Psystar wins legal round against Apple

[Redliner]

@ niteman1969.

 

A wise engineer's saying:

 

"cheap, reliable, fast...pick two"

 

-most of what engineers do is try to cut corners in the reliability bust still functional department... apple on the other hand chooses to jack the prices and not cut corners... but lately it's come to the point where macs are lacking in the "fast" department... it's time they started competing to get ahead of PC's... and keep prices the same.

[holyfield]

News from Germany: German Mac Cloner Skirts Around OS X EULA

 

 

With Psystar still busy defending itself against Apple (a year of legal costs sort of starts to add up), you’d think other aspiring clone makers would wait to see how things pan out before putting their own wares on the market. Apparently not. TUAW reports that PearC's parent company, Hypermeganet, says there’s no legal way to review the Mac OS X End User License Agreement (EULA). We passed the original article onto a member of our German team and he said the company’s main argument is that since you can’t read the EULA before purchase, it’s not valid.

 

While the law no doubt only stands in Germany and Apple will almost certainly file suit anyway, we’re still really interested in seeing how this develops.

[Calacruf]

@ niteman1969.

 

A wise engineer's saying:

 

"cheap, reliable, fast...pick two"

 

-most of what engineers do is try to cut corners in the reliability bust still functional department... apple on the other hand chooses to jack the prices and not cut corners... but lately it's come to the point where macs are lacking in the "fast" department... it's time they started competing to get ahead of PC's... and keep prices the same.

Eh, I wouldn't say Apple doesn't cut corners. Sure, OS X is stable on Macs when it comes to drivers and whatnot, but Apple's hardware is plagued with some serious problems like overheating and faulty motherboards (though the latter is less of an issue with the new Intel Macs) and short-lived batteries. They lack speed, reliability, and price honestly.

 

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???

That's my problem with Apple. Their cases probably cost a bit more than the average PC's, and they have a few minor features to soften the price contrast, but all-in-all they're not worth what Apple charges.

 

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.

Not quite, because it could be played without modifications. If, however, you [hypothetically speaking of course] modified a Blu-Ray disc to play in a regular DVD player, I'm almost certain it would be a violation of the terms of service.

[pat-pat]

I'm with Apple;

It is a pleasure using OSX, their hardware are pieces of art... I enjoy even seeing them...

please do not let to clone their hardware...

 

I'm here for the pleasure of putting OSX on a different platform, the technological challenge attracts me, but, I have an OSX license, MAC deserves every penny of its tag price!

 

I hope a Mac clone is never going to be allowed...

OSX on non Mac hardware should be just for hobbiest (like everybody here) that at LEAST pay an OSX License to Apple....

 

we all here are having a lot of fun, let thanks for that the ones created OSX

 

Patpat

[Dan Druff]

I'm with Apple;

It is a pleasure using OSX, their hardware are pieces of art... I enjoy even seeing them...

please do not let to clone their hardware...

 

I'm here for the pleasure of putting OSX on a different platform, the technological challenge attracts me, but, I have an OSX license, MAC deserves every penny of its tag price!

 

I hope a Mac clone is never going to be allowed...

OSX on non Mac hardware should be just for hobbiest (like everybody here) that at LEAST pay an OSX License to Apple....

 

we all here are having a lot of fun, let thanks for that the ones created OSX

 

Patpat

 

Not to be rude, but here, as it is buisness, there's no pity. Think of your worse Monopoly game, your friend (or wife!) wasn't anymore friendly with you, he (she) made you go bankrupt. People will never pay to save the neck of a milionnaire buisness like Apple (appart of the U.S. gov with the banks, but that's another story).

 

If Apple is to do something if their OS can be put on other machines than their own, it's to make their machines more different, i.e. asking to their HW providers to make slightly different HW intructions and keeping these modifications secret OR put OSX as a feature of their machines, stop solding it (thus making copies highly illegal) and upgrade the OS by web upgrade OR something else...

 

They will certainly want to keep OSX as their flagship. If they loose that, any PC will become as safe as a Mac, any PC will be as easy to use as a Mac, any Mac will be the same value as a PC. This would make them loose their "plus value" (described below) and this is, from their point of view, unacceptable. [EDIT]: removed the "(i.e. Aqua OS)" from my sentence.

 

That's my problem with Apple. Their cases probably cost a bit more than the average PC's, and they have a few minor features to soften the price contrast, but all-in-all they're not worth what Apple charges.

Also, it seems to me illogical to compare HW piece between beige box and Mac. There's a simple economical concept called "plus value", the plus value can be as high as the market demand can be. Apple is surfing on this Plus value (elegance, beauty, safe, "club select" brand, etc.), as long as their plus value can maximize profit, this plus value will exist. There's no other logic in here than economic, HW piece quality only serves the lust for money of Apple owners. If doing crappy comp would ensure them to maximize profit over the course of time, they would do it, but as {censored} doesn't sell as long as quality, they prefer quality. Now they are making "green" computers because it will PAY, NOT because they believe in the environnemental cause (maybe some people, but if it doesn't pay them, it will not be done outside their private life).

 

Psystar may win this round, be they will not win the battle, Apple is a big buisness with a growing market. There are millions of profit to be gained and an amateur company living over the hardwork of the Apple programmers will not be allowed to foil their investment. I'd like to point that programmers within Apple are not Apple in itself but for the Apple's owners, their paid work is theirs. I do not know how it will be gained by Apple, but over the course of time, it will be.

 

They may even go for activation à la MS for their OS, ensuring to only activate Mac owners and selling new OS to Mac owners as a paid upgrade. Doing so would not bother legitimate Mac owner if Apple give, with this activation, a life time @apple.com web address with illimited storage or another candy that nearly nobody uses. Beside, hackintosh owners would face a dead-end and become highly illegal (as MS hackers). Coupled with a slight HW change, hackintosh buisness would never be profitable and only part-time hackers, as a lot of us, would bother to try to install OSX on their beige box, not a real menace to the monopoly Apple aims.

 

[EDIT]: typo

[keypox]

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.

 

a. i heard there quality was great

b. who said they hate apple?

c. they have...

 

not saying ther egood or bad. I am afraid if they win apple will make hacks impossible with snow leopard.

[Calacruf]

Also, it seems to me illogical to compare HW piece between beige box and Mac. There's a simple economical concept called "plus value", the plus value can be as high as the market demand can be. Apple is surfing on this Plus value (elegance, beauty, safe, "club select" brand, etc.), as long as their plus value can maximize profit, this plus value will exist. There's no other logic in here than economic, HW piece quality only serves the lust of money of Apple owners. If doing crappy comp would ensure them to maximize profit over the course of time, they would do it, but as {censored} doesn't sell as long as quality, they prefer quality.

 

It's quite illogical to act as though all PCs come in ugly beige boxes, and as I stated, Apple does not have the magnificent build quality that people pretend they do. They buy their parts from the same companies that other computer vendors do, these companies do not go "Hey look Apple's buying from us let's give them the good stuff!". It doesn't work that way.

 

The rest of your post is pretty irrelevant to what I said. I'm aware of the groups that Apple aims their products at, the whole problem here is that they want to restrict everybody to their hardware.

[Dan Druff]

It's quite illogical to act as though all PCs come in ugly beige boxes, and as I stated, Apple does not have the magnificent build quality that people pretend they do. They buy their parts from the same companies that other computer vendors do, these companies do not go "Hey look Apple's buying from us let's give them the good stuff!". It doesn't work that way.

I didn't said their HW parts are better than all of the others sellers, in no way, their HW quality is very comparable to others. I said the price was high because of the plus value of "Apple branded products". Look at the iPods, they aren't better than a lot of MP3/MP4/OGG players, still the price is higher, and if you look to the numbers, Apple sales on iPod still beat the others MP3/MP4/OGG players. It's the Apple "aura of goodness", yet it is still an aura, not a factual better quality.

 

 

The rest of your post is pretty irrelevant to what I said. I'm aware of the groups that Apple aims their products at, the whole problem here is that they want to restrict everybody to their hardware.

I wasn't answering directly to your post, I was commenting about the overall thread. Sorry if you felt concerned.

[holyfield]

Not quite, because it could be played without modifications. If, however, you [hypothetically speaking of course] modified a Blu-Ray disc to play in a regular DVD player, I'm almost certain it would be a violation of the terms of service.

 

It is, because apple as added specially on the OS X some very tiny part to make it impossible to run it on another comp. Do yo got what i mean. Its the same if DVD movie has certain monopoly bit on movie, that you couldn't play it on regular DVD player, only on those which you have bought from them. Copyright law does not allow you to make limits on what player you can play music you brought.

 

I think this is the issue where Apple soon or late lose the dispute.

 

Also there are rumors that Microsoft and Apple are related. And if this is true, then you might understand why the EULA terms might restrict to install OS X on some regular PC. Its not protecting Apple market, but Microsoft market.

 

I hope a Mac clone is never going to be allowed...

Depends what you mean by using verb "Mac clone". Plystar is not selling Mac clone!!!! They are selling comps which are capable to run Mac OS X. And please understand, this is not MAC CLONE!! Mac clone is illegal. But Apple have not have lawsuit against Plystar because "Mac clone". Plystar haven't cloned anything.

 

And I think its 100% legal to install Mac OS X on PC if you have bought appropriate original media. They coulnt punish you for anything. You don't brake any law. Its only the EULA with that you might have a conflict but there are lot of scenarios why and how you are not supposed to follow all terms of EULA. EULA is an agreement between two person, EULA isn't a law!!! But if you don't follow some terms of EULA, you have to be careful, because sometimes some terms can be based on some law too. But some terms of EULA might be unconscionable to you and if you don't follow these terms, you don't broke any law.

[scottishduck]

@ niteman1969.

 

A wise engineer's saying:

 

"cheap, reliable, fast...pick two"

 

-most of what engineers do is try to cut corners in the reliability bust still functional department... apple on the other hand chooses to jack the prices and not cut corners... but lately it's come to the point where macs are lacking in the "fast" department... it's time they started competing to get ahead of PC's... and keep prices the same.

 

Apple gets their hardware from foxconn like, oh, every other goddamn OEM on the planet.

 

Insert coin to try again.

[redratfish]

apple scums

[kriss13]

The way things are going, with OSx86 on pc, Psystar etc, I hope OSX will become what Linux never succseede to be... a stable and fine piece of OS for PC and Macs.

 

It should divide kind of how Suse did, original OSX for macs (with suport and stuff) and OpenOSX, with no support from Apple but with good compatibility with hardware similar with Macs, and hopefuly more compatibility with "unsuported and uncompatible" hardware made by users (its unix after all).

 

Of course this is almost where we are now, but a legal step in this direction from Apple will ease some of the tensions.

 

On the other hand Apple is strugle to gain some of the market, gues from whom?... M$, the Monopol Corporation and remember that Apple is more affordable because its is expandind, so prices can drop because it can sell more products.

 

I hope in the future there will be more good OSs on the market to choose from.

 

Btw, I have OSX on may pc laptop and EVERYTHING is workind fine just like a real Mac (I mean EVERYTHING ...with minor tweaks).

I have never had this success with any Linux distros.

[imrazor]

I would like to see OS X free of hardware restrictions myself. But I'd be happy with a mid-range, upgradable Macintosh.

 

In the end, it's not who is right or wrong, but who has the most expensive lawyers. I think eventually Apple will crush Psystar.

[jaez]

Apple is a Pirate.

 

Everybody knows that Intel's success is because of Microsoft, and PPC's failure is because of Apple.

 

Apple wouldn't let anybody clone their ppc hardware, so IBM could only sell ppc to Apple. This allowed Apple to keep MAC expensive, and that kept market share small. So, IBM lost incentive to keep developing PPC and making it leading edge. That caused MAC hardware performance to fall behind Microsoft PCs. So, Apple had to pirate the PC box technology, and rebuild MAC around Intel processors instead.

 

If Apple didn't pirate PC boxes internal technology first, OSx86 couldn't get Leopard to run on a PC.

[Calacruf]

Apple is a Pirate.

 

Everybody knows that Intel's success is because of Microsoft, and PPC's failure is because of Apple.

 

Apple wouldn't let anybody clone their ppc hardware, so IBM could only sell ppc to Apple. This allowed Apple to keep MAC expensive, and that kept market share small. So, IBM lost incentive to keep developing PPC and making it leading edge. That caused MAC hardware performance to fall behind Microsoft PCs. So, Apple had to pirate the PC box technology, and rebuild MAC around Intel processors instead.

 

If Apple didn't pirate PC boxes internal technology first, OSx86 couldn't get Leopard to run on a PC.

Lol, there's a lot wrong with this post.

 

Apple wasn't the only company to use the PowerPC architecture, there were dozens of companies that did, including Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo. I'd be willing to bet that Apple's computers didn't even make up 10% of the PowerPC chips sold.

 

Secondly, companies like IBM and Intel build up and decline naturally, just as AMD has declined in the past few years. Currently IBM is doing pretty good. Not as good as Intel, but they're keeping up. Soon Intel may decline and AMD or IBM may be back on top, it all depends on building factors.

 

Also, Apple didn't pirate anybody's internal technology. Intel licensed it to them. Everything they've done [as far as hardware goes] has been fair and legal.

[jaez]

Also, Apple didn't pirate anybody's internal technology. Intel licensed it to them. Everything they've done [as far as hardware goes] has been fair and legal.

 

I'm pretty sure everybody with Hackint0shes have licenced their Intel too, so all's fair and square.

[slacker25]

I'm pretty sure everybody with Hackint0shes have licenced their Intel too, so all's fair and square.

 

 

 

 

Jaez now even you should know that Intel and the right you have to use their Hardware does not give you the right ot use another product in any manner you think you should.....

 

Intel does not OWN apple there for does not forth the right to you to use OSX how ever you chose.

[Frayedends]

Wow.

 

Just wow. I read through all of this, and it amazes me to what extent people have feelings or opinions based on complete and utter falsehoods and rumor-mongering.

 

First off, I'm not going to touch on Linux, it's not relevant in this discussion at all.

 

Second, there is no comparison between Microsoft and Apple in this regard. Microsoft licensed it's disk operating system back in the 80's, and it was IBM - not Microsoft - that held the rights to the technology in the PC, and they made the decision to license it, so mass-produced clones could be made.

 

Third, Apple is a public company. This is essential to understanding the motivation behind the business decisions that are made. Apple suing Psystar is their right to protect their market share, and their livelihood. Psystar can countersue all day. It's their right too.

 

The upcoming final ruling is going to have some major impact. First, if Apple wins this battle, they will have set a precedent. Since they design, contract, and build their hardware - they own the rights to how it's used. If they win this legal challenge, they will also have the right to bind their operating system to their hardware. The operative word is "their". They don't keep the price high on purpose. The keep it where it needs to be, whether you or I like paying more for a mac or not. They need that to generate the return on investment, fund R&D for new products, and keep the shareholders happy. Remember, public company - it's the shareholders that own the bottom line.

 

If Apple could sell mac's for $500, they would. If they can make the required profit. Unfortunately, when you manufacture something in limited quantities, it costs you more. Manufacture generic for the masses, it's less. Even if they're using parts, components, and other stuff that's freely available and used by other makers, it's done to spec, and in the end they pay more for it. I'm sure Apple pays a higher price for chips from Intel than does say, HP or Dell. All because they buy fewer of them.

 

If they lose this suit, it will open the door for mac clone-makers to sell mac clones at the corner store to compete with PC's. While this might be great for competing with the PC market share, it'll mean less revenue for Apple, and in the end, the Mac made by Apple will probably be reduced to a simple machine, and you can bet OSX development will come to a standstill.

 

The loss of that revenue stream from the mac sales will kill them, and decisions will be made. I would guess they would get out of the business, and concentrate on other things, like ipods and iphones, and other new gadgets. Apple would cease to be a computer maker, and OSX would die along with it.

 

If you doubt me... Who here remembers OS/2 Warp? Game, set, and match.

 

All around, it would mean more competition in the industry, but jobs will be lost at Apple, and major changes made. The beloved OSX would go the way of OS/2. Count on it.

[polax]

I remember OS/2 Warp ... what is your point man?

 

That never took off because MS stopped providing tools for app-development on it. And IBM never really thought of Software specifically operating systems as a principal source of revenue. Ask me not why that is the case.

[jaez]

The upcoming final ruling is going to have some major impact. First, if Apple wins this battle, they will have set a precedent.

 

They can't win. They can only get temporary victories. Eventually, the Psystar type companies will win in the end.

 

Since they design, contract, and build their hardware - they own the rights to how it's used.

 

That's the whole problem. They don't design the hardware. Apple's design is purely "cosmetic."

That's why its so easy to run OSX on a PC. If Apple had designed a truly unique hardware box, then they could make the argument that Psystar is cloning their design. But, Psystar's box doesn't "look" anything like a MAC !

 

If Apple could sell mac's for $500, they would.

 

They do. It's call a MacMini.

 

If they lose this suit, it will open the door for mac clone-makers to sell mac clones at the corner store to compete with PC's.

 

PCs with MAC OS X will gain market share, at the expense of PCs with Windows. Apple will sell more iWork and iLife and iProducts to those customers, and make even more money.

 

 

While this might be great for competing with the PC market share, it'll mean less revenue for Apple, and in the end,

 

it'll mean more revenue for Apple, not less.

 

Think of it this way. Look at how people behave. Everybody wants what everybody has. That's why crowds gather. Try this experiment. Go for a walk at the shopping center. Then stop at any store front window, and stare intently at the stuff on display. People will start to gather to see what you're staring at. The more people stop and stare with you, the more others will stop and look to see what's happening. Soon, a virtual crowd will have gathered at that storefront all trying to see what's up.

 

That's how people shop. That's why Windows is King. People want windows because people have windows. So, they can share software and files, and games, and etc...the more people using OSX, the more people will by MACs and PCs to run OSX, and iProduct sales will increase. Apple can't lose.

 

All around, it would mean more competition in the industry, but jobs will be lost at Apple, and major changes made. The beloved OSX would go the way of OS/2. Count on it.

 

Apple will have to hire more programmers to keep up with the demand for new iProducts to run on all those OSX-PCs !

[pontifex22]

If they lose this suit, it will open the door for mac clone-makers to sell mac clones at the corner store to compete with PC's. While this might be great for competing with the PC market share, it'll mean less revenue for Apple, and in the end, the Mac made by Apple will probably be reduced to a simple machine, and you can bet OSX development will come to a standstill.

 

The loss of that revenue stream from the mac sales will kill them, and decisions will be made. I would guess they would get out of the business, and concentrate on other things, like ipods and iphones, and other new gadgets. Apple would cease to be a computer maker, and OSX would die along with it.

 

If you doubt me... Who here remembers OS/2 Warp? Game, set, and match.

 

All around, it would mean more competition in the industry, but jobs will be lost at Apple, and major changes made. The beloved OSX would go the way of OS/2. Count on it.

 

I agree with you on the first part, but I still don't get it why OS X will die.

You are assuming the Apple sales will drop that much, that they don't sell computers any more. What about iPhone and iPod touch?

They are running on OS X. Do you think Apple computers only sell cos of OS X? Their Mac Books sell great and are great.

Only iMac and Mac pro could be at danger, if at all.

 

I believe the opposite of Mac OS X dieing will happen, in case Psystar is legal.

I believe that:

 

A: Apple will shut down cloning by technical means, or (more likely in my view)

B: licence OS X for PCs

 

Wonder what happens to the OSX86 scene then

[zahne]

I don't understand why it's worth the risk to buy a Hackintosh from Psystar or anyone. Aren't they unreliable and with no guarantee to support the next release of OS X? I mean, I've never read reviews of Psystar but as I understand it, you could spend $1,000+ on a Mac Clone that might not work in one year. Did Psystar correct this? Is that why it's so pricey? Is that why there's so many legal battles?

[jaez]

I don't understand why it's worth the risk to buy a Hackintosh from Psystar or anyone. Aren't they unreliable and with no guarantee to support the next release of OS X?

 

Good point. A real Mac comes with warranty from Apple. Which is what you pay for, when you buy a genuine Mac. This is why it's hard to understand why Apple bothers with Psystar at all, what could they possibly offer better than Apple?

 

Apple taking Psystar to court is like admitting that Psystar is a threat to Apple, which suggests that Psystar is offering something better than Apple. I wonder what it is?

 

I can go to the dollar store and buy 8 AA batteries in a set for $1, or I can go to the hardware store and buy 8 AA batteries in a set for $9.95. Why would I buy the dollar store batteries, when I can pick up batteries at the hardware store? I've actually done this, to see what the difference is. Turns out, the dollar store batteries run down quicker than the hardware store batteries. So, I have to replace them more frequently. Do you think Psystar boxes will have to be changed more frequently too?

 

That might be it.

 

Cheaper getting in, but more expensive in the long run.

 

Still, the dollar store does have its uses.

 

I wouldn't like it if a judge decided to outlaw the dollar store.

 

Somethimes its convenient when you need something for temporary use, and don't want to spend a ton of cash just for a product you intend to throw away soon anyway.

 

Suppose we just wanted a few computers runing OS X for a lanparty, to run some games, but then we intend to throw out the boxes, would you suggest Apple Mac boxes or Psystar OpenComputers?

 

[slacker25]

They can't win. They can only get temporary victories. Eventually, the Psystar type companies will win in the end.

That's the whole problem. They don't design the hardware. Apple's design is purely "cosmetic."

That's why its so easy to run OSX on a PC. If Apple had designed a truly unique hardware box, then they could make the argument that Psystar is cloning their design. But, Psystar's box doesn't "look" anything like a MAC !

They do. It's call a MacMini.

PCs with MAC OS X will gain market share, at the expense of PCs with Windows. Apple will sell more iWork and iLife and iProducts to those customers, and make even more money.

it'll mean more revenue for Apple, not less.

 

Think of it this way. Look at how people behave. Everybody wants what everybody has. That's why crowds gather. Try this experiment. Go for a walk at the shopping center. Then stop at any store front window, and stare intently at the stuff on display. People will start to gather to see what you're staring at. The more people stop and stare with you, the more others will stop and look to see what's happening. Soon, a virtual crowd will have gathered at that storefront all trying to see what's up.

 

That's how people shop. That's why Windows is King. People want windows because people have windows. So, they can share software and files, and games, and etc...the more people using OSX, the more people will by MACs and PCs to run OSX, and iProduct sales will increase. Apple can't lose.

Apple will have to hire more programmers to keep up with the demand for new iProducts to run on all those OSX-PCs !

 

Wow do you put much thought into this apple makes next to nothing with i life stuff with out the OSX stuff and if they lose apple isnt the forgiving type you do things thier way or snow leopard may never even make it out.

[scottishduck]

Good point. A real Mac comes with warranty from Apple. Which is what you pay for, when you buy a genuine Mac. This is why it's hard to understand why Apple bothers with Psystar at all, what could they possibly offer better than Apple?

 

Apple taking Psystar to court is like admitting that Psystar is a threat to Apple, which suggests that Psystar is offering something better than Apple. I wonder what it is?

 

I can go to the dollar store and buy 8 AA batteries in a set for $1, or I can go to the hardware store and buy 8 AA batteries in a set for $9.95. Why would I buy the dollar store batteries, when I can pick up batteries at the hardware store? I've actually done this, to see what the difference is. Turns out, the dollar store batteries run down quicker than the hardware store batteries. So, I have to replace them more frequently. Do you think Psystar boxes will have to be changed more frequently too?

 

That might be it.

 

Cheaper getting in, but more expensive in the long run.

 

Still, the dollar store does have its uses.

 

I wouldn't like it if a judge decided to outlaw the dollar store.

 

Somethimes its convenient when you need something for temporary use, and don't want to spend a ton of cash just for a product you intend to throw away soon anyway.

 

Suppose we just wanted a few computers runing OS X for a lanparty, to run some games, but then we intend to throw out the boxes, would you suggest Apple Mac boxes or Psystar OpenComputers?

 

 

Oh god I hope this is a troll.