[Updated 8/04] Apple Sues Unauthorized Clone Maker Psystar

[hagjohn]

Component Quality, R&D Costs, (mostly) bulletproof drivers...

These are all things that would suffer if an Apple was released at beigebox prices. I agree we need a more reasonable headless Mac, however, no one of importance seems to think that there really is a hole in the Apple lineup.

Component quality... please, it's the same hardware that goes into the PC. Its no different. I'll give you the R&D. I would like to have my macbook's keyboard to stop freezing.

Go onto any Mac forum and you will see people asking for different things... I guess "no one of importance" is the customer.

[offroadaaron]

to be honest, I think Apple are scared to put their OS out there with the rest of the game.

reasons:

-Spyware

-Virus'

-people disliking the OS (I think this is a mega one)

-having to support other hardware (being compatible)

The fact of people not liking OS X I think is a major one. I mean people buying a $2000+ system are generally not going to say they dislike their system because they are paid mega $$$ for it. But someone paying $159 or something for an OS and not liking it, is much easier for them to admit.

As for the whole suing thing is concerned, I think Apple will win, as they will have the money and lawyer power unfortunately!

GO the underdog though!

Edited July 16, 2008 by offroadaaron

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

nice choice of words

but agreed, OSX would drastically suffer if made to support everything under the sun

I think Apple would go to hell in a hand basket if they had to support half the multitude of hardware/software configurations that Microsoft has to deal with. Apple likes to control everything and opening up the OS to generic PC hardware would be a nightmare for them.

[Dev Null Zen]

The problem is this, is an Apple and Apple if you have the same driver Hell that you do in Windows just because a select group wants to be able to toss untested parts into a machine?

My thoughts...

No.

Apple systems are not for everyone, sadly, why ruin it for those who enjoy them the way they are (With a rapidly growing market-share so there must be a few) just for those who don't want an Apple for what it is...

Apple is simplicity, stability, elegance...change that and you no longer have an Apple system, you have a beigebox.

This is the kind of elitist crap Apple users have been spreading for years. If Apple wanted to be able to isolate, why did they move to Intel from PPC?

Component Quality, R&D Costs, (mostly) bulletproof drivers...

These are all things that would suffer if an Apple was released at beigebox prices. I agree we need a more reasonable headless Mac, however, no one of importance seems to think that there really is a hole in the Apple lineup.

As has been stated many times before, the components are the same as many other x86 systems. I honestly have to wonder if there is some kind of coding hole in OSX somewhere that has them afraid to make it pure x86 compatible. It's really not a driver thing, because most vendors would have no issues with making Apple drivers. Most major ones already do linux drivers.

I want to be able to buy just the OS as much as the next guy, but how can you say Apple should be forced to support another platform or sell the OS that THEY own separate from the hardware that THEY designed? Its their products and they're well within their rights to dictate how they're too be packaged/sold.

Because THEY didn't design the hardware. All they did was decide what hardware they wanted to code support for.

[osirisX]

This is the kind of elitist crap Apple users have been spreading for years. If Apple wanted to be able to isolate, why did they move to Intel from PPC?

PPC just didn't perform well enough and IBM wasn't able to supply Apple with enough chips. Intel on the other hand, could do both.

[Cara Veteran]

Component quality... please, it's the same hardware that goes into the PC. Its no different. I'll give you the R&D. I would like to have my macbook's keyboard to stop freezing.

Go onto any Mac forum and you will see people asking for different things... I guess "no one of importance" is the customer.

Honestly as far as I knew the keyboard freeze was fixed several patches ago, have you installed all the latest system updates?

As for parts, argue as people might it is a fact that Intel (and several other vendors) provide Apple with Tier 1 components which are above and beyond those distributed to most (not all as there are others who also pay for his privilege as Apple does) OEM's. Tier 1 parts are traditionally reserved for Retail Sales where the company themselves are required to warranty the part and therefore want the highest grade component that should require the lowest amount of money to warranty.

This is the kind of elitist crap Apple users have been spreading for years. If Apple wanted to be able to isolate, why did they move to Intel from PPC?

As has been stated many times before, the components are the same as many other x86 systems. I honestly have to wonder if there is some kind of coding hole in OSX somewhere that has them afraid to make it pure x86 compatible. It's really not a driver thing, because most vendors would have no issues with making Apple drivers. Most major ones already do linux drivers.

The problem with your logic is there isn't a great deal of it there... It's a well known fact that Apple didn't move to Intel to make things open for PC users to use their OS, rather because Motorola/IBM was unable to provide a power/heat/performance comparable chip at the lower pricepoint as Intel was able to do. Thus the transition was made to insure that the Apple lineup for the future maintained its touted superior performance/stability as had been the banner in the past.

Right now each and every driver put into Mac OS X is quality assured by both the vendor and then by Apple, this is possible given there is a select group of hardware configurations that must be supported. I feel a great many PC users will agree that one of the greatest failures of Windows is not the Redmond code itself, but rather the low quality drivers which cause system performance and stability issues. Apple supports the hardware that has been tested, checked, and approved for use on the platform which insures (for the most part) only stable and quality drivers are provided to the end user.

What would happen if you took Bargain Basement Crap's brand new GeForce card and threw it into a Mac, however as with most OEM's instead of providing reference drivers or Apple Approved drivers you get an out of date, customized, driver package from the card manufacturer. You start experiencing crashes on your previously stable Mac and thus generate support calls to Apple who are not able to properly troubleshoot your problem because you installed a 3rd party card and software which has installed (or overwritten the approved drivers) bad drivers. Thus Apple loses both in the eyes of the customer when they can't fix their problem as well as in the time and money it costs them to support an unsupported piece of equipment.

Most vendors might, and I stress might, be willing to work on OS X drivers but then we are simply left with the quality issue which is something Apple owners buy their machines to get around. I do not feel that those of us who are willing to buy supported hardware should be forced to suffer so that Joe Blow can install a copy of OS X on their Dell Bargain Beigebox.

"It just works" is more than a slogan of Apple users, it's just a fact we've come to appreciate from our Macs' and OS X.

[39 Thieves]

Apple lineup for the future maintained its touted superior performance/stability as had been the banner in the past.

Thanks for that, almost spit out my tea. Must remind myself not to read your posts while I'm drinking something.

...oh...wait...that wasn't a joke?

You have quite a skill, making it seem as though your every post comes hot-off-the-press from the Apple marketing department.

[JustGeorge]

Because THEY didn't design the hardware. All they did was decide what hardware they wanted to code support for.

I know they didn't design the actual PC components inside the PC. What I meant was they chose the components, and created a fancy case, hence they designed the system.

[+jamesyfx Subscriber²]

Putting OS X on a PC to me is like downloading free licensed music.

Cheapskates in the world will do it.

[FloatingFatMan]

Ignoring the parts about whether Psystar are breaking the law or not, It's obvious Apple will win this for the simple reason that they have FAR more money than Psystar, and can drag this out for years. Psystar will be bankrupt within months if they try to fight.

[Boz]

"It just works" is more than a slogan of Apple users, it's just a fact we've come to appreciate from our Macs' and OS X.

The only problem with this is that I don't think "it just works".. I've been experiencing far more trouble and distractions with OSX then I ever did with Windows and I fully switched to OSX and spent a lot of money for their best Mac Pro.

The ONLY thing that keeps OSX from not falling into a complete shamble is the fact that they limit openness of the system. I'm sure now, more then ever that OSX would completely fall apart if it was opened to PCs thus the reason why they don't do it.

[Richard Hammond]

The problem is this, is an Apple and Apple if you have the same driver Hell that you do in Windows just because a select group wants to be able to toss untested parts into a machine?

My thoughts...

No.

Apple systems are not for everyone, sadly, why ruin it for those who enjoy them the way they are (With a rapidly growing market-share so there must be a few) just for those who don't want an Apple for what it is...

Apple is simplicity, stability, elegance...change that and you no longer have an Apple system, you have a beigebox.

I agree partly with driver hell, theres nothing to say that apple would have to support all the hardware, there are plenty of configurations of OSX86 machines that are 100% compatible with OSX it just doesnt have the EFI bios, Apple could easily put out a "system builders" or "oem" OSX that only supported a handful of hardware but at least you then have the choice of either building a beige box and installing osx or buying a readybuilt machine from Apple. Just like we have with PCs, build your own or buy a Dell etc..

[Brandon]

Putting OS X on a PC to me is like downloading free licensed music.

Cheapskates in the world will do it.

Contradicting statement lol

[markwolfe Veteran]

Contradicting statement lol

Ummm.. no.

There are independents and others who release their music without DRM and without cost.

Not every band out there is a Metallica.

[Cara Veteran]

Not every band out there is a Metallica.

"Money Good, Napster BAAAAAAAD"

Did I just date myself there? ;)

[FloatingFatMan]

"Money Good, Napster BAAAAAAAD"

Did I just date myself there? ;)

I don't know, did you take yourself out for a good time? Which one of you paid for dinner? :p

[mad_onion]

i'm still confused. i don't get why people think Apple would lose this case.

for one they aren't even arguing whether Psystar is allowed to sell OSX on non Apple hardware.

but even if they were isn't the precendence already set with this. case or am i not getting something.

[Hurmoth]

i'm still confused. i don't get why people think Apple would lose this case.

for one they aren't even arguing whether Psystar is allowed to sell OSX on non Apple hardware.

but even if they were isn't the precendence already set with this. case or am i not getting something.

That's true, Apple isn't going to argue whether or not Psystar is allowed to sell OS X on non-Apple hardware, but Psystar will argue that.

They'll state that if Apple wasn't violating a 1984 Federal Court ruling by forcing their customers to install OS X on non-Apple hardware, then they wouldn't have to modify OS X.

Really simple argument. The main thing is that 1984 court ruling. Whatever court gets this will end up reviewing that court ruling and they cannot overturn that court ruling, only the Supreme Court can. What they could do is state that the ruling doesn't apply to this case, in which Psystar may appeal and it will go to the Supreme Court (if they decide to hear it of course).

[Cara Veteran]

That's true, Apple isn't going to argue whether or not Psystar is allowed to sell OS X on non-Apple hardware, but Psystar will argue that.

They'll state that if Apple wasn't violating a 1984 Federal Court ruling by forcing their customers to install OS X on non-Apple hardware, then they wouldn't have to modify OS X.

Really simple argument. The main thing is that 1984 court ruling. Whatever court gets this will end up reviewing that court ruling and they cannot overturn that court ruling, only the Supreme Court can. What they could do is state that the ruling doesn't apply to this case, in which Psystar may appeal and it will go to the Supreme Court (if they decide to hear it of course).

I was talking to my husband about that last night, he's a corporate lawyer (but not for Apple), and he said that if Psystar starts trying to bring in that ruling it'd be tossed as not applying to the case as this is relevant to the charge of copyright infringement (Redistribution of Apple Copyrighted Code, an Apple Branded Product, after being modified by a third party without permission.)

From what has been made public he feels this is a pretty easy case given Psystar has to admit they modified Apple's code (as it can be downloaded publicly for review which Apple no doubt already has and is ready for) which indirectly admits that they willingly and knowingly violated Apple's Copyright and IP Rights.

I think I got that right, God knows I remember why I don't talk about work with him anymore, I glaze over when the legaleze comes out. ;)

[markwolfe Veteran]

i'm still confused. i don't get why people think Apple would lose this case.

...

For most of them, it is wishful thinking. Many of the posters stating "Apple will/should lose" you can find other anti-Apple sentiments in their other posts on Neowin.

Conversely, Apple supporters almost universally say "Apple will/should win".

I have only one hand-me-down Apple G3 which was given to my oldest son. I have never purchased an Apple and while I like the OS, I am not fond of many of Apple's policies (some of them seem more draconian than Microsoft). From my perch, it seems that Apple does indeed have a valid case against Pystar for unauthorized modification and re-distribution of Apple's copywritten code. I believe Apple should win this one, just as Microsoft should win if I were to take Vista, modify them and re-sell it without agreement/authorization from Microsoft.

[Cara Veteran]

Wow. Updates...

Apple wants Psystar to snatch back Mac clones from customers

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2248

For your reading pleasure, I have attached the Apple Filing to this post. :)

applecomplaint.pdf

[Hurmoth]

^ I don't see that happening. I could see a judge ordering Psystar to stop selling their product until after the trial or a settlement has been reached though.

The sad part about this is it could months, maybe even years before anything comes of this.

[edit] on a side note, I noticed that lawsuit states that this will also include "Unfair competition". Under that they (being Psystar) should be able to get in the 1984 court ruling shouldn't they? Copyright infringement doesn't give Psystar an unfair competition, but selling OS X on non-Apple hardware does, so it would seem Apple is going after them for that as well.

[NeoXY]

omg...these guys are dead. As we speak, Steve him self is eating the heart of all who was involved with Psystar.

...no really.

[Cara Veteran]

^ I don't see that happening. I could see a judge ordering Psystar to stop selling their product until after the trial or a settlement has been reached though.

The sad part about this is it could months, maybe even years before anything comes of this.

[edit] on a side note, I noticed that lawsuit states that this will also include "Unfair competition". Under that they (being Psystar) should be able to get in the 1984 court ruling shouldn't they? Copyright infringement doesn't give Psystar an unfair competition, but selling OS X on non-Apple hardware does, so it would seem Apple is going after them for that as well.

Looks like Apple is going for a de-facto Knock-Out Blow...

[clotz2000]

I don't think it will hurt the average x86 users. These guys are selling this stuff for profit, no one I know is profiting in the x86 sites besides the site owners if they have ads, which isn't violating the Apple EULA.

Psystar had to have known this day would come, you can't charge for hacked versions of OSX and expect them to overlook it. However I think if they just sold the hardware they may be ok and then just leave it up to the end user to configure their own OS situation.