Psystar Back in the Fight Against Apple

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Even though I would never use OS X, I am happy to see Psystar putting up a fight against the big dudes. Apple just wants to be the only company out there providing consumers with OS X. You don't see Microsoft getting all pissed when people buy Windows and install it on a custom built machine.
 
That's because that's what Microsoft wants you to do. They couldn't care less what hardware you run it on.
 
meh, I don't really care which way it goes. If i'm gonna by a computer with OSX, im gonna buy it from apple. there is a reason why most of their computers are so stable, all the hardware is the same for the most part so their OS works perfectly with the specified hardware.

So even if Psystar wins, which I don't think it will due to the EULA stating that you can't install OSX on non-apple hardware, I still wouldn't buy one from Psystar. Their prices aren't that much cheaper anyway.
 
Hey hypocrites, remember when MS was sued because they strong armed PC manufacturers like Dell, HP, etc to sell only Windows?
 
Apple build a closed market.
Banning from IPhone Apple Store every software making competition with his own OS. Banning Google and others big name.

Something with the Mac Hardware. It's a PC with specified hardware. Specified hardware that you pay over the current market price.

I think Apple build an Antitrust case with theirs products and we should stop them.

If you read all article about Apple on Toms, you can see... Apple trying to stop every user to use their software incorrectly (for them).
Actualy, if you can go somewhere else then "Apple Store" is BAD.

Basicly, if you jailbreak your IPhone, your a big hacker and you have destroyed their integrity and their phone tower.... Next step, they'll send policeman after people who have an IPhone jailbreaked...

Apple is actualy a worst Antitrust case than ever.
 
I have wondered why the EU has been raping Microsoft with all these "anti-trust" suits, but they do nothing against Apple and their forcing(or attempting to force) customer to use their hardware with software the customer purchased(namely, the Mac OS).

If Microsoft did that, the EU would go into a full fledged "emo" rage. Hey, I just found a copy of OSX, I think it is time to install it on my non-Apple machine.
 
[citation][nom]montezuma[/nom]I have wondered why the EU has been raping Microsoft with all these "anti-trust" suits, but they do nothing against Apple and their forcing(or attempting to force) customer to use their hardware with software the customer purchased(namely, the Mac OS).[/citation]
It's not OSX customers that are being targeted by Apple, that's why you don't see them shutting down the various homebrew Hackintosh groups and hobbyists. What they're going after is other companies reselling their product against Apple's licensing terms, for a profit. Imagine if someone was buying up a bunch of DVD movies, transferring them to VHS, and then selling those tapes for a profit. That's kind of what Psystar's doing with OSX.
I dislike Apple's attitude about OSX only shipping on Apple hardware, but I also don't think Psystar has a leg to stand on in defending what they're doing either. For me this is kind of like watching two jerks get into a fight.
 
People like to complain about Apple's prices but according to Consumer Reports and others, they have the most reliable machines. And the build quality is superb - better than you get from any other large manufacturer. None of this comes cheap.

You may want to remember that Apple ][ clones predated all the "Windows" machines (that used to be called PC clones after the IBM PC they mimicked). And for a while Apple even licensed third party Mac clones. When they switched operating systems to OS/X - based on a BSD Unix variant - they released the kernel, and have also released their Webkit modifications to the Linux Konqueror web browser core. What they are really protecting is the GUI, the same way M$ protects the Windows GUI.

Apple's policy of insisting on only running OS/X on their hardware may or may not stand the legal challenge. However, I'm more concerned about M$'s efforts to control the market than I am about Apple's attempts to enforce its license.

Apple at least constantly innovates while M$ seems to sit back until forced to move. Remember the long period of IE6 before Firefox forced M$ to upgrade their browser? And how about the long wait for an update to Windows XP (we're still waiting for a real upgrade)? M$ only released Vista because it was so far behind everyone else. Even Windows 7 will be playing catch up to OS/X and Linux.

Let's not forget M$'s corrupting of ISO to get their docx format accepted despite the fact that ISO rules disqualified it.

And then there is M$'s legal challenge against Tom Tom for using their FAT32 file system. The same case can be made against every USB key maker. On the "evil" scale, Apple barely registers compared to the "great Satan". :)
 
I am actually a fan of apple products. I have a couple but I have also avoided a couple because its apple's way or the highway. Regardless of whether i like a company or on, I always like it when a the little guy calls bullshit on their practices and is willing to take it to court.
Bring on the clones.
 
[citation][nom]jw_37[/nom]Hey hypocrites, remember when MS was sued because they strong armed PC manufacturers like Dell, HP, etc to sell only Windows?[/citation]

No - strangely, it has been only Win or Linux and Dell and HP do that. We were in favor of it when it started happening, and MS isn't worried about it.

I'm against ANY strong-arming. I'm against the strong-armer portraying themselves as "open" and as the good guy. . .
 
Apple doesn't have a monopoly on MacOS X, just like MS doesn't have a monopoly on Windows. You can't have a monopoly on your own product, only on a product class/market. The EU doesn't go after Apple for MacOSX because it's less than 5% market share, ie, Apple has no leverage to impose its commercial decisions on the computer market. MS has close to 95%, anything they do WILL have a strong impact. Now if you want to hit Apple for an antithrust case, the iPod/iTunes/iTS is a much better bet (just give it a little more time).
On Psystar; they're leeches, period. They want to profit from Apple brand name and marketing to squeeze a few bucks out of greedy and incompetent customers. Nothing they provide cannot be done by relatively simple home-made hacking . Plus, they're plundering the effort of the Hackintosh community, people Apple never went after. until now. GG Psystar...
 
[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]Imagine if someone was buying up a bunch of DVD movies, transferring them to VHS, and then selling those tapes for a profit. [/citation]
What exactly is wrong here? You pay for DVD movies, you pay for VHS tapes, you put effort to produce something and you want to make profit on your effort. I think all companies are doing this every day, buy supplies/parts put some labor and produce new product and sells it for profit.
Your example is incorrect because it implies that you get single DVD and making multiple copies and this is copyright violation, but Psystar is not copying, they are buying retail box of OS X for each computer they sell.
 
[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]What they're going after is other companies reselling their product against Apple's licensing terms, for a profit. Imagine if someone was buying up a bunch of DVD movies, transferring them to VHS, and then selling those tapes for a profit. That's kind of what Psystar's doing with OSX.[/citation]
Your analogy is incomplete. Psystar is only making 1-to-1 "copies". Your analogy implies they bought 1 DVD and made 100 copies, but Psystar buys 100 copies of OSX and makes 100 computers. They aren't cheating Apple out of any money with regards to OSX. Apple is upset because they don't get to the corresponding hardware sales.

Imagine if Sony Pictures sued you because you bought the latest movie release on Blu-Ray, but played it on a JVC player instead of a Sony player. That's what Apple is doing here.
 
A Mac OS X that is no longer tied to Apple hardware would be a nice thing to see. It would mean that Dell or HP could then make a license agreement with Apple and sell their machines with the OS preinstalled. It would mean that Apple and Microsoft would finally be competing on even ground.

My only caveats are this.

1) As soon as Microsoft has to compete with Apple on the same hardware platform, Microsoft will shalve all future development for Mac OS X applications and suites, such as Office.

2) Large holes in driver-level support for hardware outside of Apple standard reference will become very apparent. Apple has been developing their own "drivers" (in BSD Unix, these are essentially kernel extensions) for their own hardware, to include any devices on the mainboard as well as any PCI or USB peripherals. Some third party developers are experienced in driver development for OS X, but not nearly enough to deal with the multitude of hardware available out there for Windows. Hell, not even Microsoft can keep up with the driver development, as has been demonstrated by Vista's lack of key peripheral drivers from third party developers.

3) Unstable hardware will give Apple an (even worse) name. The unwashed masses will blame pure hardware issues (ie, bad memory, faulty components, mishmashed hardware) on buggy unstable software from Apple. M$ has dealt with this for years, and while a large number of BSODs are verifiably attributable to bad programming, a large number of them are actually attributable to bad hardware. Apple uses near top-end hardware in their computers (which is less likely to have defects), while Dell (and other PC integrators) only use comparable hardware in their comparably-priced machines, while paying bottom dollar for their low end hardware that people snap up like hotcakes because it is such an unbelievable deal.
 
Imagine if Sony Pictures sued you because you bought the latest movie release on Blu-Ray, but played it on a JVC player instead of a Sony player. That's what Apple is doing here.
Click to expand...

Except Sony would be selling you the Blu-Ray cheap, provided you only play it on a Sony player.
Apple doesn't sell "retail" version of MacOSX, only upgrades for existing customers. They require a Mac, which all come with a version of MacOS. Their only fault is not to require an install DVD to run the boxed version (like MS does for upgrade).
 
The thing that really bothers me is that Apple says OS X can only be installed on Apple based hardware. But when i look at an Apple computer's specs, i see an Intel processor and nVidia graphics. What's so different other than the motherboard being proprietary. I think Apple should be like Windows and sell OS X as a stand alone operating system for people who are interested in installing the OS on a $400 desktop.
 
It's not OSX customers that are being targeted by Apple, that's why you don't see them shutting down the various homebrew Hackintosh groups and hobbyists. What they're going after is other companies reselling their product against Apple's licensing terms, for a profit. Imagine if someone was buying up a bunch of DVD movies, transferring them to VHS, and then selling those tapes for a profit. That's kind of what Psystar's doing with OSX.
I dislike Apple's attitude about OSX only shipping on Apple hardware, but I also don't think Psystar has a leg to stand on in defending what they're doing either. For me this is kind of like watching two jerks get into a fight.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but Your IQ has a logic deficiency
 
Dear God Tom's readers are the worst PC/M$ fanboys I've ever seen. Whenever anyone has anything positive to say about Apple and it's products they get the "thumbs down", even when the poster is unbias and uses both pc's and mac's and has something constructive to say.

...hey look! abunch of thumbs downs!...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom