[technogoddess]

patrickmacworld:

Comparing Psystar to Rosa Parks? I usually don't reply to comments like yours, but I do have something to say. You are an idiot. I'd explain exactly why, but it's obvious from your post that you wouldn't understand it.

[hillstones]

patrickmacworld said:

bq. I agree, but still, I find it infuriating that they feel they are in their right to utilize copy protected material to compete directly against the creator of such copy protected material. I hope justice prevails in November
Psystar is not stealing the OS, it's buying legal retail copies.

You have never been to their site, have you? The legal retail copy that they include is useless to the buyer of a Psystar computer. It will not restore the system if you need to reinstall Leopard. Read the fine print. You have to request their special restore CD, which illegally hacks the system. To get this CD, you must agree that you are happy with your purchase and must release all rights against Psystar.

Everyone who complains about Apple's product features and prices thinks Psystar is doing a great thing, but why haven't any of you rushed out to buy one? If you think they are doing such a great service, go buy one.

[SlotcarBob]

Well, because Apple is the best. Psystar will die because they are not competitive. That would be fine. But to die because of this EULA thing is just wrong. No one is wishing Apple harm. It's about EULA's, for me, and what a lot of companies think is proper use of them. I am not interested in stealing anything. I pay the high price of an Apple for a lot of reasons ("high price" is a bit deceiving and inaccurate, actually), one being that they are worth it. "It just works". But let's not confuse Apple with Mother Teresa or The Red Cross.

There are two errors made in this discussion, and all others like it:

1. The presumption that those in favor of what Psystar is doing wish harm to Apple (this presumes that those who feel this way actually know that this is going to harm Apple, when they have no idea).
2. There is a presumption that they know 100% the outcome of this, or that EULA's, as written, are used properly. They do not. They can only offer an opinion. Their opinion. I and others have our opinion. We shall know for certain around the end of 2009 when a court decides.

[hillstones]

mdawson said:

>I, like you, would love for Apple to sell a toned-down pro system that is better suited to the needs of (most) power users that do not need an uber-expandable full-sized tower, but instead a level of processing power and future-proofing that the iMac does not offer. That stated, no one else has the right or legal leeway to infiltrate a proprietary platform to fill in that gap using the property of the platform?s owner.

Future-proofing? The Mac Pro is an expandable tower computer that is not upgradable to prevent future-proofing, except for adding a hard drive or a video card. Most of you beg for a mini-tower, but why, they would not be upgradable. Since the transition to Intel, there are no third party processor upgrades available for the Mac Pro. So you would buy your mini-tower, throw in a new hard drive and new video card a few years down the road, and then toss it out when you want more processing power. The PowerPC days were different because you had the option of boosting performance with a new CPU from companies like Sonnet. Since there are none available for the Mac Pro, why would you need a Mini Tower when it offers no future-proofing?

[patrickmacworld]

And you, you have not read all my comments, have you? If you did, you would have noticed that I admitted Psystar cannot do whatever it wants with its copies of OS X. You would have also read that I don't condone theft, do not have a Psystar system, and never will. My point was, Psystar will not stop selling its products until the court orders it to do so. In the meantime, we cannot expect Psystar to stop what it is doing, because it will never happen. And so that you know, I did not complain about Apple's prices and features. When I don't like a product, I don't complain, I just don't buy it. For example, I don't own an iPod because I don't like to have an MP3 player tied to only one computer. That's my choice.

[hillstones]

mdawson said:

A computer that costs $500 does not cater to the needs of power users regardless of OEM. People in the market for consumer-grade PCs do not need an expandable tower. Most computers sold today are far more powerful that the average computer needs and such persons were highly unlikely to ever do any hardware upgrades even when this was not the case. Apple recognizes this fact, is practically the only OEM that actually builds computers and therefore designs consumer-level desktops to serve that market.

Apple?s consumer systems are not cannibalized Mac Pros. Given that the iMac is the highest selling desktop Mac and Apple?s market growth over the past 5+ years, obviously there approach to designing consumer-level systems has hit the mark.

You have just contradicted your prior post in which you claim the iMac isn't powerful enough and that most people want an expandable tower with pro features. Now you claim most computers are far more powerful than the average person needs, most are highly unlikely to do any upgrades, and that Apple has hit the mark in what people want.

Remember in the 90's when Apple had too many models to choose from? They almost went bankrupt and had to write off almost $750 million in unsold inventory. Adding a mini-tower wouldn't improve Apple's sales, it would hurt the Mac Pro sales.

[hillstones]

[quote name='smax013']
>

patrickmacworld said:

> Psystar is not stealing the OS, it's buying legal retail copies.

Technically, I don't believe that is true. To my knowledge, Apple does NOT sell a "retail" license of their OS. They sell "retail UPGRADE" licenses, which would require the purchaser to have a previous version of the OS to use the "new" one that they bought. The only other way to get a license for the Mac OS is to by a Mac from Apple or a used Mac with the OS from someone else. Unlike Micro$oft, Apple is NOT in the retail OS market and as such they don't sell OEM or regular retail licenses...they only sell "upgrade" licenses.

You are incorrect. When you buy a retail copy of Mac OS X, it doesn't require any prior version of the OS to be installed or verified. It is not an upgrade.

[hillstones]

patrickmacworld said:

And you, you have not read all my comments, have you? If you did, you would have noticed that I admitted Psystar cannot do whatever it wants with its copies of OS X. You would have also read that I don't condone theft, do not have a Psystar system, and never will. My point was, Psystar will not stop selling its products until the court orders it to do so. In the meantime, we cannot expect Psystar to stop what it is doing, because it will never happen. And so that you know, I did not complain about Apple's prices and features. When I don't like a product, I don't complain, I just don't buy it. For example, I don't own an iPod because I don't like to have an MP3 player tied to only one computer. That's my choice.

The second paragraph was a general comment about most people complaining about Apple's prices and features. It wasn't regarding your original comment.

[SlotcarBob]

As to Apple's pricing and features (maybe they mean feature sets?), Apple is at the top, and certainly fairly priced. I just got $750 for a 4 year old PowerBook G4 for which I paid $1550. I think resale is part of the pricing equation. If your complaint is that Apple doesn't offer enough models or different types of configurations, you are right. But that probably won't change, and has little or nothing to do with what Psystar is doing. To be honest, I have no idea what anyone sees in the product.

[patrickmacworld]

>To be honest, I have no idea what anyone sees in the product.

Some people want to try OS X badly, but cannot afford a Mac or don't want to spend too much on a Mac especially when they are not sure that they'll like it or not.

A friend of mine was in that situation. He was looking into getting a Hackintosh system.

[SlotcarBob]

I understand that completely, Patrick. But, when I compare what a Psystar has, and what Mac offers, I don't see the price savings at all. I guess you mean when compared to a Mini, the P-star has slots?

[trip1ex]

Quote

{quote:title=patrickmacworld wrote:}
Some people want to try OS X badly, but cannot afford a Mac or don't want to spend too much on a Mac especially when they are not sure that they'll like it or not.


A friend of mine was in that situation. He was looking into getting a Hackintosh system.

I don't think that's the case. The Mini is $599.

what you're really saying is your friend wanted what a specific configuration that Apple doesn't make.

Your friend would rather have a bunch of parts of his choosing in a generic box under the desk than have a nice looking piece of hardware with the fewer choices Apple offers.

[trip1ex]

As others have said Apple used to have many more models and they almost went bankrupt.

They also tried to license out their O/S back in the day and that was a failed experiment as well.

Maybe times have changed. Maybe they have a bigger brand today. Maybe their O/S is much more superior today. And maybe since Windows can run be run virtually within OS/X more folks would be willing to switch given broader choice.

But Apple would really have to change their business model. Right now they make their money selling hardware. And that is how customers perceive their brand.

The decision to license out their OS to OEMs would be a major one with far-reaching effects. It is not as simple as flicking a switch and everything is honky-dory and the best of both of worlds.

[patrickmacworld]

SlotcarBob said:

I understand that completely, Patrick. But, when I compare what a Psystar has, and what Mac offers, I don't see the price savings at all. I guess you mean when compared to a Mini, the P-star has slots?

My previous comments may seem as if I'm Psystar's side, but I'm not. I'm not on Apple's side either. I'm just a consumer who buys what suits my needs.

I, too, understand your point. In fact, I discouraged him from taking the Hackintosh route because he would not get the total experience. Plus, Apple's patches to fix bugs are based on what Apple produces. In his case, the bugs may still be there without any fix.