardware, like video cards and so on. Probably they know that the future depends at AMD, Intel, NVidia and so on. Thos giants are capable for building hardware where Apple lacks. Actually what Apple is doing, its collects best hardware pieces to oe harware platwork and writes OS to to those specific hardware platforms. OSX86 community has proven, that actually any piece of hardware can work with OS X and people have developed byself drivers for hardware not supported by Apple.

 

If we compare PC and Apple comps then Apple is making eye candy machines. PC-s often looking {censored}. And stylish PC costs the same money than Apple comp.

 

I think Apple should think what to do with growing OSX86 community. This is a huge market actually. Check for OSX86 communites, english, russian and so on.. those are growing fast, and this might sound like dead bells for Linux. People prefer Mac OS and Mac OS software for Windows and Linux. Probably Apple does not have smart leaders who can consider the OSX86 community needs. Those are people who proably dont by Apple original comp due the high price. Offering for them cheap comp byself is also bad solution. One option is to ignore that this community exists... another is start to fight with them, wich is bad solution again at public relations point of view.

 

Plystar case does not change the river where Apple boat is now.

[member326495]

Yeah I agree... and I personally think Psystar got there business idea from the OSx86 project.

I don't have a clue if they did or didn't but it sure looks like it... If they did I can understand that they don't want to be linked to the project because as we all know 80% of the activity here is illegal

 

I personally would like Psystar to lose this case because I'm afraid of Apple's actions if they win. One way or another Apple will do everything in their power to hold on too it's image so the best thing would be Psystar loosing so the OSx86 project can live and grow like it's doing right now.

 

If Psystar wins, the OSx86 project will become harder and harder.

 

That's my 2 cent's on the subject!

 

Over and out...

Ebbi

[linuxhead]

Yeah I agree... and I personally think Psystar got there business idea from the OSx86 project.

I don't have a clue if they did or didn't but it sure looks like it... If they did I can understand that they don't want to be linked to the project because as we all know 80% of the activity here is illegal

 

I personally would like Psystar to lose this case because I'm afraid of Apple's actions if they win. One way or another Apple will do everything in their power to hold on too it's image so the best thing would be Psystar loosing so the OSx86 project can live and grow like it's doing right now.

 

If Psystar wins, the OSx86 project will become harder and harder.

 

That's my 2 cent's on the subject!

 

Over and out...

Ebbi

 

 

I agree I hope Pystar looses. OSX86 should only be for the "hacker community".

if you build your own OSX86, read the forums for months, you've 'earned' it.

Some idiot computer user buying a 'hackintosh' its not right, that person should have

bought something from Apple.

 

OSX86 should remain underground, packaging it and selling it is wrong. Its one thing

to hack, its another to steal business away from Apple, and to sell stuff.

[Redliner]

I can see it now, 1,000,000 people all going to jail for breaking a EULA... that simply exists to remove the responsibility of the software from it's creator. NOT.`

 

you don't realize that the majority here would never have touched a real mac... if they'd never have been able to run mac on a PC...

 

and you have the flip-side... there are people who have supported apple's dictatorship (albeit a quasi-friendly dictatorship) who'd rather use their 9800GTX toting intel Q9550 based hack that can make a computer tower that costs $3,000 or more not so appealing. (granted the mac pro does have its place...in the commercial industries where truly no hackintosh belongs)

 

I'm somewhere in the middle... I'm a poor college kid with no car... no job... I spent $500 on my hack... and it's benchmarking nearly as high as some mac pro's. I'd rather have a macbook pro... or maybe if apple is reasonable with there pricing... a new mac mini in the fall, alas im too poor... BUT... i'm sold on the mac operating system just like over 200,000 people who post on insanelymac... I will be buying a real Apple Designed in California Mac... someday

 

EDIT: in case you didn't get that... they wouldn't have likely ever gotten sales from me if i hadn't built my hackintosh... now someday they will... so they didn't loose anything... Im too poor right now, that's my excuse... "educational use"

 

I don't think that any company should be able to sell the hardware with the Mac OS installed... but they should be more than allowed to sell a proven configuration, sell the legitimate Mac OS license, and support their customers... leaving apple out of the loop, and not responsible.

 

honestly if apple did that^ and charged an "educational use license" or even hackintosh license that they didn't support (and that wasn't licensed for commercial use) they'd be better off than now.... and seriously, this whole "dont ask; dont tell policy" is quite obnoxious. they need to do something. and all you scared OMG apple's gonna shut us down!!! we're not going to be able to run this anymore OMG... seriously there are too many of us with too many discs of OS's.... worst comes to worst.... boot that hard drive/stay offline... edit you videos etc... LOL... they cant stop us or punish us.

[holyfield]

For Apple is the biggest problem hardware. There will be less and less pure Apple hardware pieces in the Apple comps. Actually Apple comps are becoming to be a PC already. So if Apple platform is actually PC then, its like the same scenario with Microsoft and its Internet Explorer or Media player. They couldn't say, that you have to use only Microsoft hardware or software with Windows.

 

One important thing about EULA is, that laws are also higher of any EULA. Are EULAs legal or enforceable? The EULA part is interesting because the validity of the EULA has never been tested in court. So its the matter of time when Apple should change the EULA that that you can use OS X only on Apple labeled computer now.

 

Plystar case is about selling Apple pre installed comps. But Psystar claims that Apple's restrictive licensing terms violates U.S. monopoly law. The core of story here is, that Plystar does not violate the law. Its the EULA what they might violate. But once again, important thing about EULA is, that laws are also higher of any EULA. As Plystar claims, they dont pirate OS X and Apple licensing terms violates U.S. monopoly law.

 

SO , its money that talks now and of course the court.

 

One another issue about installing Apple on PC. If you have payd for OS X and installed it on the PC, they probably coulnt nothing about you. You are not violatyng copyright laws or something like that becouse you have paid for software. You might violate the EULA, but you havent stealed or done something illegal on the mean of law. So if they wonna you to discontinnue use the OS X on PC, they should buy back your OS X copy too. You coulnt sell to the people something that they coulnt use!!! You coulnt push people to buy car from you becouse they bought car radio from you.

 

Often people does not understand what is violating law or violating some contract. And if you are violating some contract because its terms are violating some law, then you have not violated anything.

[volte]

... its time a lot of lazy ass people get up off there asses and fight these multimillion corporate thieves.

yes it can be done.

they rob from the poor. they enslave poor third world countries in to making there products.

and pay them dog scaps...

 

And where do you think your computer components are made? A complete illogical disconnect in your "argument". Don't be so shortsighted.

[Redliner]

@Holyfield,

 

in fact EULA's have been upheld in court... apparently even similar ones... however not ever judge is just or even has a brain... otherwise not a bad post

[niteman1969]

Peronally, I wouldn't think it was a bad thing if Psystar actually won the case.

 

Why?

 

This then opens doors for many other legal clone makers in the market.

 

For apple to have competition in the OSX capable machine market would

be no bad thing.

 

Maybe then they would listen to what the public want / need rather than

feed us with a sadly incomplete line of machines.

 

Right now you can have a few different models of laptop, a mini and a macpro

no decent mid range desktops or netbook sized laptops.

 

An imac doesn't count to me as a desktop as it is really laptop innards stuffed

into a 20 or 24 inch screen.

 

Maybe then Apple would actually choose more substance over style in order

to compete with the clone makers and loose some of its gorgeous screens,

aluminium etc which would be a great shame.

 

I would rather have style, substance and a reasonable price.

 

Also it would be quite funny to have loads of clone makers about again

and would kinda serve apple right for what they did to the old ppc clone makers

by first giving them a license to make clones and then later withdrawing it.

 

Lots of the ppc clone makers went under or barely survived it.

 

Regards

 

Niteman1969

[Calacruf]

I'm not sure why some people are afraid that Apple is going to lose its quality if Psystar wins. They're not going to have to change their hardware at all if they lose. Likewise Apple doesn't have to write or include drivers for non-Apple hardware, that would be the job of hardware companies, so OS X stays pretty much the same and everyone else is happy too.

 

For Apple is the biggest problem hardware. There will be less and less pure Apple hardware pieces in the Apple comps. Actually Apple comps are becoming to be a PC already. So if Apple platform is actually PC then, its like the same scenario with Microsoft and its Internet Explorer or Media player. They couldn't say, that you have to use only Microsoft hardware or software with Windows.

 

Actually, Apple doesn't make most of hardware found in Macs. They make their own cases and motherboards, but buy the rest of their parts from hardware vendors. For example, their hard drives come from IBM (or is it Seagate? I forgot.) and their graphics cards come from Nvidia and ATI. Dell, HP, and most other large vendors do the same.

[holyfield]

@Holyfield,

 

in fact EULA's have been upheld in court... apparently even similar ones... however not ever judge is just or even has a brain... otherwise not a bad post

 

Thank you for correction. Yes, there have been court cases about terms of EULA. My statement was misleading.

 

There is a legal expression: unconscionable - adj. referring to a contract or bargain which is so unfair to a party that no reasonable or informed person would agree to it. In a suit for breach of contract, a court will not enforce an unconscionable contract (award damages or order specific performance) against the person unfairly treated, on the theory that he/she was misled, lacked information or signed under duress or misunderstanding.

 

It is similar to an "adhesion contract," in which one party has taken advantage of a person dealing from weakness.

 

There have been court cases where are disputed that agreement is unfair against one party of agreement and companies even have finally changed their agreement according dispute. Anyway those are disputes between two sides involved in agreement.

 

But another story is Plystar case where is claimed, that EULA is violating some law, and this is a bit different than unconscionable contract dispute. Anyway, as we see court don't want to dispute that side of EULA. And as often, money talks.

 

Sorry about my English, I have difficulties expressing myself in English.

 

Actually, Apple doesn't make most of hardware found in Macs. They make their own cases and motherboards, but buy the rest of their parts from hardware vendors. For example, their hard drives come from IBM (or is it Seagate? I forgot.) and their graphics cards come from Nvidia and ATI. Dell, HP, and most other large vendors do the same.

Yes, open Apple comp and you can check it out, how much of the hardware is actually Apple invented hardware. So, why I have to buy for higher price the same hardware ONLY from Apple if I can buy it cheaper from another seller???

 

I like Apple products, the comps design, the OS X. But we shall not to be childish in our love against Apple products, that we take all their activities like honest against us as consumers? Apple itself opened the door for dispute by going to use PC hardware an selling OS separately from computer. If you sell OS separately from computer you couldn't restrict me to buy your comp when I have obtained legal copy of OS.

 

And there is actually a company who is selling a dongle that makes from your PC "apple labeled" computer without any OS patches, you can install Apple OS by using this dongle to Intel based comp, without any software tricks. OS installer and OS takes comp with this dongle like "apple labeled" comp.

 

I guess the best comparison is the scenario, when you rent a movie and after that you have to buy from movie renting company the DVD player to view this movie and you are not allowed to watch it from your own DVD player.