In an interesting twist, Computer World is reporting that a federal judge ruled last week that the Mac clone maker Psystar can continue its countersuit against computer maker and Mac OS developer Apple Corporation.Psystar is (in)famous for legally battling Apple for the last seven months, calling them out for breaking antitrust laws, and the Judge hinted that if Psystar can prove its allegations, other manufacturers may be able to sell computers with Mac OS X pre-installed. This is bad news for Apple, as currently they are the only company legally allowed to sell computers with Mac OS X, but many people criticize them for charging an "Apple tax". On the contrary, if other companies can sell Mac OS X, it may lead to a decline in Mac sales, but it could lead to an increase in Apple's OS market share.
The Judge in question, one William Alsup, originally shot Psystar's claims down, but left the door open for a 'modified' complaint, which he approved on Friday. Alsup said, "Psystar may well have a legitimate interest in establishing misuse [of copyright] independent of Apple's claims against it -- for example, to clarify the risks it confronts by marketing the products at issue in this case or others it may wish to develop."
Those looking to get into the Mac OS game on the cheap, don't get excited. Computer World noted, "Alsup also acknowledged Apple's argument that it had the right to decide how its software was licensed and used, but said that that would have to be decided as the case plays out."
The case is scheduled to go to trial on November the 9th this year.
Doing what? I've never had an issue with mine.
Then primarily on non-Mac computers though. Apple won't care to support these systems, so their own systems will show a higher stability than the competition.
Please, I have had Apple hardware fail on me all the time. Not to mention a Mac shutting down out network while 4 other identical Macs worked. My PC/Windows box works flawlessly with no instability issues. Instability has a lot to do with what people install/screw up on their systems.
But what I really hope is that this stuff leads to Apple beginning to retail OSX for any x86 hardware. I would and probably a lot more people would consider using it instead of buying Vista.
Timing a release right before launch of Windows 7 would be very nice for us poor consumers
Instability? I use windows all the time and very rarely do I have the OS crash. On the other hand I have already seen Mac's crash really bad. Now then I am not biased one way or the other. All OS's have their target market. I personally like Mac OS X but never liked the high price with it which is why I stuck to Windows. I may very well switch if Psystar wins.
Now then the big thing here. Apple may be forced to reduce prices even further to remain competitive.
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/02/04/o...le-than-windows
I have had problems with mine
Huh? From what I've read, you have to use a suggested list of hardware to run OS X on a non-apple computer. How that compares in any light as to what Windows supports is beyond me.
Now then the big thing here. Apple may be forced to reduce prices even further to remain competitive.
Well, me too using Windows for really long time starting from 98 to XP to Vista and to be honest I never saw those "very unstable" behaviors, only in very rare cases when trying to do some geeky stuff but for the normal using of everyday it is really stable OS.
I'm personally on Apple's side in this one, not because I believe they're right, but because I think that the general quality of their OS / ecosystem would go down if they were forced to open up their OS (open OS -> no one wants to buy actual Macs -> death of Macs as a hardware system -> death of a truly well-engineered platform (seriously, whatever you think about them, you have to give it to Apple for making the Mac experience pretty decent - from the hardware design, to the way the whole thing feels well-integrated and nice in general), and also, open OS -> Mac OS becomes popular -> malware and other kinds of **** / lack of adherence to Apple guidelines in designing apps becomes prevalent -> Mac OS as a platform starts to suck).
Oh well. :/
(Too long a parenthesis.)
wctaiwan
I'm personally on Apple's side in this one, not because I believe they're right, but because I think that the general quality of their OS / ecosystem would go down if they were forced to open up their OS (open OS -> no one wants to buy actual Macs -> death of Macs as a hardware system -> death of a truly well-engineered platform (seriously, whatever you think about them, you have to give it to Apple for making the Mac experience pretty decent - from the hardware design, to the way the whole thing feels well-integrated and nice in general), and also, open OS -> Mac OS becomes popular -> malware and other kinds of **** / lack of adherence to Apple guidelines in designing apps becomes prevalent -> Mac OS as a platform starts to suck).
Oh well. :/
(Too long a parenthesis.)
wctaiwan
+1
I'm personally on Apple's side in this one, not because I believe they're right, but because I think that the general quality of their OS / ecosystem would go down if they were forced to open up their OS (open OS -> no one wants to buy actual Macs -> death of Macs as a hardware system -> death of a truly well-engineered platform (seriously, whatever you think about them, you have to give it to Apple for making the Mac experience pretty decent - from the hardware design, to the way the whole thing feels well-integrated and nice in general), and also, open OS -> Mac OS becomes popular -> malware and other kinds of **** / lack of adherence to Apple guidelines in designing apps becomes prevalent -> Mac OS as a platform starts to suck).
Oh well. :/
(Too long a parenthesis.)
wctaiwan
+2. I think the judge could very well be a PC user.
Or he might think legally... that is the thing to do.
Judges are not supposed to think of implications to the market... that is not their business, they deal with law.
Legally, Psystar are allowed to continue suit.
I'm personally on Apple's side in this one, not because I believe they're right, but because I think that the general quality of their OS / ecosystem would go down if they were forced to open up their OS (open OS -> no one wants to buy actual Macs -> death of Macs as a hardware system -> death of a truly well-engineered platform (seriously, whatever you think about them, you have to give it to Apple for making the Mac experience pretty decent - from the hardware design, to the way the whole thing feels well-integrated and nice in general), and also, open OS -> Mac OS becomes popular -> malware and other kinds of **** / lack of adherence to Apple guidelines in designing apps becomes prevalent -> Mac OS as a platform starts to suck).
Oh well. :/
(Too long a parenthesis.)
wctaiwan
Sorry but it is FUD.
Im pretty sick of my original macbook pro, mainly because the damn video card, and the latest macbook pro also present problem on it, and Apple (by a weird reason) dropped the sales of matte screen (i.e. professional screen). So, the only way that a professional will upgrade their apple notebook is to switch to a Windows platform.
One manufacturer means you are choose-less without counting to pay premium price for a regular piece of hardware.
unfortunately i see this all too often.. within my own circles of friends even.. pretty sad..... not because i like macs (cuz i dont) i just can't stand being in the same room with a mac user because they all think they're superior and that their beloved savior Jobs and Apple are superior in every manner... they try to argue a case against me which is even funnier because they (as most mac users i've ever talked to) they dont know crap about anything technical and yet they try to argue as though they do and therefore have some inherent right to argue with someone (like me) whose profession is computers and all the nitty-gritty technical things. i've used so many macs the last few years and my hatred continues to build, based partially on the OS instability and slowness (and closed hardware) as well as the REALLY ANNOYING culture of 'superior' fanatics (there are a few people here who are so annoyingly in love with apple it makes me want to gag.. three-letter usernames, anyone???)
that's my rant.. that said, i do like a lot of apple products.. i own and have owned several ipods, and just purchased a new nano for my gf, and osx is 'pretty' but the slowness even on the most powerful of machines is unacceptable to me.
people can waste their money as they see fit, however, as im sure i have spent money on things questionable to some, so theres that..
back on topic: i'm still torn as to my feelings on this lawsuit... i dont have any desire to put the crap-of-an-os on any of my machines in its current state of crap.. but i see psystar's argument.. but at the same time if i wrote a piece of software i'd be annoyed if i was required to make it hardware-agnostic... at the same time the only reason i would want to make it general-compatible would be if i didn't make my own hardware to which the software was locked [dependent]
the simple fact that the hardware that apple uses is crap, and yet they charge such a ridiculous premium over much better enthusiast pc hardware, is enough for me to root for the little guy every single time.
that's my rant.. that said, i do like a lot of apple products.. i own and have owned several ipods, and just purchased a new nano for my gf, and osx is 'pretty' but the slowness even on the most powerful of machines is unacceptable to me.
people can waste their money as they see fit, however, as im sure i have spent money on things questionable to some, so theres that..
back on topic: i'm still torn as to my feelings on this lawsuit... i dont have any desire to put the crap-of-an-os on any of my machines in its current state of crap.. but i see psystar's argument.. but at the same time if i wrote a piece of software i'd be annoyed if i was required to make it hardware-agnostic... at the same time the only reason i would want to make it general-compatible would be if i didn't make my own hardware to which the software was locked [dependent]
the simple fact that the hardware that apple uses is crap, and yet they charge such a ridiculous premium over much better enthusiast pc hardware, is enough for me to root for the little guy every single time.
Well it's obvious your profession isn't anything to do with english.
If you were using a Mac at least it would correct your spelling and grammar.
And wtf are you talking about slowness? My 2006 iMac flies with Leopard, and will be even faster with Snow Leopard.
Now, do you really want us to get on the topic of how "fast" vista is?
I would love that. As far as any mac user is concerned, "Windoze" is ultra-slow compared to Mac and mac is so freaking awsome!
If any of you used vista today, and not have it for 5 seconds, install XP drivers on it that were not made for Vista, you would be surprised. Yes, maybe there is a program that's not compatible. That's all.
All the vista hating came from not having drivers, because Microsoft is so ****, they couldn't include drivers from hardware they didn't make! :rofl:
Ok, fair enough. Some people may have problems. But people go on with how Mac's and Linux have a alternative. Wow! Thats great! Who really cares? Its a clone that most likely WONT do better than the Windows equivalent, and its only one. Guess what people? Windows has free software too! Its hard to believe, but it actually does. The only reason I would see to swap, is if there is 100% no drivers for your computer (yeah, and linux would have them?) or if you like to pay a massive premium for a sticker on the front of your computer.
The only other thing that annoys me, is XP. Wow. :no: Its smart, to stay on a 9 year old OS. :no: Only reason for this, is compatibility.
*end rant.
It seems like I am turning into a Three Letter Person for Windows. :no:
They already do an activation check. They will just be forced to do a better one. The system does a check against the EFI space on the system.
Now that, I could live with. Apple abuses the fact that they are (currently) the only legal seller of their OS. They charge a premium for their OS and the hardware that they put it on (approx. 175% cost of a regular Dell). They have a monopoly.
There is a simple hardware check to make sure it's a Mac. OS X has never had an activation mechanism akin to Windows.
Last edited by Binary on 10 Feb 2009 - 00:00
Also, what harm would they do to their own OS by making changes like this? And how much time would they have to invest into doing stuff like this?
I take it, if that's their plan B, that's it'll definitely be a thorn in their side. Apple will want to nip this in the bud as soon as possible because, should Psystar win, it would only create problems for Apple.
As for the general users, those that intend to buy it should definitely be aware of just how solid this is. I'm no OSx86 user so I can't speak for its stability personally. But if it works great, go for it!
What I DO know is true(LTD doesn't talk about it), is when Apple was accused of making iTunes 7 deliberately crash during the release of Windows Vista, even after iTunes had many stable beta and RC builds almost a year in advance. While many Windows users were disgruntled over this, it was the Mac users that became furious over Apple's shady attempt to derail Vista's release. It was the outcry of both the Windows and Mac community that finally got Apple to release a working build of iTunes for Windows Vista.
What I DO know is true(LTD doesn't talk about it), is when Apple was accused of making iTunes 7 deliberately crash during the release of Windows Vista, even after iTunes had many stable beta and RC builds almost a year in advance. While many Windows users were disgruntled over this, it was the Mac users that became furious over Apple's shady attempt to derail Vista's release. It was the outcry of both the Windows and Mac community that finally got Apple to release a working build of iTunes for Windows Vista.
That's some interesting stuff there.
The part I find truly ironic though, and I'll never forget seeing this, is when Steve Jobs called iTunes on Windows a glass of water to those in hell (that is, those using Windows). How Jobs could have even said that with a straight face is truly incredible. While iTunes may be known for being decent on OS X, it's hardly known for having the same reputation on Windows. Safari too was a disgusting turd at its release...
(yes I said PERSONAL COMPUTERS cause thats what even Mac's are)
(yes I said PERSONAL COMPUTERS cause thats what even Mac's are)
But they are distributing altered code (breaking the DMCA) to get their computers working.
Apple could just stop selling upgrade DVD or require a mac serial on purchase... beat that.
A mac is a device and doesnt matter what components are inside... you buy it as a fully functional device.
Its not same as windows world, where one company makes an os and zilion others makes the hardware... thats why you get that separated.
As i said once before... why not install symbian on a motorola then... its just NO GO
Apple tell us that they make their money from hardware, not software; the components used may be the same as in a Dell, etc, but Apple's cases and aesthetics are in a league of their own, plus you are getting the amazing OS X operating system, which is all about productivity and stability. You can't put a price on that. You are also getting your money's worth in terms of the whole sales/after-sales/support Apple store experience. Still, a lot of students, and so on, feel hammered on price. At the other end of the user spectrum, video editors, for instance, want the most powerful kit they can scrimp and save for, and Apple, apart from at the very top end, always seem to be using relatively old-ish spec machines that, in the case of the midrange iMacs, wretchedly can't be upgraded. Apple have never, never, never seemed disposed to addressing the upgrade grievance, so a hard-to-swallow solution for them might be that they nip this thing in the bud by getting into bed with Dell and a couple of other big firms to make ultra low budget and ultra high end machines, rather than just sell OS X os to everyone. The latter senario would surely dent Mac and Macbook sales badly. I don't see that happening, or at least not while Jobs is around. He has an almost patriotic zeal about the Apple brand ethos, thinks non Apple PCs are a false ecconomy and ugly.
I too hope Pystar fail but that Apple broaden their business model to shake off the mantle of near megalomaniac snobbery and eliteism. I wouldn't hold my breath, though. In terms of carrot and stick, the Apple operating system is a BIG carrot in people shelling out for a Mac.
Last edited by While You Were Art on 09 Feb 2009 - 13:31
That would eliminate a huge part of why Mac users buy Apple systems in the first place. If they didn't feel "special", the allure would be gone.
Last edited by While You Were Art on 09 Feb 2009 - 14:13
You are not forced to use OSX, are you? What does apple force you?
Or you use mac + osx or use windows + dell... no one forces you anything...
Or you use mac + osx or use windows + dell... no one forces you anything...
He means that Apple has total control over their systems. If you want to use OSX, you have to purchase a Mac. There's currently no legal way around it.
Sure apple has complete control over THEIR system... thats normal
MS could close their system to work only on MS computers... oh wait... MS does not make computers.
Yeah, so, is that a problem? It's their software let them do what they want with it.
People would breathe fire if Microsoft did something like that.
Yeah, so, is that a problem? It's their software let them do what they want with it.
Because Microsoft is allowed to just do what they want with their OS... Oh, wait....
So why is it so wrong that Microsoft bundles IE or WMP?
Just like a Mac, you can install another OS.
In Windows, you can install another browser / media player.
Ones tying hardware to software, ones trying software apps to an OS.
It's still THEIR software, no one is forcing anyone to use it.
Just like a Mac, you can install another OS.
In Windows, you can install another browser / media player.
Ones tying hardware to software, ones trying software apps to an OS.
That's comparing apples to oranges. Media players, browsers, ect are features of the OS. The hardware of a Mac isn't a feature of the OS.
Long live hackintosh
Apple hardware is way too overpriced pretty much anywhere.
It's about time something like this happens. Hope they win.
MS gets sued when they lock out the competition (and deservedly so), why should it be any different for Apple?
OH EM GEE GAIZ
Whar iz LTD? I bet hes tottly hidng frum the intrnet!!
</typicalidiot>
Yes but why on Earth would you want to do that? If you are anti-Microsoft but refuse to pay the Apple Tax just run Linux.
I hope Apple wins this case. It's their software, let them license it however they want. The consumer shall decide whether to agree to it's terms or not. Just as iTunes owners understand that their purchases won't work on portable devices other than iPods.
Yes but why on Earth would you want to do that? If you are anti-Microsoft but refuse to pay the Apple Tax just run Linux.
I hope Apple wins this case. It's their software, let them license it however they want. The consumer shall decide whether to agree to it's terms or not. Just as iTunes owners understand that their purchases won't work on portable devices other than iPods.
So why can't MS do what they want with Windows?
MS should be allowed to do what they want with Windows, there should be no double standard here.
other manufacturers may be able to sell computers with Mac OS X pre-installed.
Yes but why on Earth would you want to do that? If you are anti-Microsoft but refuse to pay the Apple Tax just run Linux.
I hope Apple wins this case. It's their software, let them license it however they want. The consumer shall decide whether to agree to it's terms or not. Just as iTunes owners understand that their purchases won't work on portable devices other than iPods.
So why can't MS do what they want with Windows?
MS can't do what they want, but IMHO should be able to. If consumers don't want what MS is offering, there are perfectly good alternatives available for them. I wish that the EU would get that through their thick bureaucratic skulls.
Yes but why on Earth would you want to do that? If you are anti-Microsoft but refuse to pay the Apple Tax just run Linux.
I hope Apple wins this case. It's their software, let them license it however they want. The consumer shall decide whether to agree to it's terms or not. Just as iTunes owners understand that their purchases won't work on portable devices other than iPods.
LTD might not be there but sure C-Guy is ...
Get over it OSX is as good as Windows. Both really are nothing to write home about.
And again, I am as anti Apple as they come. Dig up any of my posts here. I try to not be bias.
Last edited by TRC on 09 Feb 2009 - 19:22
Fact: Your argument doesn't change the fact that the GUI wasn't their idea.
Fact: Your argument doesn't change the fact that BSD wasn't their creation.
Fact: Now that they use standard off-the-rack components the only thing Apple creates is cases.
Fact: You took my post too literally.
Fact: They licensed it legally, they didn't steal it.
Fact: They're allowed to use open source software.
You clearly said they stole it, now I wonder how would anyone take that too literally?
Just because OS X is based on the concept of a GUI doesn't mean it contains no intellectual property.
Last edited by TRC on 09 Feb 2009 - 21:10
New York Times
Apple Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994)
Apple never "licensed" the rights to ALTO. They stole the interface by snatching up the Xerox programmers who worked on the GUI. Xerox simply wasn't interested in pursuing litigation at the time. It's the same thing as snatching $5 from my hand and running away; If I don't bother chasing you down, you are not exonerated from being a thief.
Xerox believed that a "Graphical user Interface" is much like a mechanical one(the speedometer in your car), and should be impossible to copyright. Remember, this is back when the copyright system was not a complete embarrassment. It was only after Apple tried to sue Microsoft over copyright claims that Windows GUI looked too similar to MacOS, Xerox then filed suit claiming MacOS looked too similar to ALTO. Xerox knew they still owned the copyrights to ALTO, not Apple, and any sucessful litigation against Microsoft would automatically apply to Apple themselves. When the suit against Microsoft fell apart, so did Xerox's suit against Apple.
You can blow smoke all you want about Saint Jobs until your cheecks turn blue; facts are facts. Apple stole the MacOS GUI from Xerox's ALTO. They never bought the rights, just the programmers. Programmers =/= rights. End of story.
Last edited by Kojio on 10 Feb 2009 - 03:46
Both company just copy others idea. Both have awesome marketing dept.
Probably some hacktintosh will have some stability problems at the beginning (and that's normal), but it is not a permanent problem. Stability comes with experience.
The tech-nerd in me would love to see Apple openly embrace other hardware vendors to see their equipment pre-installed w/ Mac OS X. The free-market enthusiast in me would like to see Apple win their fight against Psystar.
If they win the entire case against Apple, it's all over for the Mac.
By not shipping retail-boxed copies of their OS the only real way to obtain Mac OS X would be to purchase a Mac and then move the OS off of it. While there could be some market for computers where Mac Mini licenses are moved to Mac Pro featured machines the proposition would be notably less appealing for 3rd party manufacturers.
I'm not in favor of a ruling one way or the other, but Apple "losing" the case does not in any significant way open the door to low-cost Mac clones.
While losing the ability to sell boxed copies of their operating system would be a hit to their bottom line it is certainly within reason to consider the option if Apple felt that losing this case was a significant threat to their hardware markets. Right now all of Apple's software sales represents about $600 million / quarter (for comparison, Keyboards, mice, iPhone docks, etc. were about $400 million, see last quarters 10-Q filing for more info). By comparison, Macintosh hardware was 3.5 billion, iPods were 3.3 billion, iPhone and iTMS was 2.2 billion.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.