[XMattingly]

Quote

> {size:10px}However, this isn?t a straight-up loss for Psystar. The bankruptcy filing means that the company?s current legal battle with Apple over whether or not Psystar?s clone business violates Apple?s copyright is now on hold, pending the results of the bankruptcy proceedings. Meanwhile, the company gets an attempt to escape its predicament?in its filing, Psystar says it plans to come out of bankruptcy with a strong plan for its future.{size}

>

Quote

{size:10px} And that begs the question as to whether this is a intentional move on Psystar?s part in order to provide their legal team more time to make up bull to justify the illegal installation and resale of OS X.{size}

Or, that could mean that Psystar is flat broke and their credit lines have vaporized. Either way, Psystar loses:
# They have damaged their reputation beyond repair.
# Cheapskates who are foolish enough to buy their product can expect little to no customer service. If the computer breaks during shipping? Tough noogies!
# With their track record of shady practices, they're going to have a hard time gaining enough credit to keep the lights on.
# Apple has billions in the bank (obviously). It will be easy for them to litigate Psystar into the poor house.
# And... if Psystar turns a profit during this lawsuit? Apple can take that for damages, assuming they win this case (which they will).

Funny how Psystar is "too small" to be able to hand over detailed accounting, yet they're self aware enough to know when they're bankrupt. They're like a PC vendor shipping boxes from the wrong side of the tracks in Toon Town.

[macanada]

First off, my stance is if Apple made their OS to only run on Apple branded machines, then that is their choice to do so. When you buy a copy of the OS you are licensing the use of it, not purchasing the actual code to be manipulated as you see fit. Second, Apple designs and manufactures (or has manufactured) the hardware to run their software. To open up the EULA to allow their OS on machines manufactured in Germany, Russia, Asia or the US which are not "Apple Branded" would directly compete against their own hardware division. Apple has a fantastic consumer satisfaction rating, most likely due to their current business model. I for one would rather see Apple continue concentrating on providing innovative products and software than diverting its resources into the mirky waters of third party diagnostics - which is what would happen if the EULA was modified for use on other systems. On a final note, with Apple now owning and possibly developing some of their own chips; one area I would be looking into is the production of an identity chip of sorts. Something that the OS has to look for before it will even boot up. This type of security would hamper a lot of Mac OS wannabes.

Is it just me, or does this remind anyone else about those kit cars.. remember the Lotus body kit built for a VW frame?

[jman3001]

These days, Macs are PCs and PCs are Macs, they simply run a different OS. If Psystar goes away there are many other options for people that want to run OS X on a PC and save a lot of unnecessary expense compared to buying an Intel Mac.

The argument on this website is and always has been: Hey, we work for Apple, so you should pay more money for a Mac, so we can keep this "Apple is Special" game going.

I, for one, am no longer buying the "Special" thing about Macs. My Psystar machines are running perfectly. As far as customer support.....don't want it and don't need it. I've gotten lousy support from Apple in the past, to the point of it causing me to simply stop calling them. A computer company is a computer company is a computer company. Be the user, not the used. Use whatever works for you and replace it when you're done using it. Computers will last you approximately 5 years. You don't need to spend more and more money to have a very good working computer for 5 years. That's the logical way to look at computers and computing.

I hope Psystar hangs on. They're a very good company with very good products. But, if they leave, someone else will replace them.

[XMattingly]

Quote

{size:10px} jman3001 wrote: The argument on this website is and always has been: Hey, we work for Apple, so you should pay more money for a Mac, so we can keep this "Apple is Special" game going.

Consumer reports have placed Apple in the top brackets for quality and customer support for a long time now; I'd say that makes them pretty special.

Quote

{size:10px} I, for one, am no longer buying the "Special" thing about Macs. My Psystar machines are running perfectly. As far as customer support.....don't want it and don't need it. {size}

Good for you. Some people do occasionally need tech support though, and without a reputable business to offer a reliable service, they're probably going to shy away from the Cheapskate Mac market.

Quote

{size:10px} A computer company is a computer company is a computer company.{size}

By that line of reasoning, you might also believe your Ford Festiva is comparable to my GTO.

Quote

{size:10px} Be the user, not the used. Use whatever works for you and replace it when you're done using it.{size}

That's a fair enough statement. It's too bad it goes in support of a company that is profiting from breaking copyright law with every sale they make, though.

So I would add: use whatever works best for you within your budget, but never trust a guy selling equipment off the back of a truck.

Quote

{size:10px} I hope Psystar hangs on. But, if they leave, someone else will replace them.{size}

They won't, and the next business up to bat will be staring down a lawsuit, too.

[mdawson]

Quote

macanada wrote:

>

Quote

On a final note, with Apple now owning and possibly developing some of their own chips; one area I would be looking into is the production of an identity chip of sorts.

Apple has actually been designing chips for some time. What they do not do is manufacture them leaving such production to contractors better suited to the task. The same goes for their motherboards; Apple has designed every single one of them, but they contract the production to circuit board manufacturers. That is where benroethig?s statement about Macs being ?built the same factories as windows machines? falls flat, because that has always been the case.

The difference is that the Wintel OEMs bulk purchase whatever the motherboard OEMs decide to create and then make up the difference by filling up PCI slots with technologies that the fabs intentionally omit (e.g., FireWire) or are slow to implement (e.g., new Ethernet protocols). Apple designs specifically for target markets and what is available on any given Mac?s logic board reflects what Apple believes is necessary to serve the ?real? needs of that specific market at that time. Yes, Apple does lag behind sometimes?for instance, the ATA bus on older Macs typically were a generation behind those on Wintel contemporaries in the past?but whatever a Mac does or does not offer in terms of built-in features is strictly Apple?s decision and not that of the logic board manufacturer as is the case for most Wintel PCs.

Who actually builds the motherboards is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that every single Mac built since 1984 has had an Apple designed logic board; a claim few Wintel OEMs can make about any of their assembled (not designed) systems.

[macanada]

I can fully understand why people would like to run Mac OS on a non Apple branded machine. As demonstrated, you can purchase cheaper hardware to do just this. But why do you want to run the OS on these clones?? Because the Mac OS has proven to be very user friendly and very reliable. Why? Because it is built to run on specifically designed hardware. A controlled environment. Once you start proliferating the market with sub standard or alien hardware design, the stability factor of the OS will soon become an issue. With Apple diverting its resources to adjusting the OS to compensate, (providing the EULA is altered to demand such support..) the Mac OS would drop in its user friendly and stability ratings. The second resulting factor is the extra machines running Mac OS would drive the Apple branded hardware division down a much different path than it is currently. I do not wish Psystar to fail. Only for them to take the next logical step and develop their own OS. The Mac experience is what it is because Apple stuck to its business design and gave the people a hardware / software combination that works well together. This was only demonstrated once again with the iPhone, leading other manufacturers down the same path.. develop the hardware and software to work together and with the end user in mind. As for Apple customer service, personally I've been running their equipment since OS 6 on a Mac Classic and quite frankly I've never had to call them for anything. That says something.

[XMattingly]

Quote

{size:10px} macanada wrote: Once you start proliferating the market with sub standard or alien hardware design, the stability factor of the OS will soon become an issue. With Apple diverting its resources to adjusting the OS to compensate, (providing the EULA is altered to demand such support..) the Mac OS would drop in its user friendly and stability ratings.{size}

Not to mention that the price of the OS, without question, will go up pretty dramatically. Ultimately, we'd all be paying the same - or even more, for hardware/software systems that aren't as reliable... which will give those who complain about "overpriced Macs" something else to complain about.

[himbo]

jman3001 said:

>

Quote

The argument on this website is and always has been: Hey, we work for Apple, so you should pay more money for a Mac, so we can keep this "Apple is Special" game going.

No, the argument has been that Apple owns the software they create. As such, they get to dictate the terms of use under which one can purchase a license to use it. They also get to determine who resells it and under what conditions they do so. Psystar fails compliance on both of those counts.

[Martian]

Mac OS is just an integral ?sub-assembly? of a completed Macintosh sales unit, albeit the sub-assembly that most defines a Mac as a Mac. The $129 UPGRADES that Apple sells are complete OS?s only because they are actually LRU?s (Line Replaceable Units) rather than just the individual OS components that have been changed.

Apple hurts this argument by relying solely on their lawyerly, contemptible, EULA fine print, ?we own the software? crap to substitute for marketing honesty. By marketing honesty, I mean labeling and then following through with the honest position that $129 OS X sales are just upgrades, and that the real cost plus fair profit on the OS X would be several times this nominal upgrade price.

The theft of intellectual property by clone makers ? essentially patent infringement ? should be much easier to defend against than the intellectual property theft facing the recording and movie industries. But Apple?s secretiveness and marketing slight of hand has wasted some of this advantage.

[himbo]

Martian said:

Mac OS is just an integral ?sub-assembly? of a completed Macintosh sales unit, albeit the sub-assembly that most defines a Mac as a Mac. The $129 UPGRADES that Apple sells are complete OS?s only because they are actually LRU?s (Line Replaceable Units) rather than just the individual OS components that have been changed.

Apple hurts this argument by relying solely on their lawyerly, contemptible, EULA fine print, ?we own the software? crap to substitute for marketing honesty. By marketing honesty, I mean labeling and then following through with the honest position that $129 OS X sales are just upgrades, and that the real cost plus fair profit on the OS X would be several times this nominal upgrade price.

The theft of intellectual property by clone makers ? essentially patent infringement ? should be much easier to defend against than the intellectual property theft facing the recording and movie industries. But Apple?s secretiveness and marketing slight of hand has wasted some of this advantage.

This is utter nonsense. It's neither lawyerly nor contemptible for the company that creates the software to claim ownership of it and dictate its terms of sale and use. Have you never dealt with commercial software before?

[hillstones]

rab777hp said:

They weren't pirating software. They had a legitimate business.
What they were doing was selling a niche product, they like mac os x, that's the whole point, they wanted there to be a mac available that was a mid line product, a tower, but not quite as juiced up as a mac pro, and not as stripped down as a mini. So they made that computer, they did it by themselves, originally (and already were an established PC maker), and it was their own design. In fact, this probably helped Apple more than hurt it, they got people to buy Macs who would previously not be able to afford one, and thus enticed people onto the mac platform. Plus, Apple profited from each sale, someone has to pay for each copy of leopard on each machine, which was purchased legitimately by psystar.
In addition, perhaps most of all, they created competition, competition is one of the greatest things in business, it causes businesses to reform, change, and adapt. If psystar hadn't gone under, they might have eventually forced apple to create a product similar to the open computer.

Do you have any evidence to support your comments? A legitimate business? Since when does stealing someone's intellectual property become legitimate? They are not licensed by Apple to do business. They were not an established PC maker. They started by selling the OpenMac, then quickly changed it to OpenComputer when they violated the Mac trademark. Then they started selling Windows clones. They got people to buy Macs? Are you an employee of Psystar? Do you know their sales figures? That is the one piece of information that has never been disclosed. The copy of Leopard you receive is an unopened box that does nothing for you. The copy installed on the computer is an illegally hacked copy. Read their fine print. They didn't create competition, because no one is dumb enough to buy one of their computers.

If you think they have such a great product, explain to me why you don't own one now? Go buy one and tell us how great your experience really is. Oh, and when you have to reinstall Leopard for any reason, let us know how easy that is. I am guessing you haven't read their fine print to know how screwed up their operation really is.

[hillstones]

jman3001 said:

>I, for one, am no longer buying the "Special" thing about Macs. My Psystar machines are running perfectly. As far as customer support.....don't want it and don't need it.

Quote

I hope Psystar hangs on. They're a very good company with very good products. But, if they leave, someone else will replace them.

I guess you didn't read the fine print, did you? I hope they do go out of business and then you wonder where the support is when you really need it. Have you tried to re-install Leopard yet? That retail copy you received with your Psystar computer is useless. You need their support to reinstall Mac OS X. The copy installed on the computer is the illegally hacked copy. The copy of Leopard they gave you in a box, will only install on Apple-branded hardware. I bet that clone box you bought is just like all the other PC clone boxes...cheap and noisy? You won't have any luck running Snow Leopard on your Psystar computers either, because they will be out of business by the time it is released.

If you don't believe me, go to their website and read the fine print. The only way you can reinstall Leopard is if you submit a written request to obtain their special CD. The special CD allows you to install a hacked copy of Leopard. The written request also requires that you RELEASE all your rights against the company and agree that you are 100% completely satisfied with your purchase BEFORE they ship you the CD. How is that for customer support? Have you tried Boot Camp yet on your Psystar computer? Didn't think so...because they can't get that to work.

[Martian]

himbo said:

>

Quote

This is utter nonsense. It's neither lawyerly nor contemptible for the company that creates the software to claim ownership of it and dictate its terms of sale and use. Have you never dealt with commercial software before?

Yes?enough to know that the centuries old, internationally universal concepts of patent law ( statute law or the equivalent in most countries) certainly hold more weight than a unilaterally drafted EULA which is just an implied consent, ?shrink-wrap contract?.

I don?t see how you can lose a case in any relevant country in the world when it is clear that the other party is using your patented/copyrighted designs without your permission. But case law on these ?shrink-wrap contracts? is hardly decisive in the U.S., and I assume totally unenforceable in many other countries.

So why would Apple forsake a slam dunk, internationally similar, patent infringement, statute law argument for an inconsistently decided, internationally variable, ?shrink-wrap contract?, argument? My guess is that Apple has been misguided by its lawyers and marketing people ? or is that just SJ himself.

Who do you think is responsible for Apple's disguising the upgrade nature of the $129 OS X DVD's?

[graxspoo]

I take issue with the idea that what they are doing is illegal. If I buy Apple's operating system, I should be able to install it on any hardware I like. I should be able to make modifications to it, patch it, extend it, and so on. Imagine if you bought a car and the car maker said "you can't modify the engine" or "you can only drive it on the roads we tell you to." Ridiculous. I bought it. It's mine. End of story.

Every copy of OS X installed on a Psystar machine has been legitimately purchased by the end user. They are not stealing anything. This is the same sort of thing that manufacturers do when the buy a Mac, and then put it in a new case, then resell it. Its perfectly legal.

I realize that Apple tries to prevent this sort of thing in their EULA, but I have serious doubts as to whether the EULA will actually stand up in court. I say, go to it Psystar, and good luck.