Again, how much of a difference would it make if Psystar simply didn't preload the OS, but offered the discs? There's nothing Apple can do about anyone actually selling sealed authentic copies of OS X.
@Kaiser-Machead: I think Apple would have an argument if Psystar is not an authorized reseller. Copyright law does provide for control over distribution and for Psystar to buy authentic copies and sell them would appear to be a violation to me. What Psystar should do is provide all the hardware and installation instructions but have customers buy the software directly from Apple. Then I'm not sure how copyright could even come into the picture.
I still don't get why it has never struck Apple that Pystars existence may be because people want OSX but not a Mac?
MS sell their OS separately, and pretty much have a huge company based just off software, yet Apple tie the software to a single PC manufacturer and on top of that have iPhones,iPods,iTune n the money of iLife/iWorks n OSX upgrades yet are still nowhere near as big as MS. So maybe if they want a bit more muchos they might wanna you know sell OSX on its own?
@deanbmmv: People often point out that Apple tried it. But they tried it with an inferior operating system (at the time) and poor execution. Are these people implying Apple is the same as it was then? That's rhetorical for those prepping to rip me a new one.
The fact there are hackintoshes proves there is a market. Psystar is attempting to take advantage of that market and I don't understand why there is such a backlash outside of fanatical fanboyism.
The reason Apple doesn't license their OS is three fold. One, OSX provides for differentiation among their offering of computers and they can market this as advantage over the competition. Two, Steve has often thrown out the quote that people who care about software make their own hardware and Apple wants the Mac experience to be the same regardless of which Mac you are using. If they allow Dell or HP to install OSX, they lose some control over that and it opens them up to criticism. And three, they likely subsidize their software development with hardware sales and would not create the same kind of revenue selling just the software.
Keep in mind as a hardware manufacturer, Apple's real competition is Dell, HP, etc. Microsoft is just a common component of their competitors that they can easily attack in the ads. So they'd be helping out the competition by letting them use OSX.
@ester: Exactly. And there's also the fact that even if there's a market doesn't mean it's worth it.
Having more clients for the sake of having more clients doesn't mean jack if they don't really represent more money in the long run.
I don't think apple wants to enter a market that is wanting to spend 130 bucks every 2 years, who doesn't want to buy their other products and a market that will represent them a lot more money spent into R&D to support thousands of hardware configurations.
Apple sells as a premium brand that gives you the "whole experience" and a brand that already has an incredibly profitable business, wich is still growing and has a lot of loyal customers. I'm sure that if this business model ever stops growing, they'll try something else, until then...
Eh, anyone else find it weird that the new computer comes loaded with Thriller, Off The Wall, Bad, Dangerous, and HIStory, and according to Psystar's website, can do the moonwalk?
Maybe b/c they dumped the "mac" part of their name, they are OK? Perhaps they saw "Double Jeopardy" w/Ashley Judd on their Netflix feed, and got a brilliant idea?
I give Apple 3 years before their market share start to disapear. Owning Apple products is a fashion statement, nothing more. You pay twice as much for their products and get less functionality in return, this can't be a viable buisness model.
People will realize that and Mac will quickly become objects of mockery, just like a Vuarnet or Tommy Hillfiger sweat shirt.
Psystar is a shell company - a front for a lawsuit - and always has been.
Their interest has never been selling computers, it's selling a legal theory.
I wouldn't be surprised if their business plan is not to prevail in court and sell computers, but to reach a settlement that will ensure profit from their investment (in legal not technological R&D), and then pack up their money bags and go out of business.
Now someone really has to be behind all this, lets be real even if psystar has to win this which i doubt, Who the heck is gonna buy a machine from them if HP & Dell and all these other companies decide to offer OS X as a option, and is not like psystar gonna sell machines cheaper than them. O well i guess sooner or later we all would see who is the Puppet master behind it all, and No is not microsoft cause this happening is the last thing they would want, they don't want Dell or HP to offer OS X as a option cause that's their worst nightmare
@snitch29:> "No is not microsoft cause this happening is the last thing they would want, they don't want Dell or HP to offer OS X as a option cause that's their worst nightmare"
Exactly.
So... we've got Apple wanting to continue to sell their own machines to make all their profit on hardware and protect their IP and brand. (which they've done for the last 30 years)
And Microsoft not wanting Apple OSX to appear on their bread-n-butter HPs and Dells instead of Windows.
I'm sure HP and Dell don't wanna support all of the possible configurations of their machines... even if they could sell an OSX machine. Apple doesn't want to tailor the drivers and configurations of 13 different HP laptops or 8 Dell laptop models either.
So... why do people expect OSX to appear on clones?
IF, by some unlikely chance Psystar wins, and Apple is forced to open up its OS for use on all machines... couldn't Apple just raise the price of an OSX licence to $500, or refuse to wholesale it to Dell and HP? It's their product... no one can FORCE them to sell it to Dell.
@MichaelScrip: Or apple can just rid shelf sales of OSX and sell it online and require buyers to submit the serial number of their macs they intend to install it on. This way no one can just walk in, buy osx and walk out.
@redwingsmonk: Sounds sensible, though it would be a serious burn to the Hackintosh community, as many Hackintoshers would then need to actually purchase a mac to get a hold of the OS, which makes building a new computer pointless.
I really hope something comes of this against Apple. I don't want Apple to go out of business or anything, but they've been far too controlling of everything for far too long, while employing similar tactics to Microsoft.
@rjp: This would end up with copies of OS X that have long alphanumeric serial number strings, which also involves the OS having to call back to Apple to be activated. No friggin thanks.
@codeBLUE: As another pointed out, Apple might be trying to avoid entering Microsoft's world of playtime with your average vendor. Imagine all of those people going to a genius bar with an DellMac, or an HPMac, or whateverelseMac and complain about something not working, then the tech will be presented with the frustrating task of dealing with other companies' hardware. Even if it's always beneficial to know about computer systems in general, a piece of hardware that isn't covered by Apple's warranty is not their responsibility.
@Kaiser-Machead: Basically you're saying Apple wouldn't do it because their "geniuses" would have to learn about computers?
You can get a Dell/Windows machine and a Dell/Linux machine and it's pretty easy to get support for either. Why would a Dell/OSX machine be any different.
07/02/09
07/02/09
07/02/09
07/02/09
MS sell their OS separately, and pretty much have a huge company based just off software, yet Apple tie the software to a single PC manufacturer and on top of that have iPhones,iPods,iTune n the money of iLife/iWorks n OSX upgrades yet are still nowhere near as big as MS. So maybe if they want a bit more muchos they might wanna you know sell OSX on its own?
07/02/09
The fact there are hackintoshes proves there is a market. Psystar is attempting to take advantage of that market and I don't understand why there is such a backlash outside of fanatical fanboyism.
The reason Apple doesn't license their OS is three fold. One, OSX provides for differentiation among their offering of computers and they can market this as advantage over the competition. Two, Steve has often thrown out the quote that people who care about software make their own hardware and Apple wants the Mac experience to be the same regardless of which Mac you are using. If they allow Dell or HP to install OSX, they lose some control over that and it opens them up to criticism. And three, they likely subsidize their software development with hardware sales and would not create the same kind of revenue selling just the software.
Keep in mind as a hardware manufacturer, Apple's real competition is Dell, HP, etc. Microsoft is just a common component of their competitors that they can easily attack in the ads. So they'd be helping out the competition by letting them use OSX.
07/02/09
Having more clients for the sake of having more clients doesn't mean jack if they don't really represent more money in the long run.
I don't think apple wants to enter a market that is wanting to spend 130 bucks every 2 years, who doesn't want to buy their other products and a market that will represent them a lot more money spent into R&D to support thousands of hardware configurations.
Apple sells as a premium brand that gives you the "whole experience" and a brand that already has an incredibly profitable business, wich is still growing and has a lot of loyal customers. I'm sure that if this business model ever stops growing, they'll try something else, until then...
07/02/09
07/02/09
07/02/09
07/02/09
Don't hire lazy, uninspired dregs from other companies to design your product.
Oh, and certainly don't hire uninspired, greedy, obtuse executives to point your company in a positive direction.
02/04/09
02/04/09
02/04/09
02/04/09
02/04/09
I thought they gave up the ghost years ago, shorty after that whole CherryOS trying to rip them off fiasco...
02/04/09
I remember that. But are they the same? That was PearPC (which was an open source PPC emulator), not PearC.
02/04/09
I guess, unlike public swimming pools, they left out the 'P' to distinguish themselves from those other guys...
02/04/09
You following me here cameraman?
02/04/09
12/12/08
12/11/08
People will realize that and Mac will quickly become objects of mockery, just like a Vuarnet or Tommy Hillfiger sweat shirt.
12/11/08
12/10/08
Their interest has never been selling computers, it's selling a legal theory.
I wouldn't be surprised if their business plan is not to prevail in court and sell computers, but to reach a settlement that will ensure profit from their investment (in legal not technological R&D), and then pack up their money bags and go out of business.
12/10/08
12/10/08
Exactly.
So... we've got Apple wanting to continue to sell their own machines to make all their profit on hardware and protect their IP and brand. (which they've done for the last 30 years)
And Microsoft not wanting Apple OSX to appear on their bread-n-butter HPs and Dells instead of Windows.
I'm sure HP and Dell don't wanna support all of the possible configurations of their machines... even if they could sell an OSX machine. Apple doesn't want to tailor the drivers and configurations of 13 different HP laptops or 8 Dell laptop models either.
So... why do people expect OSX to appear on clones?
IF, by some unlikely chance Psystar wins, and Apple is forced to open up its OS for use on all machines... couldn't Apple just raise the price of an OSX licence to $500, or refuse to wholesale it to Dell and HP? It's their product... no one can FORCE them to sell it to Dell.
12/10/08
12/10/08
12/10/08
12/10/08
12/05/08
12/05/08
12/05/08
You can get a Dell/Windows machine and a Dell/Linux machine and it's pretty easy to get support for either. Why would a Dell/OSX machine be any different.