Apple Suit Demands That Psystar Recall OpenMacs 759
Da'Man writes "The Psystar saga takes another series of turns. Not only is the website down but an examination of the suit filed by Apple shows that the Cupertino Goliath wants Psystar to recall all Open Computer and OpenServ systems sold by the company since April. It seems that Steve Jobs is out to totally sink Psystar and put an end to Mac clones."
Oh Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
The more you tighten your grip, Jobs, the more star systems will slip through your fingers!
Re:Oh Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Should that not be "The more you tighten your grip, Jobs, the more psystar systems will slip through your fingers!" :D
Yes, it should be... assuming you're a fan of explaining the joke within the joke itself, thereby rendering it unfunny.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also portable. This joke now works without context, for people who know what a Pystar is.
Re:Oh Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh Yeah! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Oooo! Oooo!
In Soviet Russia perfect moments for meme use wait and find you!
*crickets*
IBM PC (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, IBM "got out of the game". No, it was not necessarily bad for them.
into a different game... Re:IBM PC (Score:4, Informative)
Re:into a different game... Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Informative)
Though the iPod and iPhone are popular, there is no way Apple could survive on those products alone. Mac is their core business. If they lose their supremacy to cloners, they're sunk.
On what do you base this assumption? This article [marketwatch.com] is old, but it shows an opposing point of view:
Leading the charge for Apple was its line of iPods, with the company shipping 21 million of the market-leading devices during the quarter, a 50% jump from a year ago. Sales of the device accounted for $3.43 billion of the company's revenue, or nearly half the total.
Apple's total number of iPod sales now stands at about 90 million units since the device first went on sale in October 2001.
"After five years, the iPod is still going strong," said Shaw Wu, an analyst with American Technology Research. "It's still a very popular product." Wu holds a buy rating on Apple's stock. The results show that demand for Apple's products remains strong despite stepped-up competition from rivals such as Microsoft Corp. (MSFT: Microsoft Corporation News, chart, profile, more Last: 27.26+1.10+4.20% 4:12pm 07/16/2008 Delayed quote data Add to portfolio Analyst Create alert Insider Discuss Financials Sponsored by: MSFT 27.26, +1.10, +4.2%) , which is pushing hard to boost its share of the digital entertainment market with a new handheld media player and other consumer products.
"The iPod sales were shocking," said Gene Munster, of Piper Jaffray. "And the earnings power of this company is reaching record levels."
Macintosh computer sales also surged, rising 40% to $2.4 billion, while Mac shipments rose 28% to 1.61 million units, more than double the growth of the overall PC market. The Mac results were a slightly below many analysts forecasts, as several had expected Apple to sell between 1.75 million and 1.8 million Macs during the quarter.
However, Munster, of Piper Jaffray, said the holiday-quarter Mac sales needed to be taken into context, and were actually solid because they remained almost in line with Apple's September quarter results, which is when Apple sees strong back-to-school PC sales.
"People give iPods for Christmas, not computers," Munster said.
Re:into a different game... Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think Apple could whether a storm...
"Weather". I know, I could of left it alone, but I'm sure that its bothering alot of people.
I know, I could "have" left it alone, but I'm sure that "it's" bothering "a lot" of people. You should have left it alone.
Re:IBM PC (Score:4, Insightful)
iPhone anyone?
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of a WinMo device going into portrait mode by hitting a button or opening a slide-out keyboard, it has a tilt sensor, the Wiimote had one before the iPhone. Instead of a single touch, you can use 2 fingers, like in that Tom Cruise movie with seeing the future. Say it how it is, using terms like "multitouch" glorifies a rather arbitrary concept.
Innovation is 90% efficiency solar panels or 100 MPG cars or even the company that invented the hardware that makes multitouch work, something that doesn't exist, not utilizing things that are already available.
What Apple does is polish concepts, just like Blizzard. Blizzard didn't invent the RTS or MMO but they polished them into something really good (actually I hate WoW, but it is what it is).
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Innovation is 90% efficiency solar panels or 100 MPG cars or even the company that invented the hardware that makes multitouch work...
I think that's a very limited definition of "innovation."
A better definition might be "solving a problem through the novel application of technology". The technology might be completely new, or it might be existing technology used in a new way. Either one can be innovative.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, implementing a technology that was seen in a movie also qualifies as innovation. It's quite a bit easier to implement technology using computer-generated graphics than it is to implement it in real life.
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Call it what you like, but handheld multitouch is fairly novel, and the automatic screen-turning isn't too shabby either.
IIRC these ideas and more where being thrown around on the OpenMoko mailing list before the iPhone was announced.
While I'm not going to dispute Apples success in putting everything together, I find it hard to credit them with technological innovation when these ideas were being casually thrown around by a bunch of random geeks on a mailing list.
By restricting the realm of what is an Apple device, this can be seen as an attempt to guarantee consistent quality.
Precisely. Which is why I say their marketing concepts are more innovative than their tech.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who modded the above "Troll"? It's true. Ideas are just ideas. Product is what matters, and though I applaud OpenMoko they're a bit late to the game.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> I find it hard to credit them with technological innovation
> when these ideas were being casually thrown around by a bunch
> of random geeks on a mailing list.
And there wasn't any technological innovation involved with the Apollo program, either. I mean, Kennedy talked about us going to the moon ten years before we got there. And he was just a politician!
Sorry, I know it's a bad analogy, but the argument was bad to begin with.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People who have never created anything worthwhile always ignore the importance of actually creating, as opposed to simply coming up with the ideas.
Re:IBM PC (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple's marketing dept is smart enough to realize that in 2008 a television commercial is not a comprehensive marketing plan.
Other companies would KILL for the kind of press Apple gets when it announces products. Did you need to see a commercial to know that the iPhone was coming out? Did anyone?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course at the time your geeks talked about "wouldn't it be cool if", the features were present in the test models of the iPhone - while they are still in the "wouldn't it be cool" phase for OpenMoko.
We're talking about whether the ideas themselves are innovative, not whether Apple is able to put ideas together in a mass consumer friendly fashion.
You appear to have mistaken this for the "let's bash OpenMoko" thread.
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Call it what you like, but handheld multitouch is fairly novel, and the automatic screen-turning isn't too shabby either.
There's really no competition if one is comparing Apple to IBM in terms of innovation. In one corner, you have a neat interface based on multi-touch (they didn't invent the multi touch sensor itself). In the other corner you have the hard disk.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They also didn't invent multi-touch.
MS actually had a demo multi-touch computer back in the 90's.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
i.e. BSD: Mac OS X is based on the Mach kernel and is derived from the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) implementation of Unix in Nextstep.
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IBM PC (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Interesting)
In so much as WoW/Glider is a district court opinion, it has a nonbinding, advisory effect. If it was an appellate opinion, it's only limit to that circuit (a few states.)
Shrinkwrap licenses are not a slam dunk. They're better than browse-wrap or even click-wrap, but the circuits are split on them if I recall correctly. They may also be held invalid for being substantively and procedural unconscionable. (I would think especially so in this particular case.)
In particular, shrinkwrap licenses that purport to limit fair use are not a slam dunk. The first amendment is the fount of fair use (Sony v. Betamax) and thus of constitutional dimension. While the first amendment is only binding on government actors, the court itself is a government actor, adn therefore by enforcing a fair-use limiting contract (the EULA) the court is essential depriving fair use 1st amendment rights. That's the argument at least. I think its' the right one. We wouldn't want the court to eforce contracts to permit slavery (13th amendment), and I think limiting free speech is particularly dicey. But hey, it happens ALL THE TIME with contracts (nondisclosure for example.) I just don't think it's right for the courts to enforce it.
The biggest problem here for Apple is monopoly issues and tying, which I see Psystar counsel has wisely raised. (You can be a monopoly of a more restricted relevant market than just OSs in general..)
Just my opinion, as a non-lawyer.
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the licence is binding, since the product can be returned, for full refund without penalty, as long as the software seal inside the package remains intact. Since the Licence agreement can be read withough installing or operning the software, there is a clear path for the user to take to refuse its terms.
Further, many products have not only use restrictions from the manufacturer, but under penalty of federal law, the use of certain devices in certain circumstances can be prevented. The FCC has a large part in that with anything that could potentially cause interference. The DMV has a lot to do with how a car can be used, loaded with cargo, and more.
In a more direct comparison, it have been held up in court that a software vendor can sue successfully for the use of non-commercial, or student only software in commercial spaces. Also, the resale of licenses for system-specific use, like anti virus and other subscription based packages, has also been protected.
In this case, the use of Apple's software on non-apple branded equipment would mean that the DRM functionality of that software (The requirements of an EFI firmware as well as a special ROM circuit) had been defeated, and thus is a violation of the DMCA as well as the software licence agreement.
Since the purchaser has 1) been ninformed of the licence, 2) been given an opportunity to refuse it without penalty, and 3) agree to the terms by performing a physical action (breaking the seal or clicking accept), then at that point it is no longer a licence, but a contract between parties. Licences can also be revolked, at will, by the issuer, with or without reason or provocation, and the continued use would thus be unlicenced and illegal. Apple has simply unlicenced every Psystar system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Beg to differ. Right of first sale or whatever nonsense it's called.
I already bought product XYZ without limitation. You're trying to enforce a contract after the fact. The "agree or return it" is still an attempt at enforcing a contractual obligation after the fact. I simply decline the entire agreement in whole - including that part. They can't force an action upon me (such as returning) that I don't agree to.
Re:IBM PC (Score:4, Interesting)
well, since the construction of that firmware is a proprietary technology, patented by a group of companies (Intel, Apple, and a couple of others), you would require permission from them to licence that chip technology in order to do that. Not going to happen....
It's not Apple's firmware you're circumventing, but a core component of the Intel Board, for which Apple is currently the only OS that has native (and approved) support for, aside from a small open source linux distro or two that also garnered permission.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing is, it's not really the same thing since Psystar isn't an End User. So Honda might not be able to able to make you sign an agreement saying you'll only drive on Honda approved roads (but I don't know, maybe they can?), but Honda could probably make their dealerships sign an agreement saying they won't engage in certain business practices. The analogy isn't perfect, but analogies rarely are.
Because the thing is that Psystar is installing altering the software, copying it, and then distributing the copies. Hence, this isn't an issue of EULAs, but blatant copyright infringement unless they have a license. If the EULA specifically allowed this, they could try to use the EULA to protect themselves, but the EULA makes no provisions that allow them to do this.
Of course, IANAL, so I could be wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The main problem is redistributing the modified software for profit, big copyright no no. As I doubt any commercial software company would be ok with someone else selling modified versions of their software, this is just blatant infringement. I think this also shows why it took so long for Apple to sue, they needed to get everything in order to build a full case as the EULA by itself might not hold up. The copyright, image, trademarks, etc... side is something Apple can succeed on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there any precedent here?
FPGA manufacturers usually have a clause in their compilers that states the output of the compiler can only be used to program their proprietary chips. The courts ruled that the license is enforceable.
Saying that you can only run OSX on Apple's hardware sounds like the same thing. So if the court respects precedence, then Apple will win.
Sometimes, if you take an idea to its extreme you can find out if it is just or not. What if Microsoft said that it was illegal to use their operating system except with
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Informative)
That's not true, by law, an aftermarket part can only void your warranty if it is responsible for the warranty claim [turnermotorsport.com]. Back to Apple, this comes into play with jailbreaking iPhones, for instance. If you brick your phone, you've likely voided your warranty, but if the power button falls off or something, that's still covered under warranty, even if you've jailbroken your phone.
(including upgrading/replacing the radio or adding aftermarket DVD systems)
Upgrading your radio will not void your warranty unless the radio causes something else to fail. If you upgrade your radio, and blow your speakers, they're probably not going to be covered, but if you upgrade your radio and your wheel falls off, that's still covered.
You also can't exactly install a Honda computer from one car into another Honda and expect it to work...
That's a technological limitation, not a legal one.
Apple has a lot of proprietary technologies in their systems
If you're talking about hardware, that's not even close to true. At one time their systems were significantly different from Windows machines, but now they're built with the exact same hardware. The only difference is Apple motherboards have a chip that OSX looks for. It could be argued that circumventing this security measure is a violation of the DMCA, I suppose...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That chip is the SMC, the only thing they do is grab an encryption key out of the chip and use it to decrypt protected binaries. The key can be read out by some simple code, its not even protected.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...but Honda DOES state that you can only use Honda Approved parts, or void your warranty, and they also refuse to allow changes to any parts of the electrical system or engine for the first 36K miles or void just the same (including upgrading/replacing the radio or adding aftermarket DVD systems)
It's very simple, the magnuson-moss warranty act prohibits this sort of thing, you can only demand that the parts meet your specifications, then you have to prove that they don't. It's cheaper just to provide the warranty service anyway. That text in there is just there to scare people, and they have no real legal leg to stand on.
You also can't exactly install a Honda computer from one car into another Honda and expect it to work...
No, you'd have to swap the whole engine probably or at least big pieces of harness, which would reasonably void your warranty.
Seriously though, putting non-Honda transmission part
Re:IBM PC (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM only produced the hardware, Microsoft produced the software and look where they are now...
Apple produce both, by your reckoning Apple would be selling about the same level of hardware that they are now, but selling millions of units of software.
Also when you talk of retaining control, look at the absolutely farcical situation with AmigaOS 4. They are trying so hard to retain control that they've pushed away any customers they might have ever had.
really? (Score:4, Funny)
um, you THINK?
Re:really? (Score:4, Funny)
Seriously? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple particularly doesn't like things like this, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Apple particularly doesn't like things like thi (Score:5, Insightful)
Has the price changed that much? Last I looked, Apple was actually competitive (within $100, sometimes cheaper) with commodity hardware. The only difference is, you can't get a Mac without the bells and whistles.
In other words, you get exactly what you pay for, which includes $1k of hardware you don't actually need.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not even that bad. Compare the iMac to the Dell One, a very similar system, and the dell, missing some of those bells, whistles, and a lot of quality software, costs MORE. The Mac Pro 17" machines are VERY competitive (within $300 +/- of other name brand systems, depending on how much attention you pay to package details, battery life, and weight concerns).
If you want to overstate, fine, but keep in mind, subtract the $1000 in "unneeded parts" and the iMac is a $200 machine... NOT!
Not so much these days (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny you should mention that. I've been saying for a while that when my current laptop finally dies, I plan to get a Macbook. Not for the looks, the spec or the OS, but simply because I wanted a 13.3 inch form factor. I carry my laptop around a lot, so a 17'' monster is out of the question, but I also use it as my primary machine, so an ultra portable is no use either. 13.3'' is, for me, the sweet spot between portability and usability. But no one seemed to make them except apple, so it looked like the macbook was the best option.
Lately though, I've noticed more and more 13.3'' laptops showing up in stores. A quick search on dabs turns up these results [dabs.com]. As you can see, they have twelve 13.3'' laptops that are cheaper than a macbook. The Toshiba U400 [dabs.com] for example, compares very favourably with the cheapest macbook in terms of specs. The macbook had a faster processor, but the toshiba has a DVD writer and is lighter, so it's pretty much a toss up. On price though, the Toshiba trounces the apple. £498 against £699. A £200 pound difference. Looks like I won't be buying a mac after all.
I won't get into the the relative merits and value of vista compared to OSX. I'd be formatting it and installing Linux anyway.
Re:Apple particularly doesn't like things like thi (Score:5, Informative)
There is no TPM. (Score:5, Informative)
Cribbed shamelessly from an Ars Technica discussion on the same issue:
"TPM DRM" In Mac OS X: A Myth That Won't Die
Amit Singh
http://www.osxbook.com/book/bo...chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/
Beating a Dead Horse
"In October 2006, I wrote about the TPM and its "use" in Mac OS X. Since Apple provided no software or firmware drivers for the TPM ...
"Apple's TPM Keys"
"The media has been discussing "Apple's use of TPM" for a long time now. There have been numerous reports of system attackers bypassing "Apple's TPM protection" and finding "Apple's TPM keys." Nevertheless, it is important to note that Apple does not use the TPM."
In short, while there was a TPM chip in some of the early shipping Intel systems, there were no drivers for it, and Apple did not use it. Current shipping Macintel systems don't even have the TPM chip, so there's no possible way for them to use one.
Dan Aris
EULA w/ full force of law (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice that Apple filed approx a day after the WoW copyright decision. If there was some doubt on Psystar beating Apple on the validity of of the EULA...it is pretty safe to say that Psystar is about to get slapped down.
Re:EULA w/ full force of law (Score:5, Insightful)
IAALS (I am a Law Student). Having worked with litigators, I can gurantee that yesterday's ruling (which actually sets almost no precedent because it relied on existing copyright doctrines despite what Slashdotters thought) had exactly 0 to do with the filing date.
I know this because:
1. If there had been any real precedent set, the litigators would have taken at least several weeks to analyze the decision, make an educated guess as to whether the decision will survive appeals, recraft the complaint, and make sure all of this was OK with the client (Apple) before proceeding. Litigation takes time.
2. The actual filing date of the lawsuit was July 3rd, and the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field is strong, but it does not enable time travel.
Re:EULA w/ full force of law (Score:4, Funny)
the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field is strong, but it does not enable time travel.
Then explain Time Machine? Jobs can make things impossibly small, and let you touch your music, so why not time travel?
What reality distortion field?
I think this is the first time I've heard... (Score:5, Funny)
...Steve Jobs called a "suit."
Re:I think this is the first time I've heard... (Score:4, Funny)
Lame (Score:3, Interesting)
This was probably inevitable, but it's a shame to see Psystar brought down. Without any competition in the computers-that-run-OS-X market, Apple just keeps getting more obnoxious.
(If this kind of thing bothers you and you want to take a swipe back at Apple, I recommend passing up that shiny new iPhone 3G and looking at the equally shiny LG Dare instead. The screen is smaller but it's actually easier to type on.)
Re:Lame (Score:4, Funny)
I agree. This morning my Dualcore G5 booted, installed and update and then insulted me on how I was dressed and dissed me for not buying a new iPhone already.
I'm getting tired of how condescending OSX keeps getting after each release.
No they don't (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Lame (Score:5, Funny)
An EULA is a licence contract between 2 parties. It is clearly spelled out, presented both before and after the sale, able to be declined without penalty within given terms (do not open to refuse licence). Further more, it HAS been held in court that a licencing body may, at it's own discretion, require the return of said licence or contract for use at will.
You are NOT buying the software. The software is provided BY the licence, not the other way around. You may keep the physical media, but the software is considered a seperate entity, and the use of it can be revolked. this is no different from the DMV, or a credit card company. You PAID a fee to get it, but you do NOT own it, (it says so on the back of your drives license and credit card both) you are only LICENSED to USE it, under their strict rules that you are legally bound to as soon as you accept said license, and can be ordered to return it, without refund, for any violation of its permissible applications.
The grant of an EULA is backed by the US Code of Commerce, a document backed by the direct power of the US constitution, and the commerce department of the united states. they DO have the power to enforce it, and the rules for the creation of a license and what can and can't be included in one are deeply rooted in this piece of legislation.
undoing the EULA would castrate the power of multiple government agencies, and wreak havock on the software and services sections of business. The ramifications of undoing licence use and trade restrictions by simply stating that software becomes an individual piece of property on purchase will cost the US BILLIONS in trade.
Keep in mind, (if it works the way I see it) if you get your way, then we're no longer legally liable to FIX what's broken with what you bought (only to fix what didn't work as advertised on the day it was advertised), we'd only be liable to return it to original working order. If someone hacked your software, we'd not be responsible or liable for it anymore! It would be like requiring car companies to replace your engine because it won;t run E85, even though it wasn't originally speced out to.
Re:Lame (Score:5, Interesting)
presented both before and after the sale, able to be declined without penalty within given terms (do not open to refuse licence).
I don't know what fucking planet you live on, but on this one software boxes don't have the 50 page EULA's printed on them.
The big issue with EULAs is you have to open the box to see it, yet you can't open the box and see it until you buy it, at which point no store will refund an opened software box if you disagree with an EULA.
Re:Lame (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean that if I visit this page [amazon.com] (which unless my browser's search function doesn't work, appears to not contain the word "license" anywhere; in every way it appears to offer an item for sale), click on "Add to shopping cart," and then "proceed to check out" (other sales terms), then before I get to the screen where I give Amazon my credit card number (note that I'm dealing with Amazon, and have not yet conducted any business with Apple), the transaction is going to be interrupted by Apple (the party you're claiming I'm about to enter into a contract with) and they're going to show me a license?
Wow. Amazon.com must be a really complex web site.
Really? I remember signing some forms from both of those entities, before they gave me a card. I had quid-pro-quo agreements with my DMV and credit card issuer. In fact, every single contract in the rest of my entire life -- every single business or person that I am somehow bound to -- had some sort of direct transaction like that. I've either met them or at least sent 'em some paperwork with my signature, or damn, at least sent them an email (things are getting a lot less formal/provable here, but as a matter of honor I think it's fair to say that a non-forged email is your word) or at least made an http post to their server. I mean, there's at least some sort of interaction between the two parties.
But somehow, software publishers are a special case, huh? They are the one type of business, within all of the realm of humanity's economic endeavors since the dawn of history, where the usual rules and customs don't apply, huh?
Nobody's talking about disallowing software licenses. My former employer used sales contracts where the customer signed a piece of paper before they received the software, and if there was ever a dispute over who agreed to what, we had that piece of paper as reference/evidence.
What we're talking about here, are fake licenses, that one (sometimes both!!) of the so-called "parties" weren't really a party to any agreement, and there's no evidence that an agreement (or even any communication at all!) happened. This is a meeting of the minds?!?
Fraud is not a type of commerce that I value. I'm sure there are some people in Nigeria who would argue that failing to legalize their scams is costing the country some trade, but that doesn't mean anyone is going to take them seriously.
Copyright law provides an excellent, if imperfect, solution to dealing with the rights of software publishers and users. If Apple isn't satisfied with that, then they are free to start using sales contracts. Sure, that will cost them most of their customers (because it's incredibly inconvenient) but that's the price of greed -- of wanting more from their customer than money -- more than what most software publishers (and music publishers and book publishers, everything covered by copyright) need.
I am keeping mine! Ha, ha, HA! (Score:4, Funny)
Take that Stevie!
Apple demands? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, how about the thousands of us who demand a headless, non-pro, non-laptop computer, with actual desktop/decent parts in it?
Mac mini: piss-poor GPU and low-capacity/slow LAPTOP 2.5" drive in a DESKTOP computer?
iMac: fuckin' all-in-one computer with stupid glossy screens and low quality LCDs with not even average GPU choices.
Mac Pro: are you fucking insane? I don't need that much power (and even the GPU options for that one are ridiculous).
Make the Mac mini taller/bigger, put a 3.5" drive and a half-decent GPU in it (the ability to run Starcraft II and Diablo III at medium settings) and it WILL sell. A lot. You have no fuckin' idea how much people loathe all-in-one computers.
Re:Apple demands? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately the same thousands who make this demand also want this computer to be very customizable and to cost under $500 because that's what Dell is selling. There's not much profitability in this market. I suspect this is the main reason Apple hasn't gotten into the market. They're not going to compete with Dell, Lenovo, and countless others in this cutthroat pricing. Apple isn't in business to make computers that are unprofitable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple isn't in business to make computers that are unprofitable.
Interestingly, neither are Dell or Lenovo.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mac Pro: are you fucking insane? I don't need that much power
Please hand in your Man Card at the door on the way out.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> The only people who buy Apple anything are the unwashed me-too masses...
Hey, I took a shower this morning, and I've been fastidious about washing my hands all day, since the guy in the next cube has the plague or something.
So I guess that sends your hypothesis right down the proverbial drain. I'm washed, and I have a few Apple products. QED.
End of a Story (Score:4, Insightful)
If Psystar were rich enough, they could win their case against Apple and we could see Mac clones on the market like we saw IBM PC clones in the 80's. But still, what would be the point in having Mac clones ? We'd start to see an OS (Mac OS) that crashes all the time because the hardware is "not supported officially". So we would be forced to install an alternative OS on the machine, like Linux or BSD. Ok it could work great but it works as great on PCs.
Really I'm not trying to troll/start a flamewar, I'm just wondering.
What would be the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
But still, what would be the point in having Mac clones ?
Well, let's see... people looking for something that Apple doesn't currently produce could get a computer with OS X on it that fit those requirements.
Like... a conventional desktop with expansion slots.
Like... a laptop with a two-button trackpad and a decent keyboard.
Like... a laptop with a swappable drive bay. Or multiple hard drives.
Like... a compact Mac with a high performance hard drive and a real GPU.
Or, Apple could just quit being so damn insist
Re:What would be the point? (Score:5, Informative)
All Macs are expandable, although some require a bit of work.
The Mac mini and Macbook have crippled GPUs, these can not be replaced or upgraded. The Macbook Pro does not have any user accessible internal expansion other than the memory (no, it does not have a swappable hard drive, let alone a swappable optical drive bay).
iMac + Radeon HD 2600 PRO = 1337.
iMac is not a compact Mac, nor a conventional desktop. The only conventional desktop Apple has is the Mac mini, and it's crippled.
By Mac mini Pro, you're pretty much imagining a Cube
Except without being more than twice as expensive as a comparable wintel box. The cube was drastically overpriced, costing more than a G4 tower, and apparently was supposed to succeed purely on its looks because it was far less computer than the G4.
Also, the MacBook Air will probably take advantage of Atom and up it's specs to better compete with the ThinkPad
The kind of Thinkpad I'm talking about costs less than the Macbook (non pro, non air), but has a real GPU, a better keyboard than any Apple laptop, two (actual, usable) buttons on the trackpad, a trackpoint mouse, an optical ultrabay (so you can swap out the optical drive, or replace it with a hard drive caddy or an extra battery), a docking port[1], and a physically more rigid case. Oh, and it doesn't have that stupid 'magsafe' connector that keeps pulling out of my Macbook Pro when I'm using it as an actual laptop.
You ask for a conventional, average-specced desktop, then you ask for, essentially, a tiny Mac Pro.
Um, that would be "no, that's not what I'm asking for". A Mac Pro is an 8 core ultra-high-end workstation. I'm talking about a 2 core desktop, comparable to the kind of box you can get (except for Mac OS X, of course) for $300-$400 from anyone but Apple[2]. I'm not sure where you get 'a tiny Mac pro' from that.
[1] Of course a docking station is not available for any Mac laptop, and no the "bookendz" monstrosity doesn't count.
[2] With Apple's 40% markup that would still be cheaper than the Mac mini.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The iMac is a conventional desktop as far as Apple is concerned.
I understand that. The point of this discussion though has nothing to do with whether Apple is "right" or "wrong", or what should be conventional, I am simply answering the OP's question: "where is the demand for things like the Psystar box coming from?". And one of the sources is the disconnect between what Apple supplies and what the market demands. There really is a huge demand for what actually is conventional (as opposed to what Apple beli
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Begun it has... (Score:4, Interesting)
...the clone war.
What are the odds of people actually returning their much-less-costly Mac clone?
Yup, they're taking the money & running... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's be honest here (Score:3, Insightful)
Who here would expect Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft to NOT do anything if a competitor suddenly started to sell compatible systems or even just emulators for their own systems?
Remember that Apple sells systems, not computers. This may be an alien concept to kids today, but at the beginning, all companies were selling computer+OS systems and they were all proprietary (Apple II, Mac, Atari ST, Amiga, CoCo2+OS9, C64+GeOS, etc).
Also, don't be two-faced about this: you don't like it when companies don't follow GPL and other similar licenses, but when it's Apple or Microsoft, why wouldn't they be allowed to do the same?
I hope there's one good thing to come out of this mess: Apple selling a headless, iMac-specs computer (i.e. ATI/nVidia GPU with a 3.5" desktop hard drive). Heck, why don't they just make a case for the actual iMac motherboard to lower R&D costs?
If The Shoe Were on the Other Foot... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If The Shoe Were on the Other Foot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, no. Microsoft would have every right to go after vendors who were including unlicensed, modified versions of Windows in their systems. How is this any different?
Psystar buys a license of OS X for each machine they sell? Apple may claim that the copies aren't licensed since they violate the EULA, but US copyright law doesn't limits copyright holders rights to prevent installation of software. Furthermore, the doctrine of first sale gives Psystar the right to resell OS X.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If this were a story about Microsoft trying to stop vendors from building machines that can run their OS, there would be a million typical comments about them being an evil monopoly, etc.
Well, the story isn't that Apple is preventing someone from building machines that can run their OS. Anyone can build machines capable of running OSX. It's not hard-- Apple is using normal Intel hardware in their computers.
Instead Apple is suing someone for blatant copyright infringement-- distributing an altered version of their OS without a license to do so. If someone were selling a hacked version of Windows without any special arrangement with MS, I would expect Microsoft to sue.
But hey, maybe you'
Apple is... (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect Apple is every bit as evil as Microsoft, just less successful.
Re:Apple is... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Success" can be relative.
If I was an investor right now, I'd argue AAPL is more successful than MSFT.
MSFT has a gazillion bucks, but the ROI for their stockholders has suffered recently. Whereas AAPL under Jobs just keeps making stockholders money. Good money. If you bought AAPL and MSFT one year ago, you would have made 24% on AAPL, and lost 10% of MSFT.
Re:Apple is... (Score:4, Insightful)
I notice you didn't attempt to argue with the "evil" part of the GP poster's statement, though. . . :)
Re:Apple is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect Apple is every bit as evil as Microsoft, just less successful.
Suspect? Imagine a world where Apple won the PC wars rather than Microsoft. Imagine what we'd be paying for computers with only a single supplier.
Of course, if Apple *had* won, they probably would've been broken up long ago as a monopoly, but it would've set the computer industry back at least a decade.
Say what you want about Microsoft, but at least they never leveraged their OS dominance by producing a "Microsoft PC" and then "phasing out" all the other hardware manufacturers. If Steve Jobs, through some twist of fate, had been in charge of Microsoft rather than Apple when he returned, that's exactly what would've happened.
And let's not even get into the fact that Apple competes via lawsuit orders of magnitude more often than Microsoft.
Apple is *far and away* more evil than Microsoft ever dreamed of being. They're fortunately just not the dominant player.
[And no, I'm not defending whatever evil Microsoft has done, only that they are not nearly as evil as they could've been.]
Re:Apple is... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Phasing out"? What are you talking about?
Changing the license agreement a la Apple so that Windows would only run on their own hardware they produce.
Bollocks. You're just making shit up because you hate Apple.
Are you serious? Apple is notorious for their lawsuits, starting from the infamous "look and feel" many moons ago.
How is that going to work? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I bought something, it's now mine (the hardware anyway). I doubt Pystar can actually repossess any of the boxes. The entire demand by Apple is pretty silly. Apple's copyright claims can't possibly cover the possession of physical hardware. Very bizarre. I think Apple only has a claim against Psystar itself over copyright infringement (the distribution of hacked Apple patches). Personal use of OS X in breach of Apple's license would have to be an issue that Apple would have to deal with on a per user basis, which I doubt they are willing to do.
Straightforward copyright infringement (Score:3, Interesting)
No, this is not just about the EULA.
If you look up Psystar and the open computer, you'll find that they also modify and redistribute Apple security updates.
They can't rely on software updates directly from Apple always working on the computers, so they distribute updates themselves.
Since they are very, very unlikely to have permission for this, it is a straightforward case of copyright infringement.
Also, what do you expect? You all know that Apple does not allow "clone makers", so when one happens, do you just accept them to leave them alone, because they are "small time"?
Wouldn't you then be even more outraged if they waited until Psystar was big before they sued?
Psystar must have known this would happen, and I suspect they just used the OS X machines as publicity for their other machines.
Psystar can win this if they have enough money (Score:4, Interesting)
Psystar could probably win this on antitrust grounds. Apple's EULA is probably an "illegal tying arrangement" and unenforceable. But Psystar may not be able to afford the litigation. Historically, IBM lost on this antitrust issue in the 1970s, which is why there were and are IBM mainframe clones and, indeed, IBM PC clones. In fact, IBM was forced to sell their mainframe OS and applications to users with mainframe clones from Amdahl and NCR.
The difference between this era of Mac clones and the last one was that the earlier generations (pre x86) of Apple machines had parts of the OS in ROM, which gave Apple more legal leverage. The current Apple machines are essentially Intel-based PC clones, with little or no essential Apple intellectual property inside.
Psystar does not seem to be redistributing Apple updates. They distribute an installer which, on the client machine, downloads an update from Apple and patches it.
Also, Psystar's web site [psystar.com] is not down. It's just slow.
Rant... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why can't a company create a product for the market they want? What gives us the right to buy a product that clearly states what it's for, then, get upset about when it doesn't work the way that we want it? Why do we feel that we have the right to create a market for a product that the creator didn't intend to?
Seriously.
Apple created Mac OS X. They specifically state that it's for Apple computers. They aren't hiding it from you. They made the decision to make this software for their hardware only. What's wrong with that? Why can't a company limit it's own market?
I don't want to hear this "Apple is monopoly" bullshit. They aren't a monopoly, they are a brand. Ford has a "monopoly" on Ford cars that run Ford engines and Ford computers and Ford seatbelts. Sony has a "monopoly" on the Sony operating system that's runs on the Sony Playstation. The operating system is an Apple product for Apple hardware. They just happen to also sell it in a box. Just because its in a box, on a shelf, and you can buy it, doesn't give you the right to decide that you can change what its for. No one is forcing consumers to buy Apple computers. There are other competitors in the market. Nope, no monopoly here.
It's just so aggravating to read the posts. Fuck Psystar. They deliberately tried to tired to sell a product created and sold by another company in a way they didn't want it to be done. Why shouldn't they go down?
Really. Someone explain it to me? Why is Psystar entitled to do this? Why are we entitled to install Mac OS X on hardware Apple tells us not to?
Anyone?
Is it anything more than people who just want to get their way. Why doesn't Apple make a headless Mac for me? Why can't I run Mac OS X on my Dell? Why why why... I want I want I want... wahhhh...
It's like reading a collective bunch of three year olds. Apple doesn't want to sell you their product, for whatever reason they see fit. Shut up and deal with it. It's not an issue of EULA's and copyright and DRM. It's the fact that people are just pissed of they can't get their way. It's why this country is going to shit... people going out of their way- way beyond the realms of common sense and moderation- to obtain their way. Your sense of entitlement sickens me. The fact that Apple is successful without you getting what you want pisses you off even more.
Honestly, you can replace Apple with any other company. It doesn't matter.
Operating systems exist out there that are licensed that you can do whatever you want with them. Go try one out. If you don't like it, learn to code so you can make it something you like.
And yes, I have more custom built Linux systems in my home and in my place of employment than I do Mac or Windows systems. So don't give me a lecture about free software or the GPL.
I feel better now. End of rant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny. This [yahoo.com] would almost make it seem like Apple is a very profitable company, who's investors seem quite pleased at the ROI they get from owning stock.
In fact, in almost every category that would define investor confidence AAPL outperforms MSFT, and leaves DELL and HPQ in the dust.
I fail to see any lost sales and profits in this equation. If I was a shareholder in AAPL, I'd be happy as punch right now.
Re:apple will continue to suffer lost sales and pr (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cool, it's gonna fit right in with my Panaphonic plasma TV and Somy PS3!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How about "PowerPC corrupts, x86 corrupts absolutely"?