Psystar says it is "definitely still shipping" its Mac clones
By Donald Melanson 
posted August 14th 2008 12:29PM
posted August 14th 2008 12:29PM
It looks like Psystar isn't about to let a little lawsuit stop it from selling its noise-ridden, OSX-running computers, with the company now saying that it is "definitely still shipping" its Mac clones, and that it also is making its restore utilities that "enhance the computing experience" available to its customers at no extra cost. As Information Week reports, the company also recently enlisted Palo Alto-based law firm Carr & Ferrell to help it out with its current predicament. As those that follow such things may recall, they've actually tussled with Apple before, and coaxed out a settlement.
Tony, don't be a fool! It is not stealing to BUY something and then use it how every you like. Since when did violating a terms of service agreement constitute stealing? You simply don't know what you are talking about. Psystar is selling an authentic copy of Mac OS with each computer they sell.
Why should people punctuate questions with question marks.
OK, aside from all the ridiculous cries of "it's ugly", does anyone actually own one of these? Are they really that noisy?
I hope, if Psystar wins of course, that this will open up OSX to be able to get licensing on ANY hardware. If I could OSX on my had built (not hackintosh) system I would be very happy. I need OSX for work, I also need Windows for gaming, currently the only option is a MacPro for me. I would like some more options.
This is what happens when you clone a pice of crap. You get another pice of crap, and the same stink that comes with it. Who cares...
You Sir are a retard.
Well at least you were polite enough to call me Sir before you call me a retard. Thank you! =D
hahaha, I think he just told you with that comment! XD
Have you ever seen a piece of mac hardware there in no denying they are solid computers, but they are in the "workstation " class. Not the desktop class. I wish I had a MacPro with a 3.4Ghz Core 2 in it instead of xeons.
People somehow think that Psystar's actions will open OS X.
Sadly, I think it will do the opposite. If Apple can't shut down Psystar, then I expect Apple to lock down the OS in a much more draconian fashion.
So be sure to thank Psystar if you are forced to activate OS X in the future.
For those that think the Psystar is in the right. If Apple cannot enforce upgrade licenses, expect to pay FULL PRICE for your copies of ALL software. Office, CS4, Windows, etc.
Psystar took an upgrade license but claims it bought a "retail" copy then went and hacked it. I don't think they will prevail, but pray they don't because we will all be the losers in that scenario.
I'll thank anyone that gets people to stop using OSX
You lost me at "If Apple cannot enforce upgrade licenses, expect to pay FULL PRICE for your copies of ALL software. Office, CS4, Windows, etc." Because last I checked, Apple didn't make Office, CS4, or Windows. So how is Apples lack of enforcing an upgrade policy going to change the way that other companies have been enforcing upgrade policies for years? This may come as a shock, but Apple doesn't decided the software policy for the rest of the world.
Also last I checked the retail discs of OSX were not upgrades. They do in fact install just fine on a bare machine, given the fact that said machine meet Apples hardware requirements which seem to be cutting off more and more older Apple hardware with each 10.x release. If this practice is not allowed in Apples EULA because the software is considered an "upgrade", I wouldn't know because like most people I never bothered to read it. I just slapped a copy of panther on an old G3 because the original HD died and I never got the original restore media for it.
Mostly agreed. If Apple can't legally prevent retail copies of OS X being installed on non-Mac hardware then I'm fairly sure they'll look to methods to ensure that this doesn't happen in the future. That said, I also have confidence that the hacking community will take up the challenge and we'll end up with the crappy Windows Activation or some such.
Again, it's a minority ruining things for the rest of us. If you don't want to run OS X on a Mac, sod off and use something else.
Apple had already licensed Mac OS ( old ones ) to Clone makers, but this was when Steeve Jobs wasn't working at Apple. Now if Microsoft wanted to sold exclusively his Windows with the hardware they wanted, they would face a thousand of lawsuits from everyone.
OS X is a operating system and it's working on far more hardware than Apple want to. OS X is the only operating system that is confined to their hardware because it's that way that Apple want that works. Others operating system inc luding mobile ones work on more than the hardware of the company that created it. But it's sure theses company are selling the right to get the operating system on the system.
So Apple should be forced to let others companies to buy rights to preinstall the operating system. After I suppose that the compatibility with the hardware would be supported by the the company who created the clone, and not Apple. The only thing I don't have a anwser is that the stability controlled by Apple: If a software works good on Apple but have difficulty with clones, is it the software that won't get his OSX certification or the Clone Computer?
And remember if Apple is continuing to catch a bigger part of Marker, HP, Dell, Acer, Toshiba, Lenovo and others will do pressure to have the rights to sell the operating system, and these company have more power than Apple in court. More than that, there is almost no license that got his real power in court, commercial laws will be in front of a simple License.
You bring up an interesting point. I think the risks Apple takes in this lawsuit have to do with the legal concept of "Fair Market Value". For anyone without a college education, please stop reading now as you will probably try to use FMV in a literal sense and much up the conversation.
If it is PROVEN that apple is subsidizing the cost of the software through overcharging for the hardware there may be a significant accounting issue. I believe the hurdle to proving this is very high, but possible none the less.
Consider the tax implications if Apple is unable to imemdiatelyrecognize revenue for hardware sales under GAAP due to subsidation issue. This is similar to what they are seeing in some cases with the iPhone subsidies. I believe there were a couple of European countries that did not allow for subsidized phones so Apple had to sell them outright (at a higher price).
I assume Apple considers this risk to be insignificant, or it may in fact not exist at all.
"So Apple should be forced to let others companies to buy rights to preinstall the operating system."
Really? Why? Just because other companies do this doesn't mean that it has to apply to everyone writing an OS. Linux is given away for free so surely Microsoft should give Windows away for free? The actions of one company does not mean that others have to do the same. Everyone is free to choose how they want to sell their products and the market will dictate which products do well.
Ok for the price of OSX that could explain why Macs Intel are so expensive is not a probable explication. I would do a comparaison that can't work for one reason and it's the huge quantity of Windows sold where Microsoft can cut the margin and still pay the basic fees that are similar to OS X ( developpers ). Mac OS X is preinstalled on every Mac Intel but Windows is preinstalled on almost every PC. Mac is about 2x time more costly than PC. Also with Linux, we seen that Windows cost almost nothing to preinstall ( on some PC it's about 50$ more ), so I don't why the OS X could explain a so high price for the same hardware when Microsoft cause almost no increase in price. Apple really like having big margin and when IBM was to cut the low price of processor it sold to Apple because of NG consoles that have the same processor, Apple made the switch to Intel.
Apple should be forced to license it not because others companies do that, but because it's a complete ecosystem that many others use. Yes it's hard to say that someone can't own totally his products but it's something that you must do for a community. There are many examples, Windows is one. Microsoft can't do one they want with it because it's a ecosystem, samething with Office binaries like .doc . Today it the creator of Internet could not force everyone to use the modem he wants. Imagine the creator of the TV impose his that you must buy his televisions. But others TV can run it. Is it better to have the TV you want or the one that is legal and overcharged? The problem today is how software patents work because it's more complicated to apply patents correctly. And in this reality it's not true that everyone can choose how to sell his products. Again this time, if you take Windows, it's not true and we see it almost everyday. Microsoft could not sell his Windows for 2000$ because everyone would sue it and more than that, it's sure that they would win. There is two patents logic: One is that after a number of years everyone can use it with almost no restriction and for free ( the version of that time ( old ) ) or to license to others your work. There is case where a company wouldn't want to license his technology or license it for to more money. The FTC and the EU equivalent forced that company to revise his price and license it was the only one that had a similar technology.
And one last thing, now there is studies that are saying that Apple hardware is almost 2x more expensive than the same normal PC hardware. It's costly for the same Intel Processor, the same graphic chipset and other hardware
Dude your getting a dell! (with mac parts)
The BOTTOM LINE:
This issue can be compared to MP3 or DivX players. The difference is that this computer is advertised as being a Mac Clone. Since Apple clearly spells out in the EULA (End User License Agreement) for OSX that it is only legal to have it installed on Apple computers it is ILLEGAL. So advertising a product specifically for a use which is illegal is not going to fly with the court. Apple won't settle and this company will lose.
FURTHERMORE...
Apple's price point for its operating system also takes into account the sale of their hardware. Yes, the hardware is slightly more expensive but the fact that the software can be optimized for a small range of hardware is a big part of what makes it more reliable. How much is your time worth anyway?
OSX on a PC?
Nope, never.. at least not legally. Though I believe this battle is all over but the crying I think Apple will have difficulty as the price of hardware continues to drop and Linux (and maybe Windows) continues to improve.
It's only said to be illegal in the EULA so only in Apple's eyes. How exactly do you believe that will stand up in court of law?! :\
phelps cooks his eggs on a psystar
I'm still laughing at the sense of entitlement so many people think they have. Everybody here seems to recognize how good OS X is - if they didn't, nobody would care about Psystar. And so because people seem to like OS X so much, they think it should just run on any hardware they want it to, and not just the hardware Apple says it can run on.
LOL at all of you. The arrogance is astounding. Where do you get off thinking you're entitled to use somebody else's OS on any hardware you want? It's their OS, they get to decide which hardware it runs on. Oh, you don't like that?
BOO FREAKIN' HOO. Cry more, you ignorant mouth breathers. While you're at it, why don't you cry about how PS3 games don't work on XBoxes? It's the same damn thing, Sony gets to decide which systems PS3 games run on. Somehow you go ballistic about Apple not licensing OS X out, but not that Sony doesn't make PS3 games compatible with other hardware. Why not? Your sense of entitlement should be telling you that you can run any software on any hardware that you want, because you think all companies exist to do whatever you want them to do.
If you don't like it, make your own awesome OS and allow it to run on every platform. Then it will be your choice to allow that to happen.
You Sir, are correct.
Ps, Running Mac OS X86. :D
"If you don't like it, make your own awesome OS and allow it to run on every platform. Then it will be your choice to allow that to happen."
They did already, it's called UNIX. Then came Linux and BSD... oh wait.
Chris: I said awesome OS, as in one that EVERYBODY wants to use. Everybody wants to use OS X, and this thread (and companies like Psystar, and everybody who supports them) proves it. Despite only being "allowed" to run on one kind of hardware, there's still more people using OS X than Unix/Linux. There's even more people who want to use OS X but don't want to buy a Mac, and it's the morons who feel that they're entitled to be able to use OS X on any hardware they want that I'm addressing here.
If everybody wanted to run Unix, they would be. Obviously that's not the case.
Zak:
Do your homework, son! The only thing that makes OSX remotely worth while is that it comes from BSD. After you finish catching up with the rest of the class, your next assignment is to find out where BSD comes from!
Chris: Are you just a complete moron or something? Why do you respond to me when you don't read what I'm saying? I know it's based on BSD. So does everybody else, which is one reason people want to use it. Duh? And as far as why OS X is worthwhile, it's because of Apple's UI. If BSD was that great by itself, everybody would be using BSD and not other flavors of unix, linux, OS X or Windows. Is that not obvious to you, or are you just oblivious to reality? Holy crap, get a clue.
The lack of compatibility between PS3 and XBox games is a horrible example. They simply don't work on one another's systems. OSX will run on other hardware (Psystar, for example).
Maybe this is more like if someone made a system which ran XBox games, and started selling that system pre-bundled with XBox software.
@Chris
Actually, the OS X kernel only BSD for functions like networking and the file system. The scheduling and memory management is handled by the Mach microkernel and Apple provides it's own I/O kit for attaching devices. FreeBSD is definitely in there but only as part of the kernel.
http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html
Where and how is Pystar getting the copies of OS X?
the store?
Who says Everyone wants to use it? How do you know Psystar doesn't just really Hate mac for overpricing their crap, and also hate MSoft? Since mac is ridiculously overpriced it's never going to actually compete with Msoft. If more companies like psystar existed it might be more available to the masses allowing it to compete on a larger scale. Msoft would only own businesses with more than 20 or so people do to it's cost effectiveness.
I know both OS's fairly well, and I'd have to admit I'm much more of a Microsoft fan than Mac. Once you actually learn how to use the computer it's Much more friendly when things don't work. And no matter What OS you use, you Will have problems where things just aren't working. That's just do to people making software and not doing it perfectly.
And who says Macs are that much better looking? Remember the first imacs? Trendy yes, pretty, no. Look at them now and say their pretty without lying. What I'll say for Mac is they make a solid case for some of their products. The inside is well designed, although since most of the machines can really only be upgraded once or so there's not much point. And most of the people who upgrade their machines are too dumb to do it themselves so they take it to a mac store to have someone else do it, so there doesn't seem to be much of a point to all that effort.
Other manufacturers are doing great jobs designing the insides of cases also. It's just only one of their cases, out of probably 15 or so, is any good. At work on of my dells is great inside, the other model blows chunks (and it's kind of ugly too).
I don't see why Mac doesn't just Not sell the OS and charge a subscription fee to run the software like many other software companies are moving to. that way you always have the newest you can run, if you want it, and they don't have problems with companies like Psystar.
I just hate Apple, the company, for so many reasons so I kind of grin at the fact that someone is trying to stick it to them.
Noise? WTF A 20 dollar case fan and 30 dollar PSU can fix that
Which makes you wonder why Psystar didn't just do that in the first place. It must be because they're so awesome.... or something.
Apple does not need to worry. Anyone that would think about buying one of these would never buy an OEM Apple.
As much as people bash MS, think about this. They let you load Windows it on any hardware you want and they let you run whatever apps you want on both their PC and Mobile OS. It's not OSS but it's not so bad.
Hahahaha! The balls on these guys must be like spacehoppers!
I'd love to see Apple's nazi policies challenged in the courts; anyone else that tried to get away with the stunts they pull would be up for an anti-trust case... and before I recieve the usual slating from the mac-ites; go fuck yourselves, all of you... because I was one of you until I woke up and realised what they're doing.