Mac clone maker wins legal round against Apple

So you pretty much want to go back to the early 90s? ;P

...
It's still that way
...
Always has been.

fletch33 said:

yeah they should change there approach and let shady manufactures put OS X on their machines and instead have 6 different versions of their OS and change OSX pricing from $99 to something like $299 to $599 for the OS X version that best suits your needs.

ooh wait maybe E-Machine could build a nice OS X desktop for $299. man that would be awesome and then i could constantly replace my power supplies and motherboards every couple years if im lucky and they last that long.

OR

i could buy a great more than fairly price OS X and run it on a machine that will most likely go maintenance free for 5 or more years saving me hundreds in upgrades and repairs.


hmm tough choices

Click to expand...

I understand the reasons for Apple to control their software the way they do, and I commend them for not going out of their way to prevent people from putting OS X on non-Apple hardware. In a way, I'm actually hoping Apple wins this legal battle too - if they lose, they might take more drastic measures to outright prevent people from getting OS X on generic hardware, and that would be a shame. As it stands now, they seek to prevent Psystar from selling computers with OS X on them, but they're still not really doing anything to stop individuals from putting OS X on their PCs. They could if they wanted to, but they're not.

Personally, I think it would be nice if I could easily install OS X to my computer without any hacks, but as it stands, it's not that hard and I could probably do it myself at some point if I felt like it. And I'm not saying they should make it easy - it's enough that they're willing to not make it excessively hard. I am just saying that I value hardware choice more than I value the OS. Apple gives you very little in the way of hardware choice, and in my particular case, it's just too much of a trade off.

Mama Luigi said:

I understand the reasons for Apple to control their software the way they do, and I commend them for not going out of their way to prevent people from putting OS X on non-Apple hardware. In a way, I'm actually hoping Apple wins this legal battle too - if they lose, they might take more drastic measures to outright prevent people from getting OS X on generic hardware, and that would be a shame. As it stands now, they seek to prevent Psystar from selling computers with OS X on them, but they're still not really doing anything to stop individuals from putting OS X on their PCs. They could if they wanted to, but they're not.

Personally, I think it would be nice if I could easily install OS X to my computer without any hacks, but as it stands, it's not that hard and I could probably do it myself at some point if I felt like it. And I'm not saying they should make it easy - it's enough that they're willing to not make it excessively hard. I am just saying that I value hardware choice more than I value the OS. Apple gives you very little in the way of hardware choice, and in my particular case, it's just too much of a trade off.

Click to expand...

Yes they are, and you just admitted that there are. The simple fact that it requires hacks to get OS X installed on a non-Apple computer is evidence alone of Apple taking steps to prevent people from simply buying a copy of OS X and popping it into their PC.

gixxersean said:

I really want to build my own computer is the thing. I really like OSX. Sometimes I'm jealous of my friend that built his own computer and when I see him changing stuff out for the newer stuff, like processors and video cards, I wish I could do that, but you can't do that on an iMac. I don't use/want to use windows for anything except for gaming so building a windows machine is kinda out of the question.

Click to expand...

Do what I do - maintain a dedicated Windows gaming box, then pick up a Mac laptop for everything else. That way you can have the best of both worlds.

I'm with cwa, it's what I do as well.

Put yourself in the position of lower-middle to lower class citizens. Most can't afford a Macintosh, let alone a second $1200 gaming computer.

deer dance said:

Put yourself in the position of lower-middle to lower class citizens. Most can't afford a Macintosh, let alone a second $1200 gaming computer.

Click to expand...

Well, chances are that if you can afford to be on the hardware upgrade merry-go-round, a laptop and a desktop shouldn't be too far of a stretch. And quite frankly, one can build a decent budget gaming box for less than $500 (not including monitor).

but if you wanted a good system (with a monitor) that will last, it will cost about $1200

deer dance said:

but if you wanted a good system (with a monitor) that will last, it will cost about $1200

Click to expand...

Not if you buy the right components. Good components don't have to be expensive. You just have to avoid the temptation to get the absolute cheapest of everything and you can't skimp on often-forgotten parts like the power supply and motherboard (ironically, these are probably the areas where Psystar has skimped).

AnandTech: System Buyers Guide: PCs for Under $1000

Interesting to note that in that guide, the "budget" systems (both of which cost a little over $800) have processors on par with a midrange iMac, but their graphics cards are slightly better than the highest BTO option on the Mac Pro (the GeForce 8800GT). But this isn't unique to Apple - most companies selling pre-built computers use overpowered processors and underpowered graphics.

What I think is funny is that the people most inclined to be willing to hack OS X to run on generic hardware are the same ones that would be more comfortable building their own computer than buying from a shady company like Psystar. Psystar knows this and that's why having OS X preinstalled is such a big deal for them - they want to appeal to people who like OS X but can't afford a Mac, but who are also not comfortable enough with computers to build a PC and put an unsupported OS X on it themselves. So I guess it is important for Psystar to be able to sell OS X preinstalled. On the other hand, I don't think they'll win.

Yes they are, and you just admitted that there are. The simple fact that it requires hacks to get OS X installed on a non-Apple computer is evidence alone of Apple taking steps to prevent people from simply buying a copy of OS X and popping it into their PC.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think you're right. They can't do much more than they're already doing without compromising user-friendliness through activation or something. I think I was getting this confused with early iPhone jailbreaking, where Apple specifically chose not to do anything to prevent jailbreakers.

I am interested to see how this case plays out. I would really like to see Apple win. I understand both sides of the story but to be honest Apple deserves to win, my reasons are as follows:

1.) Apple created the OS they own the rights to it, they should be allowed to limit whatever machines they want.

2.) If OSX was allowed to be installed on any computer imagine the average person buying a computer, they don't know what they are buying, they hear Mac OS, they think OH! I am buying an Apple! So when the computer turns out to be crap they will go to Apple and complain, they will also spread a bad rep for Apple. OSX is designed to run only on a Mac and it does very well, if it runs on anything else it is not necessarily going to run as well as it should.

3.) I also agree with the pricing problem of the OS, Apple keeps their prices low on OS upgrades because they make most of their money from computer sales, iPods, etc... If people start buying random manufacturer's computers with OSX installed rather than a Mac Apple's whole marketing plan goes out the window and they have to redesign probably raising prices on OS sales.

I just truly believe a company that is so heavily based on it's OS and has a marketing strategy based around it should be allowed to do what they want with their software.

TheInvsbleMan said:

2.) If OSX was allowed to be installed on any computer imagine the average person buying a computer, they don't know what they are buying, they hear Mac OS, they think OH! I am buying an Apple! So when the computer turns out to be crap they will go to Apple and complain, they will also spread a bad rep for Apple. OSX is designed to run only on a Mac and it does very well, if it runs on anything else it is not necessarily going to run as well as it should.

Click to expand...

By not supporting other hardware, they are making it hugely easier to support. They know every possible configuration that may be running OS X so if someone calls for help they can help them easily.

However, if they want to ensure a good user experience across all their products, they should at least put 2 GB of RAM in the Mac Mini and all iMacs. 1 GB makes Leopard sluggish and it's not like moving up to 2 GB costs much. Maybe $10 extra. I had this problem years ago when I bought an iBook that shipped with - I kid you not - 128 MB of RAM. What a horribly inadequate amount. It was actually sluggish even in OS 9, and OS X was practically unusable. At least they're not as stingy with RAM today, but the performance was so bad with that little RAM back then that you'd expect there to be a lot of people who formed jaded opinions of Apple's quality and value.

Mama Luigi said:

By not supporting other hardware, they are making it hugely easier to support. They know every possible configuration that may be running OS X so if someone calls for help they can help them easily..

Click to expand...

Surely Apple wouldn't be expected to support other hardware, even though it is their operating system they would have to retrain all support employees and everything.

I am thinking if necessary they could come to a compromise where Apple could charge computer manufacturers a fee to license a manufacturer to sell Mac OS on computers. The manufacturer would also be required to provide all support for that machine.

Of course this case going to trial doesn't mean much other than it has gone to trial I still enjoy the discussion

TheInvsbleMan said:

I am thinking if necessary they could come to a compromise where Apple could charge computer manufacturers a fee to license a manufacturer to sell Mac OS on computers. The manufacturer would also be required to provide all support for that machine.

Click to expand...

They tried that in the 90s. The Mac-clones outsold Apple to the brink of extinction.

Ahh all right then, well let's hope it doesn't come to that. I really don't think Pystar has any case against Apple here but we will see.

oh just let em make clones..... cheap apple accessories

How Apple can become the new Microsoft (being majority market-share holder, not a rotting pile of horse crap):

1) decrease the price of every Apple product by 10%

2) allow OS X to be licensed to other computers

3) take 40% from each unit sold

4) Microsoft stock falls to record low

5) Apple reports record $1,000,000,000,000 annual gross sales

The thing is, I see no holes in this plan.

deer dance said:

How Apple can become the new Microsoft (being majority market-share holder, not a rotting pile of horse crap):

1) decrease the price of every Apple product by 10%

2) allow OS X to be licensed to other computers

3) take 40% from each unit sold

4) Microsoft stock falls to record low

5) Apple reports record $1,000,000,000,000 annual gross sales

The thing is, I see no holes in this plan.

Click to expand...

LOL, nice

To be honest, though, Apple clearly doesn't want much marketshare. The reason that only ~5% of computers sold are Macs is because only 5% of computer buyers have both the need for and the means to obtain a Mac. The other 95% are unable to afford one, don't need one, or both.

People often compare Apple to a luxury car maker, like BMW or Mercedes. That's not far off. Macs are luxury computers - they do all the stuff a typical PC does (just as a BMW will physically transport you from one place to another), but they do it with style. And just like BMW, they have a small market share (I couldn't find BMW's market share but I don't expect it to be higher than 2-3%).

Apple's marketshare is actually closer to 10% ;P

Say hypothetically psystar win this. What will stop every other computer maker and his dog using this case as precident for their cases/agruements to have OS X on their machines?