http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/Dec 16th 2009 1:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/As I understood it, they legally bought copies of OS X. The only 'illegal' deed being done was breaking the security, essentially unlocking the software to be run on non-Apple hardware. It's a shame they lost, and a shame Apple doesn't open OS X to the PC market.]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
Not really, Apple is being smart. They know once they open their software to x86, they are suddenly prone to the issues the PC has, mainly having to support an ever increasingly vast array of different hardware configurations.

Once that happens, apple's claims of 'it just works' dissapear, it opens itself up as a larger target to hackers, and apple suddenly has lost all it's marketing tactics.]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
PsyStar bought a copy of OS X, then imaged it onto multiple PCs. That's one of the reasons they lost.

And if you think Apple should open OS X to the general public, you obviously don't know anything about how Apple makes their money, or why that would be a suicidal thing to do.]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/@(Unverified)
Oh, I understand how Apple makes money and I understand the perils of having a large market share (more unwanted attention, more customer service issues etc). However, I don't work for Apple so I don't really care about that stuff. It's a shame from the perspective of the common computer user who doesn't have the cash to pony up for an over priced piece of equipment.

I didn't know about imaging multiple computers with one license. I'll have to check that out.]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
No... no. No. You don't get it at all. This isn't even close to being about market share. Apple makes their money on HARDWARE. They make money by selling Macs. If Apple opened OS X up to everybody, what do you think would happen to Apple's Mac sales (i.e. their primary source of income)?

That's right. Since most people only care about how cheap something is, they would opt to go with a shittier, cheaper PC to run OS X on instead of buying a Mac. Apple does NOT have the market share to carry themselves on software alone, and that's not what their business model is anyway. Obviously.

Apple has already tried it once, with the Mac clones in the mid 90s. It was a complete disaster and Apple started losing ridiculous amounts of money due to losing sales to clones. Opening OS X up to everybody would be committing financial suicide. It's not going to happen.]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/Actually OSX doesn't have what I'd classify as protection. The main thing that keeps it from running on standard PCs is that it boots from EFI instead of the older PC bios.

What Psystar did was use open source code from the OSX86 project to fool OSX into thinking that it was booting from an EFI computer.

What got them nailed is reselling that PC with the altered version of OSX on the disk, thereby violating Apples copyright. You can not commercially redistribute altered versions of a copyrighted work.

I can't say I feel sorry for Psystar though, since they not only ripped off Apples copyright, but they also violated the OSX86 creators copyright and their Rebel EFI devices seems like a copy of an earlier device called EFI-X.]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
Bah, like any computer "just works." Apple, PC, Lunix, Android, whatever... they all crash and burn from time to time and exhibit compatibility issues.

Apple does not control their software to make things "work" they control it because they make great margins on the computers too. Some people might argue that Apple spends more in design of the computers (each to their own taste), but when we compare actual components... well... come on.

Further, Apple (like Walmart) strong-arms their suppliers into better than market pricing.

All that said, it is their business model. Just don't be fooled to think that there is some higher purpose of making computers that "just work". Long gone is the Apple "Think Different" days. Today, Apple is just another large corporation that uses slick marketing and brute tactics (such as closed ecosystems) to get your money and as much of it as they can get away with. If Apple could sell someone a broken mac, they would - and some of the fanboys probably would buy it too.]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
Sell broken Macs? Oh yeah, that's why Apple spends so much time, effort and money designing computers like the iMac, because they don't care about it so much.

If your reasoning was anywhere close to being true, Apple would use off the shelf parts from Fry's and Newegg and make the cheapest boxes they could possibly make. Instead, they design every part of every Mac they sell, with the exception of the actual standard components like RAM, hard drives and video cards.

That's not easier or cheaper, but they do it anyway. Why? Because they're not interested in selling CRAP. They'll leave that to the HPs, Dells and Gateways of the world.]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/Dec 16th 2009 3:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
They design every part of every Mac they sell except the standard components?

...Hard Drive, Video Card, RAM, Proc... Funny that is basically the entire computer.

Apple uses the same crap that Dell, HP, DIY's and everybody else uses. They just put it inside a 'prettier' box with a higher price tag.

I mean really, why, in order to get a Mac whose specs match/exceed my PC, I would need to spend an extra $1000 on a MacPro?]]>Dec 16th 2009 5:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/Dec 16th 2009 5:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
Really? Then tell me where I can buy an iMac power supply. How about an iMac logic board? How about an iMac case? And funny you should mention a Mac Pro, where can I buy one of those cases? Or a Mac Pro power supply? Or a Mac Pro logic board?

Have you seen the inside of a Mac Pro? The air flows straight through the entire machine from front to back, in horizontally separated zones with no obstructions. You think that would be possible with the standard cube shaped power supply PCs use? No, obviously.

This is why I said Apple designs everything inside each of their Macs, because the insides are actually designed really, really well. How do you think Apple makes a machine like the Mac Pro with 4 HDD bays and 8 cores run not only cool, but almost completely silently too? Without using water cooling?

And finally, if you think Mac Pros cost $1000 more than equivalent PCs, you obviously haven't done any checking and are simply pulling numbers out of your ass. You are aware that Mac Pros use XEON chips, not i7s, right? Spec out a Dell that uses the same processors and has the same ports, and your head will explode when you see the price.]]>Dec 16th 2009 5:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
This isn't rocket science. Apple dangles the carrot of OSX, and they know full well that they don't offer their hardware at competitive pricing. No one, and I mean no one would purchase a Mac at current prices if it were running Ubuntu or Windows. And if you could purchase a nearly identical system in a different case for half the price, Apple's already small niche market would become even smaller as only the dedicated Apple fans would be willing to flush their hard earned money away.

This isn't about having to create additional drivers and the like, as even Michael Dell has approached Steve Jobs and offered to create literal clone PC's with the same industry standard components inside but on a Dell board and Dell case (Apple uses nothing else that is proprietary) and would handle all customer interaction from purchase, to warranty, to support. HP and Dell have already shown that as a big-box supplier their manufacturing and distribution operations are vastly more efficient, with Dell LCDs for example using the exact same LG panel inside as a Cinema display selling for half the cost with more ports and adjustments of the stand.

All Apple would have to do is license out OSX just as Microsoft does to Dell, no more.

Why Apple refuses to do this is blatantly obvious, but why a consumer would support Apple for this is asinine. For a true OSX fan, this would translate into much reduced cost for them, additional hardware/formfactor options from more than just Apple's limited selection, and an increased userbase which can only help third party support. ]]>Dec 16th 2009 7:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
Two things.

1. You are vastly overestimating demand for OS X.
2. With Apple's primary source of income gone, how would they stay in business?

You're right, it's not rocket science, which is why Apple is not going to license OS X.]]>Dec 16th 2009 8:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
I take no issue with a corporation like Apple protecting their interests, but what I don't understand is how some consumer's can be so brainwashed by brand loyalty to applaud the actions of Apple's lawyers that can clearly only be seen to harm consumers interests.

Consumers should be looking out for consumers, not concerned with increasing a corporation's profit margins (unless you own stock).]]>Dec 16th 2009 9:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
For the OS. ]]>Dec 17th 2009 6:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/Dec 17th 2009 9:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
That's a terrible argument. $100 a pop? Are you even listening to yourself? Is that supposed to be better than the $2500 a pop they make on high end MBPs or Mac Pros?

Seriously, how can you not see the difference between a $100 license and a $2500 computer?]]>Dec 17th 2009 5:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/Jan 21st 2010 5:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/Dec 16th 2009 1:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/Dec 16th 2009 1:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
Imagine for a moment that to run Windows 7 you were required to buy a limited selection of computers from Microsoft with a 20-40% "badge markup" on it. Then someone comes along and purchases a copy of Windows 7 and installs it on a computer they put together to sell at more reasonable profit margins, would you really be outraged as a CONSUMER?

Would you really care as a consumer to pursue which criminal didn't force you to buy an overpriced official Microsoft computer to run Windows?

Wouldn't you, as a consumer, be more interested in more reasonable profit margins and freedom in hardware purchase?]]>Dec 16th 2009 7:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/Dec 17th 2009 11:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/Dec 16th 2009 1:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
Specifically, it's a great day for hackintoshers who do it as a hobby. Psystar scumbags put the entire OSX86 project in jeopardy with blatant, profit-motivated infringement.

Apple definitely doesn't like the idea of people loading OSX onto grey boxes, but these are people who are usually not the target demo who are making a decision between buying legit hardware and choosing to go with homebrew PC. The number is very miniscule so Apple tends to ignore them.

In sum, fuck Psystar and the horse they rode on.]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
"Consumers", as you put it, are still free to make hackintoshes on their own, using the OSX86 stuff. As long as you don't try to SELL them, you're fine.]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/Dec 16th 2009 1:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/After I read this comment i started playing that. LOL]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/Dec 16th 2009 2:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
Exactly. This isn't about people making hackintoshes, this is about idiots like Psystar trying to make PROFIT from it. Apple doesn't care that people are making hackintoshes.]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/"Apple doesn't care that people are making hackintoshes."

O RLY?]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
You don't believe me? Then tell me why Apple hasn't sued the OSX86 project yet, or anybody who's built a hackintosh.]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/Dec 16th 2009 2:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
Agreed. IMHO, once you buy a piece of software, that software should be yours to do with what you want as long as it doesn't involve selling copies. Modifying something I own should be within my own rights.]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
Then you shouldn't have a problem with this ruling. Psystar was selling copies. That's the difference.]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/Dec 16th 2009 2:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
You'll have to take that up with the movie industry. ]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
Perhaps if the ruling laid out any protection for the consumer. The ruling takes apple 1 step closing to being able to shut down stuff like osx86. IMO psystar was basically selling a service, if you wanted to save the money and do it yourself it was totally possible. Psystar didn't pirate the copies, they simply modified copies they legally obtained, and then sold the final systems. The REBEL EFI software is a bit different, but it sounds like it could possibly serve purposes other than installing macos, so I don't see why a court should disallow this either.]]>Dec 16th 2009 3:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
....it takes like 2 MINUTES to verify yourself. -.-]]>Dec 16th 2009 3:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
The court didn't rule on the EFI REBEL software. And this is zero steps closer to shutting down OSX86, because OSX86 isn't trying to SELL their stuff. If Apple was even vaguely interested in shutting down OSX86, don't you think they would have done it by now?

Psystar was selling a service that violated Apple's EULA, and they got nailed for it. I don't understand why anybody would think that Apple is going to start going after people who are not making money off hackintoshes.]]>Dec 16th 2009 3:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
You keep spouting off the same crap over and over. Are you Steve Jobs in disguise? Did he come over to your house and have a beer and discuss this with you?

You're a fool if you think this has anything to do with the less than 1000 PCs psystar made money off of. Psystar made non apple computers with OSX easily available to anyone, tech user or grandma, and that is the threat apple is/was afraid of. If the OSX86 guys did the same thing for free they would be under fire too. If hacked copies of OSX start popping up all over the net with prepackaged drivers for more than a handful of non apple machines and seemless installs for most anyone with a computer apple will most certainly go after them too. Ultimately, yes, it's about the money, but it has nothing to do with psystar or anyone else making money, it has to do with the potential loss of control by apple if allowing such things to happen on a large scale.

Nothing about this ruling exempts OSX86 or anyone else from the same litigation psystar has gone through. The only thing saving the OSX86 community is that they are currently no real threat to apple losing control .]]>Dec 16th 2009 6:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
You think Apple saw psystar as a THREAT? Wait, hold on. I'm still laughing.

Still... hold on...

Ahh, there we go. No wait, still laughing...

Okay, now I'm done. No, see, here's the thing. What you describe as "seemless[sic]" is actually not seamless at all. Psystar's hacked PCs had issues with software updates from Apple and a lot of OS X features didn't actually work. That's not something Grandma would appreciate, believe it or not, and it certainly doesn't qualify as "seamless".

Why would Apple be worried about hacked PCs that don't work as well as Macs do? But Psystar did deserve what they got, because they were violating Apple's EULA and selling non-Macs with OS X installed on them. They didn't have Apple's permission to do that, so they got nailed.

Apple makes their money on hardware. Obviously they're going to keep control of that.]]>Dec 16th 2009 7:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/Dec 16th 2009 2:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
Even if they bought multiple copies, it's still a violation of Apple's license agreement. Copies of OS X are sold only as upgrades because no Mac that Apple supports was ever sold without an OS and therefore there's no need to sell a full version as there is with Windows. So even if Psystar did purchase copies and even if there weren't any hackery required to make OS X work on their hardware, Apple doesn't sell the type of OS license Psystar would have needed in order to be compliant.]]>Dec 16th 2009 3:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
Also, isn't me running Tiger on my G3 Powerbook a violation of the EULA too? Does that mean Apple can sue the Xpostfacto guys?]]>Dec 18th 2009 12:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/Good point and you're exactly right...installing leopard on a computer that is not at least 866 mhz I think is not allowed...there are hacks etc but it's against the EULA...would apple ever sue over that tho...no...I am against psystar selling their PCs but RebelEFI -- not so much...that is a very cool product. ]]>Dec 18th 2009 10:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
When Apple controls 90% (approx. number, not sure of the real figure) then you can make that comparison. Until then not even close to the same thing.]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/psystar-banned-from-copying-any-version-of-os-x-helping-others/
Imagine a company like Sony made, oh I don't know, a gaming console, and then only allowed games made for that specific console to be run on it. Would you still be outraged?

Oh yeah, it's called a PS3. What you're failing to understand here is that if a company owns both the software AND hardware, they can bloody well do whatever the hell they want with it. They are under NO obligation to let everybody take it and put it on whatever hardware they want.

You need to take your sense of entitlement down a few notches.]]>Dec 16th 2009 2:27PM