Psystar counter-sues Apple for anti-competitive business practices

I'd like to see Apple computers come down in price. That's all I'd want from this

You're definitely not alone on that one...

BUT as long as Apple hold on to their decadent retail stores like the one in Manhattan that looks like the entrance to the Louvre and the hundreds (thousands?) of authorised Apple dealers around the world - (who want to see of course their cut for storing and selling the goods but by having to adapt to the same local Apple online prices) - and all their other expensive habits, I don't think we'll see interesting price cuts anytime soon.

Apple would have to drop some of the overweight they're carrying around. Law suits alone like this one won't do. It might actually cause the opposite effect, at least short term. If Apple lose this one, I can imagine the first thing they might do is to increase the price for OSX.

(BTW when you buy an Apple product online you actually pay the retail margin for stores you've never been to and probably never will go to...)

On top of that don't forget, Apple is an Inc. Never underestimate the power of share holders. If they don't see their cut they pull their investment out in a heart beat.

All computer programmers are thieves who use other people's development work and ideas to build their

own code. I never met a programmer who wrote any code from scratch off the top of his head without taking

a computer course, reading other people's code, and incorporating previously existing ideas "developed by others"

to produce his own work.

I work with developers who write apps from scratch every day. They do 'steal' ideas sometimes, but from themselves.

The difference here is that the developments that have been made in a professional or commercial context have been paid for at some point in time and the originators have been paid for as well. Now if somebody else comes along and let themselves 'getting inspired' by someone else's work, you could still consider it 'stealing' if you want but the developer has had his share, at least his salary.

Where it gets nasty is that netkas (according to what he stated on here, of course I don't know any details) has never seen a penny and psystar have never given him and/or the OSX86 project any credits, not even a mere mention. They do as if its their very own idea and market it as such. That's comparable to some musician coming out with a cover version of Hey Jude and sell it with himself as the songwriter.

It almost scares me when I see/hear people condoning such things with the seemingly fatalistic attitude, 'well that's how it is, get used to it...'

No I won't get used it and I have no reason to

btw there are many legends about the Xerox vs Apple vs MS issue. I would take all of them with a grain of salt

From an article from 1988

Mention is made about how the graphical user interface was developed by Xerox and Apple can’t sue anybody.

 

The fact is, Apple own rights to the interface, thanks to a deal made long ago for which Xerox got 2 percent of Apple stock (since sold). Sun Microsystems has always been concerned about the proprietary aspect of the interface and quietly obtained a license from Xerox long ago. And even Microsoft has a license from Xerox.

 

Microsoft doesn’t like to license anything and rarely talks about its agreement with Xerox. Microsoft likes to think of itself as a licenser, not a licensee. It was probably to protect that image that Gates insisted that the Apple agreement be held in confidence. It can also be argued, though, that the agreement was an embarrassment to both companies since it is so one-sided. Surely, it would not pass the scrutiny of a public forum.

http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/s...factfromfiction

Hmm...I promised myself I wouldn't spend much time on these forums anymore: classes are almost underway.

This news-item is too fascinating to pass up!

First of all, the tone of many of these posts is far too biting. Whatever happened to debating based on logic, rather than personal attacks? (an inevitably international forum, one can't make assumptions about what is culturally acceptable, anyway)

I love this community, because its existence allows me to run MacOS with very little modification on a convertible tablet with two batteries and an expansion dock. No Mac can do that. I also built a quad-core tower that in some benchmarks tops even the fastest Xeon-based Mac Pro.

While I don't imagine Psystar could win with the current state of the operating system market, if Macs ever grow to achieve 80% market share (hard to imagine) I can see the European Commission imposing pro-competitive legislation on Apple, demanding that MacOS run on every generic PC. Think about how they mandated GSM (and not CDMA) use throughout Europe for mobile phone technologies. Also note their current fight with Microsoft over Explorer and Media Player.

Apple's decision to keep their OS off generic PCs means that the average MacOS user has the precise experience that the Apple engineer intended. That means that the Mac experience is often more predictable and convenient. I don't doubt that if Apple licensed its OS to Dell, and Dell and OEMs proceeded to write drivers, the experience wouldn't be almost identical. Industry-wide standards have certainly made running MacOS on other hardware desirable. That said, Apple is entirely responsible and in command of its reputation and product by producing both hardware and software. I think that everyone in this forum can agree that in large part they have succeeded.

Apple has shown that it can earn higher profit margins on its hardware by essentially forcing the user to pay in many cases a substantial percentage on top of the cost of hardware, mainly for the MacOS experience. As long as consumers are willing to do so, (I for one, am very close to doing so) economically, Apple has no real incentive to open up generic PCs to its software.

With Vista seen by most as something of a disaster (it's still my primary OS), the future of the operating system market is more unpredictable than it once was. If Apple strategises properly, developing products for every price point, they could continue to grow in market share indefinitely. I also like the idea that Ubuntu or some other brand of Linux could overtake the market. Every new revision of Ubuntu seems to be more and more practical, simple, and user friendly, while maintaining the same sophistication Linux fanboys have enjoyed for years. That would be the truly "open" result to consumer demand.

Another point to consider is that the systems we use increasingly reside in a browser: think online TV shows, YouTube, GMail, Google Docs; and thus are platform-independent. Other open-source software commonly used cross-platform includes Firefox, Thunderbird, GIMP, OpenOffice, etc.

Looking broadly at the market, it seems that Linux (the most open) and Mac (the most proprietary) responses are gaining market share fastest. Only time will tell if these trends continue. It seems that Microsoft's response (trying to straddle the divide) has ceased to work, especially given the complacency instilled by such high market share.

I, for one, would like most to see Apple firstly expand their product lineup and make products for every price point. Alternatively, I hope (but doubt that it will happen) that they quietly remove the hardware restriction from their EULA.

I dearly hope that the attention Psystar has brought to the OS X on x86 will not cause Apple to install further roadblocks for those who want to run OS X on generic hardware. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the Apple engineers themselves (secretly, of course) have rigged up generic PCs running OS X for home use. Hence some people at Apple must have a little sympathy for this community, assuming of course that we all pay for legitimate copies of OS X.

Maybe one day open-source software will become the norm, and with minuscule market shares, Apple and Microsoft will no longer have a reason not to release their source code. That would be the best way forward. I rather doubt I will live to see that day, though.

Alternatively, I hope (but doubt that it will happen) that they quietly remove the hardware restriction from their EULA.

This is exactly why I'm so surprised at all these idiots loudly proclaiming support for PsyStar. Not only will that NOT happen now or ever going forward, your next sentence nails it also. It's only going to get harder now as Apple will no doubt tie it's hardware and software even closer to prove that the Mac OS is not just a desktop OS, but a system designed for their own hardware.

I dearly hope that the attention Psystar has brought to the OS X on x86 will not cause Apple to install further roadblocks for those who want to run OS X on generic hardware.

As I said above. Bingo! This is the only sure outcome so far.

I wouldn't be surprised if many of the Apple engineers themselves (secretly, of course) have rigged up generic PCs running OS X for home use. Hence some people at Apple must have a little sympathy for this community, assuming of course that we all pay for legitimate copies of OS X.

Not a chance. Apple Engineers use real Apple hardware, because they could never take the chance that their code might run on some generic brand and not on Apple's own branded hardware. I'm sure they all have many Apple machines lying around. As a Mac tech myself I know I have dozens.

Absurd. It's Apple's software, if they want to make it run only on their hardware that is there right as a business. Anti-trust is a moot point with their sub 4% market share. This would be a different story if it was Microsoft tying Windows to their own hardware, that would be a monopoly. In Apple's case, it is a smart - and neccessary - business move.

Anyone who is stupid enough to side with Psystar should think through this. If Psystar won, it would have a negative effect on Osx86 community. If OSX opened up, Apple would lose a lot of revenue stream, a lot of their advantage (their software works perfectly with Apple hardware, put on other stuff, problems arise, either they now must support - like Windows - or don't support, and look bad to ppl). It would hurt the company, it would hurt OSX, and therefore it would hurt Osx86 because OSX wouldn't be as good to begin with.

Not that it matters, not a chance in hell Psystar will ever come remotely close to winning the case. It's absurb and laughable.

as a mac ownwer the only reason cause i don't like psystar wins is cause apple quality will be pc standarded.

if apple loses, it will be obbliged to produce a software that first boots well on pc and then its hardware.

only who has never owned a mac may not understand what i mean.

i am happy to spend that money if for the next ten years i will not have problems.

To those supporting Apple's right to make their software (OS) only work on their computers because it's their $%^& own, I have to say

that yes, I agree. They can design it and implement it for whatever hardware they want and they can even lock its use to such hardware.

I have no problem with that in the sense that they should be entitled to do so. They can decide what hardware it works on, and they don't

have to write new code to support any other configuration that's not already supported by their software (Apple Macs).

What I have a problem with is that Apple shouldn't have the right to prevent me from installing the software on any (single) computer I

want without it becoming something illegal; which, I think, is the real problem with the "Apple branded computer" portion of the

EULA being found "valid" or "legally valid". Even though the OS made by Palm, Nokia, etc. does not work on other hardware, the situation

is different because they do not sell it separately; and even if they did, they cannot, or, if the law is fair, should not be able to legally

prevent me from installing it on another phone or Pocket PC.

Yes, it's their (Apple's) software and they didn't design it to run on other PCs, but let me do whatever I want with it on my PC without me

becoming a criminal in the process. As an individual, I'm not inconveniencing them in any way and I'm fully aware that they don't have to

support my running of their software on a non-Apple hardware configuration.

I think the problem with Psystar is that they are a company using Apple's own product to compete with them and economically benefiting

from it, all the while violating Apple's copyrights and trademarks, causing brand dilution and all the other non-EULA-related violations stated

on the lawsuit.

What I have a problem with is that Apple shouldn't have the right to prevent me from installing the software on any (single) computer I

want without it becoming something illegal; which, I think, is the real problem with the "Apple branded computer"

Apple would like you to "think" it's illegal. Its pure psyschology. You know, that word, "illegal" gets the hairs up on the body, sounds like a swear word almost. Ever listen to "Lou Dobbs" on CNN? He loves that word. Makes him feel powerful. He carefully distinguishes between "immigrants" and "illegals". Claims he's not anti-immigrant, only anti-illegal. Yet, he takes every opportunity to "link" those very undocumented, mostly "mexicans," with crimes committed by a handful of these "illegals". No mention of crimes committed by the documented, nor any mention of the good works done by most of these very "illegals" in building homes, slaving away in meat factories, giving their time and sweat to make life more comfortable and affordable for "Lou Dobbs" himself, in cheap groceries, and economically prices homes etc.. There are two sides to every coin. So, Apple writes an EULA with illegal rules and tries to get us to believe their version of the truth, just like Lou. Anyone can write an EULA. I can write one. I hereby declare that anybody reading this post is illegal. There, I've just made a rule.

The law allows companies to put anything in an EULA, even absurdities. But, each state, province, and locale, determines what exactly is enforceable, and what is not.

If it makes no sense to you, then it's not enforceable.

Apple's EULA that says it's illegal to put OSX on non-Apple labeled machines is simply ridiculous.

Imagine if a woman went into a man's clothes store, and the attendent there said, sorry lady, these clothes are for men only, the manufacturer's EULA says they are only to be worn by men. We all know how women love to wear men's clothes. Hey, even some men love to wear women's clothes. I don't think many workplace bosses would be happy, but it's not "illegal." You buy it, you use it as you like.

Hey, I built my own machine, and it's an officially labeled Microsoft machine. Gates was kind enough to give me a little sticker to put on my box "with even a hologram to prove its genuine" on the label, it says "Windows XP Professional" all with serial number attached etc..I even have an official label from Intel that says "Intel Core 2 Quad Inside" which I also put on my box, so that it's again an official "Intel Labeled" machine. The problem with Apple, is that they haven't figured out how to make these little stickers yet, so that we can also put their label on our Hackint0shes, and declare official "Leopard Inside", proud owner of an OSX from the greatest co. on earth "Apple Stevy Jobs Computer, Inc." But, I reckon they'll get there eventually. Jobs was always a little "slow" understanding these consumer things. I remember when Jobs came out with a cute box that had no floppy drive, the floppy was going to be obsolete one day, and Jobs was ahead of the curve. Yeah, well, my DFI board still uses the floppy to update the BIOS. So, go figure. Long live the floppy drive. Not dead yet, and it's 2008 !

Anyone who is stupid enough to side with Psystar should think through this. If Psystar won, it would have a negative effect on Osx86 community. If OSX opened up, Apple would lose a lot of revenue stream, a lot of their advantage (their software works perfectly with Apple hardware, put on other stuff, problems arise, either they now must support - like Windows - or don't support, and look bad to ppl). It would hurt the company, it would hurt OSX, and therefore it would hurt Osx86 because OSX wouldn't be as good to begin with.

Thats {censored}. If apple loses then my OEM manufacturer will have a legal opeion to develop an OSX driver for my network card. Otherwise if they can't sell it to people that don't run OSX they have no interest to develop a driver for it, its that simple. Apple wouldn't have to touch my driver, the OEM would, if they care to sell it to OSX market. Apple will _still_ make Macintoshes, Apple will still only sell support for Macintoshes but other OEMs would have a legal ways of making drivers for their hardware thus eliminating the need for reverse engeneered community drien kekxts.

It would not "hurt the company" in any way whatsoever it would just open a whole new market for them to sell their _software_ to (which is pretty expensive not including OSX, but they could even go as far as to make OSX for non Apple x86 sell at 3 times the price it sells to Mac owners it would still make enormous profits for Apple. Not to mention other software sales that would arise from that including Final Cut, iWork, iWhatever, Shake, Aperture etc. etc.). And all the while Apple would _NOT_ have to support anything but Macs thus recieveing free _advertisment_ for their "stable and quality hardware, unlike other OEMs.". If mac fanboys claims that OSX would run like {censored} on anything but Macs would prove to be true it would just translate into Apple's claim "but we told you to buy a Mac. We support Mac we write drivers for it so it will be stable unlike those other OEMs".

If OSX proves to run just fine on other OEM hardware then Apple will still be on the plus side since then they could start a brag campain claiming: "See, we told you OSX was superior even on the {censored} cheep PCs, so please DO buy our software, do spread the word". They really cannot lose here.

Apple sell OS X in a box, that box is called a MAC. They sell their OS on Discs too so if you own a mac you can install a clean copy of it on a older machine who was sold with an older OS on it ( think there is a law somewhere telling Apple they must some how, but im not sure).

Both the OS and the Mac are Apple products sold by Apple. The whole idea with apple's Mac/OS concept are that they should stay togheter.

I don't like the idea of apple (or anyone) telling me what to do with things I bought. But I don't like the thought of someone telling me I can't do what I want with something I have made and created either...

OS X os only as good as it is because Apple has the full control over both code and hardware and that is why "it just works" I use OS X because it rarely screws up and is easy to use. I think that if you force apple to make an OS that is compatible with every intel x86 machine out there the quality of the OS will be a lot worse...

I don't know anything about laws in the US so we will just have to see what happens, but there is two sides of this in the moral perspective. The right to do what you want with something you bought and the right to decide what you want to do with your own created products...

What ever happens I hope a mac will remain a mac and that they will be a lot cheaper in the future

PS. To compare salaries and costs in europe and the US is just Stupid...

OS X os only as good as it is because Apple has the full control over both code and hardware and that is why "it just works" I use OS X because it rarely screws up and is easy to use. I think that if you force apple to make an OS that is compatible with every intel x86 machine out there the quality of the OS will be a lot worse..

Yeah, just like 2000, Xp and Vista where all poor and nobody wanted to run them when they were released, due to the amount of hardware they support.

Funnily enough, as the various drivers from each of the manufacturers have improved, so has the OSes stability and acceptability.

Supporting all hardware should not compromise the OS in any way at all, it just requires properly functioning drivers, something Apple do not even have to write.

I have been coming here to these forums for quite awhile now. I am not one to "chat" in forums, but I come here for knowledge. And btw thanks to all the wonderful, smart folks here who have helped me with my hack!!

So I just HAD to post about this, because for years I have said that I felt as though Apple was a monopoly of sorts, and if Bill was doing anything like Steve was doing, there would be a million law suits filed LOL.

Allot of people have thought of Apple as being the "elite, uber super duper computer", and Microsoft as the bad guy. I laugh, the only reason why Macs run so well is because Apple ties their software to their generic hardware. They don't have to try to get it to work with anything else..very simple! Hell anyone could do that right?

Bill was nice enough to make software for all kinds of hardware, and does not tell us what kind of hardware we HAVE to use with his software, or he will throw us in jail!! So the "poor" guy one day decides to make a browser and tie it in with his software, and HOLY COW, BOOM! He is now made out to look like Hitler, and everyone hates him!

Good grief, Steve has been doing stuff like that for years, and no one says nothing??

I was so happy to see him make the huge mistake of selling OSX seperate I knew that there were going to be problems when he was going to sell that software and try and tell people what to do with it I paid my hard earned cash for some software and I will do with it what I please! EULA SMULA!!

Besides, I never liked Steve since we were in first grade together, and he put a booger on a cough drop and gave it to me!

Peace out!

~Gokkon

Apple prices for Macintosh hardware are quite reasonably and in some cases below Dell, despite being of much higher quality and design.

That's not enterely true. When I bought my Dell XPS M1330 it cost me about US$1,600 with a 3 year support contract. Apple with the same configuration plus the 3 year support it cost $2,300.

So clearly Apple is more expensive.

Regards

Love it or leave it!

So much rethorica. I really do not get these Apple only guys? Why they are here in the first place?

If you defend Apple, vidgameking, then why you are in this forum?, why do you make a hackintosh in the first place?

It is clear to me that in this forum, people come to make and use hackintosh.

Apple sell OS X in a box, that box is called a MAC. They sell their OS on Discs too so if you own a mac you can install a clean copy of it on a older machine who was sold with an older OS on it ( think there is a law somewhere telling Apple they must some how, but im not sure).

Canon, HP, Lexmark sell their box called a PRINTER, They sell their INK on CARTRIDGES too, so if you own a PRINTER you can install a FRESH NEW INK SET on the older PRINTER which you bought.

Both the OS and the Mac are Apple products sold by Apple. The whole idea with apple's Mac/OS concept are that they should stay togheter.

Both the INK and the PRINTER are Canon, HP, Lexmark products, sold by them. The whole idea with Canon's etc.. PRINTER/INK concept are that they should stay together.

I don't like the idea of apple (or anyone) telling me what to do with things I bought. But I don't like the thought of someone telling me I can't do what I want with something I have made and created either...

I don't like the idea of Canon (or anyone) telling me what to do with things I bought. If I were Canon, I won't like the thought of someone telling me I can't add chips to my cartridges to prevent refill either...

OS X os only as good as it is because Apple has the full control over both code and hardware and that is why "it just works" I use OS X because it rarely screws up and is easy to use. I think that if you force apple to make an OS that is compatible with every intel x86 machine out there the quality of the OS will be a lot worse...

Canon's INK is only as good as it is because Canon has full control over both INK and PRINTER and that is why "it just works". People use CANON's INK because it rearely screws up "CANON's PRINTER" and is easy to use. I think that if you force Canon to make an INK that is compatible with every PRINTER out there the quality of the INK will be alot worse.

I don't know anything about laws in the US so we will just have to see what happens, but there is two sides of this in the moral perspective. The right to do what you want with something you bought and the right to decide what you want to do with your own created products...

There is a law in the US, called

"The Magnusson-Moss Warranty Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, Subparagraph C, Section 101"

that protects the consumer, and specifically allows the consumer to mix and match "compatible parts" from any source, to service and operate any machine or equipment he owns.

It makes it "legal" to refill your Canon printer with cheaper "non-Canon Ink".

Although it makes Canon unhappy.

To protect their turf, Printer manufacturer's have started adding "Chips" to their cartridges to make them difficult to refill.

So then another law was introduced to prevent manufactures from adding the chips

http://www.geek.com/eu-bans-clever-chips-i...ter-cartridges/

because refilling is better for the environment that throwing away plastic into landfills etc...

yet this battle is still going on...

What ever happens I hope a mac will remain a mac and that they will be a lot cheaper in the future

Mac will never be cheaper until there's competition in mac hardware manufacture.

Apple's practice is "anti-competitive", but not unique, many high tech co.s try to do the same things, like the printer manufacturers etc..

The battle between the consumer and the producer is ongoing.

"The various makers of inkjet printers have been particularly nasty in trying to protect their market. As most of you know, they have a razor/razor blades model of doing business. They sell the printers cheap, and then load up on selling you expensive ink. The ink, you'll recall, costs more than expensive perfume, whiskey, or vintage champagne. Apparently, if you filled an Olympic-sized swimming pool with inkjet ink at retail prices, it would cost you $6 billion (yes, with a . On top of that, there have been reports (disputed by the printer companies) that many of the ink cartridges are designed to "expire" before the ink is actually gone -- boosting revenue even more."

http://techdirt.com/articles/20060621/2259218.shtml

The expensive Mac/OSX is like the expensive PRINTER/Ink situation again. Only when "compatibles" are allowed do we get reduction in pricing. And the law allows compatibles, depending on how you read that law. But, the new "Box Wrap" law puts a kink in the consumer armour;

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/04/1944210

The producer want's to be overpaid. The consumer wants a fair price.

http://www.epson.co.jp/e/newsroom/2008/news_20080115.htm

When is the price fair?

When I'm in consumer mode, my thoughts are to pay no more than is necessary.

When I'm in producer mode, my thoughts are to charge no less than I can for my product or service.

You can save up to 95% of the cost of operating a PRINTER by using aftermarket INK !!!

Yeah, that's NINTY-FIVE PERCENT.

Does that sink in?

Let's do the numbers.

A set of 4 oz (120 ml) bottles of good compatible INK costs $30 USD.

The typical ink cartridge takes 10 ml- 13 ml to refill. It actually takes 10 ml, since 3 ml remains in the sponge etc..

That's 120/10 = 12 times, or 120/13 9.2 times, I can refill my printer with aftermarket ink.

The Official Ink costs about $80 per ink set to buy retail, that's 12 x $80 = $960 for which I only actually pay $30

using aftermarket ink. So I save $960 - $30 = $930; which is 100 x 930/960 = 96.875%

Why should the consumer pay such a high markup for something simple like ink?

Is the Original Manufacture's ink so much better than the aftermarket product?

If the OEM ink is really so much better, it wouldn't need legal protection, people would just buy the better ink

because of the inherent "value" in the product.

It's the exact same argument with the Mac. If Apple really produces such a better hardware product, who would buy

the cheap alternative? If the only people that buy cheap, are those who "can't afford" a true MAC, then that is simply

an untapped market that Apple is ignoring, and why not let someone else benefit by supplying that market with

product to fill their need?

Apple isn't interested in cheap macs, but there are consumers that are!

See?

Anti-competitive is anti-consumer.

Thats {censored}. If apple loses then my OEM manufacturer will have a legal opeion to develop an OSX driver for my network card. Otherwise if they can't sell it to people that don't run OSX they have no interest to develop a driver for it, its that simple. Apple wouldn't have to touch my driver, the OEM would, if they care to sell it to OSX market. Apple will _still_ make Macintoshes, Apple will still only sell support for Macintoshes but other OEMs would have a legal ways of making drivers for their hardware thus eliminating the need for reverse engeneered community drien kekxts.

You are operating on two very false assumptions:

1. That it is illegal for your network card manufacturer to write drivers, bundles, kexts, etc. It is not. Many equipment manufacturers do this and sell their products for Macs. You don't see it much lately, since Apple has a great relationship with many of these companies and bundles their drivers to make the user's experience nicer. ATI could go their own way and write independent drivers you could go and download, but it's nicer for the end-user if Apple distributes them to all Macs for them. Then your users are getting the updates they need, and not having to go check a web site all the time for updates.

2. You believe that Apple discourages the creation of kexts, etc. This is also false. Apple's own developer tools contain example code to help developers learn to write new device drivers. Webcams, PCI devices, other peripherals. It all makes the Mac better.

The only thing Apple discourages is modification of their own software, which verifies it's own environment's integrity at startup (in much the same way a POST functions) to ensure that it runs optimally. Yes, this prevents the OS from booting on generic hardware because generic hardware is an unknown. Could Apple choose to support it? Yes. Do they have to? No. Apple has always been a single-widget company. It works for them, and it's the primary reason they are so popular right now.

Remember the Motorola iTunes phone? What a piece of {censored}. There's an example of what you are asking for here. When Apple made the iPhone they didn't license the iPhone OS just to wait for Motorola to make some iPhone hardware. This is why Google's Android will fail. People are getting used to Apple delivering great hardware/software experiences that other collaborations have failed at.

And I keep saying it. Generic PC compatibility is temporary. Apple likes to "revolutionize" every few years so don't expect their computers to fit the generic PC model for very long. That was merely a side effect of the Intel transition to make it smoother. Now that they have the Intel thing going well, and Intel is very eager to make custom thigs for Apple, the game is about to change.

Both the INK and the PRINTER are Canon, HP, Lexmark products, sold by them. The whole idea with Canon's etc.. PRINTER/INK concept are that they should stay together.

I don't like the idea of Canon (or anyone) telling me what to do with things I bought.

Ink and Printers are both hardware. You own both.

Software is different, and is protected differently as intellectual property of it's creator. You license software, you don't own it.

I think that if you force apple to make an OS that is compatible with every intel x86 machine out there the quality of the OS will be a lot worse...

What I don't understand is why some people are presuming that the goal of running OSX on a PC project is for Apple to support all x86 hardware!? The goal is for Apple not telling me what to do with my copy of Leopard as long as I don't modify it. Nobody is asking for their support on unknown hardware. If I buy a copy of Leopard, I presume it's mine now. I have an instruction set that I got with it saying it is only meant to work with Apple hardware. But if I do menage to install it on a PC, I don't want to be a criminal for it. I don't expect support for my system as I know I'm not using software as it was intended. I do expect however not to be treated like a criminal for it as I gave my money for a product that I feel I have the right to use the way I want.

Printer and ink comparison is right on the spot.

You are operating on two very false assumptions:

 

1. That it is illegal for your network card manufacturer to write drivers, bundles, kexts, etc. It is not. Many equipment manufacturers do this and sell their products for Macs. You don't see it much lately, since Apple has a great relationship with many of these companies and bundles their drivers to make the user's experience nicer. ATI could go their own way and write independent drivers you could go and download, but it's nicer for the end-user if Apple distributes them to all Macs for them. Then your users are getting the updates they need, and not having to go check a web site all the time for updates.

 

2. You believe that Apple discourages the creation of kexts, etc. This is also false. Apple's own developer tools contain example code to help developers learn to write new device drivers. Webcams, PCI devices, other peripherals. It all makes the Mac better.

Yes I'll grant you that Apple doesn't make it "illegal" to develop drivers (kexts) etc. for OSX. I misformulated my thought saying "to legally alow them to write drivers". You are right. Apple doesn't make it illegal to author code for your hardware.

The point was: the OEM will NOT write a driver if his product doesn't SELL to the OSX market. If it does sell, they will write the drivers. I'm sure their engeneers who constructed the hardware bare a certain edge when it comes to the competence to write drivers compared to the community. Not to mention the financial compensation.

And I keep saying it. Generic PC compatibility is temporary. Apple likes to "revolutionize" every few years so don't expect their computers to fit the generic PC model for very long. That was merely a side effect of the Intel transition to make it smoother. Now that they have the Intel thing going well, and Intel is very eager to make custom thigs for Apple, the game is about to change.

That remains to be seen. You realise the costs of developping a _different_ (ie. NON x86) processor architecture which is not binary compatible with x86 (like RISC or MIPS processors) would be enormous? Also, _if_ Apple loses this case and the court demands that they not develop code with malicious intentions of locking out competition (ie. their EFI implemetation) I think the same would apply to Intel if they ever thought to add some hardware to the processors they sell to Apple which would potentially break x86 compatibility.

"PS. To compare salaries and costs in europe and the US is just Stupid..."

No it is not stupid, because in USA the price of Macs is very close to that of PCs and in Europe Macs are a lot more expensive than PCs So when we Europeans say that Macs are expensive you think we are exaggerating, but in reality we see them as a ripoff (at least as far as hardware cost is concerned). No hardware can justify the high costs of Macs in Europe.

Why the top of the range Macbook air costs 2598$ in US and 3469$ in Switzlerland (both prizes from Apple store)? Almost 1000$ more for the same exact product.

Ipod Touch 32gb 499$ US - 650$ Switzerland, etc... etc... etc..

If you go on the Dell US and Dell Switzerland site, you will find out that the XPS1530 as a lot better default hardware (320gb vs 160gb - 4gb vs 3gb - 8600 vs 8400) in Switzerland than in US and only for 100$ more, so it's probably cheaper in Switzerland than in US.

Maybe some arguments of us Europeans can seem exaggerated to you but they are our reality. When someone tells me he bought a Mac I immediately know he got ripped off as far as hardware and computer performance is concerned. Then there is only the "Mac experience" factor but depending on the product that experience costs you a lot of money...

So to come back to the discussion, If I am not mistaken most of the OSX86 scene devs/contributors are Europeans, why do you think it is so? maybe because the Mac is seen as a luxury item and it's a challenge to prove that OSX can run just as good if not faster on a 250$ homebuilt PC...

So to come back to the discussion, If I am not mistaken most of the OSX86 scene devs/contributors are Europeans, why do you think it is so?

That's why most of the devs in this area are outside the US.

Apple isn't interested in cheap macs, but there are consumers that are!

Then make a better one. I am interested in a $1500 Porsche, but guess what...

See?

 

Anti-competitive is anti-consumer.

Well that's Apple's problem.

I can't see it as a matter of fact.

So if I make a good piece of software hordes of people like you would jump on me to do things what they want on my software.

Don't like it? Fine. That's your problem. But Apple has the right of not giving a sh|t. Because it has more than enough customers without you.

OS X is not open so learn to live with it.

And if you compare an operating system to an ink cartridge, you have a lot to learn.

Then make a better one. I am interested in a $1500 Porsche, but guess what...

Well, there are such things as fake Ferraris!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/2...onalcrime.italy

People who buy fake Ferrari cars know they are fake, and buy them to get the "look and feel" of a Ferrari

without the "look and feel" of the real Ferrari "tag price." They know what they are getting. And that's

what they want. Many people don't know the difference, so when they drive around their neighborhood

they feel cool.

And happy they kept their bank account!

So if I make a good piece of software hordes of people like you would jump on me to do things what they want on my software.

Keep your software. I don't want it. I've got my own which I've modified to fit my purpose.

Don't like it? Fine. That's your problem. But Apple has the right of not giving a sh|t. Because it has more than enough customers without you.

OS X is not open so learn to live with it.

I like it. I see no problem. My Hackint0sh works just fine. I don't have to call Apple for support.

And I'm not selling modified Leopards to anyone. So , no infringement on enforeable anything is involved at all.

And if you compare an operating system to an ink cartridge, you have a lot to learn.

It's actually the other way around, the INK is like the MAC, and the PRINTER is like the OSX.

It's the PRINTER AND OSX that are given away in order to make profits on the INK and the MAC, see?

That's how to look at it.

The INK and the MAC are both "LOW TECH" products, oversold with high price tags, when the real production

costs are in the PRINTER and OSX development.

That's why Apple chose Open Source to help with their development. Because that is the complex part of the whole

computer thing. But, the money is in the low tech, not in the brainy part of the system.

Yes, I have a lot to learn. Been doing this thing called learning for a long time. Still, need more input.

i find everyone here with a false assumtion of what copywrite laws and EULU really is .. copywrite laws are here for one reason and that is not to protect you and give you invisible rights to do what ever you want.... the software is never yours its there to protect the developers and their hardwork ... im sorry but its way harder for apple to come up with the whole OS then it is for you to reverse engineer things

and the EULA is well an agreement and verbale agreements can hold up here in the states with viable proof so EULA has proof in the fact that you have OSX installed

so this means you will adhear to the EULA and copywrites

meaning that any and i do mean any judge will side with apple with that in mind if they didnt that would be disbarment in the states

you guys have no writes to anything this includes any copies of windows you have ... to an extent even any copies of linux you have

the best thing you could pry say do is keep quit and try and discourage stuff like pystar cause there the ones thats gonna make apple care that this community is here

the best thing you could pry say do is keep quit and try and discourage stuff like pystar cause there the ones thats gonna make apple care that this community is here

Psystar case is important to get clarification on what the law allows. So, it's good to encourage Psystar to challenge the system, to find out what is acceptable today.

What is acceptable, i.e. the rules, change all the time.

So, there's a need to constantly test and check what rules, and understanding of those rules, are acceptable in the current environment.

@jaez ..... ."

Psystar case is important to get clarification on what the law allows

its an american copywrite it is a law thats why its called a Copywrite Law

its not called get outta jail free law ... making it so every bum can have his cake and eat it too

its an american copywrite it is a law thats why its called a Copywrite Law

Some confusion on what copywrite law is.

I buy a book written by Steve Jobs. It's copywrited by Jobs.

But, I can tear the pages out of that book, re-order the pages, put the last chapter in front of the book,

remove the index from the back and put it in front, place the table of contents at the back instead, etc..

then I staple that book back together, with the modifications I've made, and put that book on my bookshelf.

No copywrite law is broken.

Yet, I've modified the product.

Copywrite only comes in when I try to make profit from selling other peoples works, not when I'm modifying

that work for my own use, after I've paid for that work. Copywrite ensures the creater gets compensated

for his efforts. The creater, Steve Jobs, loses nothing when I modify the book I bought from him. He's got

his cash already. And what does he care what I do with the book afterwords, as long as I'm not making copies

to sell without his permission. See? That's copywrite.