[jman3001]

First a couple of answers to the idiot trolls.

Why did I use Apple for 20 years? Because, OS 7, 8, and 9 made more sense than the crap Microshaft was selling. Once Apple came out with OS X, I knew the door would be open for more options than just the same old overpriced Mac running the same old software. Psystar came along and the smart people could see the light. You use what's good for you at the time. That's all science is, You use the tools that serve you well, and when something else comes along that may serve your purpose, you use it. Pretty simple stuff. Too bad this group of trolls don't seem to get it.

Please save us any more crap about the destruction and ruination of Apple, because of Psystar........no one believes it. Apple's not going anywhere. They can sell their iPhones and iPods for many, many years to come. They're still going to sell plenty of Macs, regardless of whether or not they have a monopoly over their OS.

As far as my opinion being meaningless, let's ask someone that should know even more than I do. Let's say.... an Apple founder. Yes, let's go right to the source of all the hoopla. Let's ask Steve Wozniak what he thinks about the Psystar machine.

The fellas over at Ars spoke to Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak about this whole Leopard emulating process with Psystar, as well as the history of Hackintoshes. Lo and behold, it appears the Woz agrees with our legal assessment of the situation: That if Apple does decide to do anything, it will likely issue a simple Leopard update that breaks system compatibility. (Guess they also decided to waste money on a meaningless lawsuit)

"You have a right to run Mac Software on any non-Apple computer," he told Ars, "but you don't have the right to copy codes that are built into Apple's hardware, so you are stuck." (See Apple v. Franklin for more on copyright and how it applies to software). As such, Wozniak believes Apple will simply add a tweak to a future Leopard update that will break compatibility with the Open Pro or Open Computer. After all, Apple is under no obligation to ensure compatibility with non-Apple hardware, he said.

Apparently, the man still can't resist the siren call of a less expensive Mac, however, and said he might even give the desktop a chance. "I need another tower and I like the price, so I may get one."

So, Steve Wozniak (while he thinks Apple will sabotage there own OS X so they can continue their monopoly), does understand that people have the right to run the OS on another computer, if they choose to. Personally, I don't need another Mac OS update to use my Psystar machine for the next 10 years, and I only need it to last for 5 years, really. Currently, OS 10.5.5 is running wonderfully on the Psystar. So Steve and I agree, the price is right and it works, so we both like the Psystar.

Too bad, common sense is so hard to find on this blog. But, then again, you're dealing with Apple zealots. It's pretty much like disagreeing with Sarah Palin. You know, Russia bad; America good.........yawn.

[vulpine]

jman3001 said:

First a couple of answers to the idiot trolls.

Who's trolling whom, here? It's an Apple forum, and you are going out of your way to make Apple out as the "Bad Guy."

Quote

Please save us any more crap about the destruction and ruination of Apple, because of Psystar........no one believes it. Apple's not going anywhere. They can sell their iPhones and iPods for many, many years to come. They're still going to sell plenty of Macs, regardless of whether or not they have a monopoly over their OS.

...as Ford has a monopoly over the Mustang and Microsoft has a monopoly over Windows. Uh huh.

Quote

As far as my opinion being meaningless, let's ask someone that should know even more than I do. Let's say.... an Apple founder. Yes, let's go right to the source of all the hoopla. Let's ask Steve Wozniak what he thinks about the Psystar machine.

The fellas over at Ars spoke to Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak about this whole Leopard emulating process with Psystar, as well as the history of Hackintoshes. Lo and behold, it appears the Woz agrees with our legal assessment of the situation: That if Apple does decide to do anything, it will likely issue a simple Leopard update that breaks system compatibility. (Guess they also decided to waste money on a meaningless lawsuit)

"You have a right to run Mac Software on any non-Apple computer," he told Ars, "but you don't have the right to copy codes that are built into Apple's hardware, so you are stuck." (See Apple v. Franklin for more on copyright and how it applies to software). As such, Wozniak believes Apple will simply add a tweak to a future Leopard update that will break compatibility with the Open Pro or Open Computer. After all, Apple is under no obligation to ensure compatibility with non-Apple hardware, he said.

Apparently, the man still can't resist the siren call of a less expensive Mac, however, and said he might even give the desktop a chance. "I need another tower and I like the price, so I may get one."

So, Steve Wozniak (while he thinks Apple will sabotage there own OS X so they can continue their monopoly), does understand that people have the right to run the OS on another computer, if they choose to. Personally, I don't need another Mac OS update to use my Psystar machine for the next 10 years, and I only need it to last for 5 years, really. Currently, OS 10.5.5 is running wonderfully on the Psystar. So Steve and I agree, the price is right and it works, so we both like the Psystar.

Too bad, common sense is so hard to find on this blog. But, then again, you're dealing with Apple zealots. It's pretty much like disagreeing with Sarah Palin. You know, Russia bad; America good.........yawn.

Of course, you also choose to ignore the fact that the article quoted was dated April 12th, when everyone first found out about the Psystar. From what I can find, the Woz hasn't said another word about it since. He has not said that he will buy one but only that he might.

You will note that Apple has never resisted or argued with anyone who built a Hackintosh for themselves, but only those who have attempted to sell said Hackintoshes for a profit.

Common sense? Again I ask, Why should a company risk all for a plan that has already failed once? If you burn your hand on a stove, are you going to put your hand there again? Your so-called intelligence may say you can do it without harm, but your wisdom (knowledge based on personal experience) should say "I'm going to get burned again."

[mdawson]

And as usual, you show that your position has not a leg on which to stand.

Quote

jman3001 wrote:

>

Quote

Please save us any more crap about the destruction and ruination of Apple, because of Psystar........no one believes it.

No, you refuse to accept historical fact. Based on your logic, every lesson ever learned from history should be ignored, because now is not then. Thank god, you are not running any successful business as you obviously learned your business savvy from the Spindler-Amelio School of Business at the University of Sculley.

Quote

jman3001 wrote:

>

Quote

As far as my opinion being meaningless, let's ask someone that should know even more than I do. Let's say.... an Apple founder. ?Let's ask Steve Wozniak what he thinks about the Psystar machine.

You again form a weak argument Steve Wozniak is a hardware guy and a idealist, but he has never had any business skills; that is and has always been Jobs? strength. Steve Wozniak left Apple in 1981 and returned in 1983 for a four-year stint strictly as an engineer. Woz never wanted to be bothered with the business of running Apple. If it were up to The Woz computers would be free, but as noble a concept as that is, the world does not operate on flower child idealism. Woz?s citation of the Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. case demonstrates his ignorance of the business side of the company or any of Apple?s legal dealings:

Quote

Initially, the district court found in favor of Franklin. However, the ruling was overturned in 1983 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit which determined that computer software, including operating systems and system ROMs, could be protected by copyright. Furthermore, the court postulated that copyrightability of computer programs as literary works does not depend on whether they are delivered in object code or source code, or whether they are application programs or operating systems. Hence Apple was able to force Franklin to withdraw its clones by 1988.

>
?Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983), Wikipedia

So not only did Woz make a poor case for Psystar by citing a case that Apple ultimately won, but you just provided those of us that see that Psystar is in the wrong with another source of legal precedent in Apple?s favor.

[jman3001]

It always interesting to see loyal Mac zealots throw the founder of the Macintosh and Apple under the bus the minute he doesn't agree with their viewpoint. No one would even have a Mac today if it wasn't for Steve Wozniak. He's one of the most respected people in the computer industry.

Wow! This really says a lot about the contributors here.

If the Franklin case actually had anything to do with the current case, there would be no lawsuit. Psystar didn't take Apple's ROM and modify it or modify the OS. They bought the OS and installed it on a PC at the customer's request, per the choices given to the customer. They used a full legal version of Apple's OS and paid for it. This lawsuit is based on the Apple EULA which may not even be legal.

Most here would rather live in 1983, than live in 2008.

Times have changed and they will continue to change, regardless of the existence of Psystar or even Apple for that matter.

[vulpine]

And again for the who-knows-how-many-eth time, you repeat the old lie, disproven in the first review of the Psystar.

jman3001 said:

Psystar didn't take Apple's ROM and modify it or modify the OS.

From the outset it was announced that Psystar took the readily-available crack released by the guys that created the original Hackintosh and clearly marked as "Not for Commercial Release" and modified the OS in order to install it on their machine.

So Psystar hasn't just broken one copyright, but two; and I expect that whether Apple wins or not, once that court battle is done, a second will begin.

[mdawson]

Quote

jman3001 wrote:

>

Quote

It always interesting to see loyal Mac zealots throw the founder of the Macintosh and Apple under the bus the minute he doesn't agree with their viewpoint.

Jesus Christ. You just love reaching for straws. No one is throwing Steve Wozniak under anything. You seem to be working under the false assumption that just because The Woz is an Apple founder, anything he has to say about a company he has not been involved with for the past 20+ years is correct. His statement about the Apple vs. Franklin case was erroneous, I provided a citation to verify as much and anyone can Google the case and verify the stated same from numerous credible sources.

Steve Wozniak was the hardware genius behind the Apple I and he was idealistic about personal computers. Nowhere in my post do I diminish the role that he played in creating the company, but it is well known that without someone like Jobs by his side, Apple may have very well been a historical footnote. It is historical fact that Wozniak was not the business guru, which was Jobs? role in the partnership, and had no desire to be one. It is also historical fact that Wozniak really never wanted any part of the business side of Apple because his interest was strictly in the hardware and how it could be used.

Quote

jman3001 wrote:

>

Quote

Wow! This really says a lot about the contributors here.

No, it makes a point to how far you will go to pervert what others post.

Quote

jman3001 wrote:

>
If the Franklin case actually had anything to do with the current case, there would be no lawsuit.

Wrong again, as usual. The Apple legal team took their time studying what legal action they could take, if any, and that meant reviewing any similar copyright cases such as the Apple vs. Franklin ruling. Had Apple lost that case, Apple?s legal team would perhaps have had more trepidation about going after Psystar. Apple lost the case against Franklin on the first shot, but the decision was overturned by a higher court, so Apple has legal precedent in their favor.

jman3001 wrote:
>
Psystar didn't take Apple's ROM and modify it or modify the OS.

vulpine has already called you on this pretense.

jman3001 wrote:
>
Most here would rather live in 1983, than live in 2008.

And some of us actually remember what we learned in high school political science or civics courses about the fact that the judiciary passes judgment based on legal precedent and that is exactly what the Apple vs. Franklin case provides.

[jman3001]

Wrong again on all accounts.

Using an excuse about business practices does not take away from your disrespectful attitude toward the founder of the Apple computer. Steve Wozniak doesn't have to be a part of Apple, or be a business guru (which he is anyway) or a legal mind to make an opinion about Pysytar. His thoughts are good enough for me, because he's been a computer genius for many years. I honor Steve Wozniak's knowledge of computers and what he thinks about this issue, and your purposed business knowledge offers nothing to the debate.

Your opinion of the Franklin case is distorted, also. These are completely different cases with completely different circumstances. Apple's computer in 1983 is not the Apple computer of today, and the Psystar company took nothing from Apple, other than the purchased version of OS X. Which, is all you need once you install the boot EFI. Apple can easily protect it's OS by not using an Open Source OS (which they don't own). It's like a woman wearing a short dress and complaining because men are looking at her legs. No one has abused anything here. Apple is simply overwhelmed at the idea that consumers now know they have overcharged everyone for years for a product that is no more special than the common PC.

If Apple wants to stop Psystar they can create an unbootable OS for anything other than an Apple made product, as the Woz suggests, or they can simply make a computer that will complete with Psystar. What Apple is seeking is the right to be a monopoly, which doesn't benefit the consumer in any way. Hence, the anti-trust laws. I wonder what they're doing about the iPhone or iPod competition, since all of these devices look the same and do the same things. Except that the competition doesn't sell their product for what Apple is asking. Gee, Apple is overpriced, what else is new.

[derekc]

Dear jman3001: I know I'm wasting my time, since you are so dedicated to distortion. But I think I speak for the vast majority of us here:

Would you please stop trolling? You don't make sense, obviously, as pointed out by several of us over and over and over again with fact after fact after fact to back us up. I don't care why you don't makes sense. I only know that you are a source of disinformation pollution and are nearly 100% ignorable. In other words, you're wasting everyone's time. It's to the point where I consider it pointless debating with you as there is no possible way you'll change your deranged, misinformed and deliberately ignorant opinions. Time to say bye-bye.

Was that polite enough for MacWorld? Is it better than a troll deserves? Probably.

; - Derek

[mdawson]

I am surprised the moderators have not yet removed his posts. But then, given that at least two Windows users have chimed in against him, perhaps the moderators believe that they have little reason to censor posts that are obviously beyond absurd.

[jman3001]

I guess the MacWorld people are forgiving because they are more than aware of all the Macs purchased that were just overpriced boxes, and that the Psystar machine is just like owning a Mac only a LOT less expensive, I guess they can forgive a longtime Mac guy that has spent a fortune buying Macs and then being forced to throw down wads of money supporting my purchase.

MacWorld and others have reviewed the Psystar, and though they hate to admit it, it's a very nice machine. Go ahead Apple, start making reasonably priced towers instead of fancy looking doorstops. My G5 is officially DOA, due to a poorly made Logic Board. The Apple techs said it wasn't worth repairing because it would cost about $800 to repair. In fact, the Psystar is faster and better than the Mac G5. If it breaks down in 5 years, so be it. It was only $700 to begin with. The G5 cost me over $3500 by the time I bought RAM and a decent Video Card. I call something 5 times more expensive and not as trouble-free as what I have now, a bad investment.

The very best thing about Psystar, is that they made OS X affordable to everyone for the first time, and that they showed-up Apple BIGTIME, by selling a box for under $700 that performs and delivers like the much more expensive Macs. The curtain has been pulled and Apple has been exposed. That's priceless.

[vulpine]

Impressive. You not only try to put words in the editors' mouths, you also choose not to read any of the reviews; starting from the very first one!

jman3001 said:

I guess the MacWorld people are forgiving because they are more than aware of all the Macs purchased that were just overpriced boxes, and that the Psystar machine is just like owning a Mac only a LOT less expensive, I guess they can forgive a longtime Mac guy that has spent a fortune buying Macs and then being forced to throw down wads of money supporting my purchase.

MacWorld and others have reviewed the Psystar, and though they hate to admit it, it's a very nice machine. Go ahead Apple, start making reasonably priced towers instead of fancy looking doorstops. ...

comments about nonexistent machines and unlikely anecdotes don't belong here.

Quote

The very best thing about Psystar, is that they made OS X affordable to everyone for the first time, and that they showed-up Apple BIGTIME, by selling a box for under $700 that performs and delivers like the much more expensive Macs. The curtain has been pulled and Apple has been exposed. That's priceless.

Now, let's look at what you said. Starting with "MacWorld and others have reviewed the Psystar..." you are right; and they even gave them decent reviews. But in every single case they did emphasize that the Psystar is NOT "...just like owning a Mac..." They made it very clear that there was a LOT missing in that price. Also, in every comparison price-for-price, it was compared to a Mac Mini that not only had a slower CPU but also 1/4th the RAM, automatically giving the Psystar the advantage, and they acknowledged it.

Interestingly enough, I have seen no new reviews of the Psystar published since the middle of June and even that one cast a lot of doubt on Psystar as a company based on the offerings listed on their web page. Oh, and every review I read in one way or another did note that Psystar was breaking copyright in Apple's software even to the point of removing Apple's copyright statement in one of the copyrighted files.

Psystar is going to lose; one way or another. It's just a matter of how long it takes them to give up.

[mac_luva]

Exactly. Their argument is based on creating the "MacOS market". This is not going to happen because Apple is but one player in the

"market of computers". They no more have a monopoly than Ford has on cars!



I just love the windows/hobbyists who are crossing their fingers that Apple looses so they can buy their wicked cheap macs! Sorry people

but Apple will prevail! You are wasting your time. Plus what do they think will happen if Psycrap succeeds? It will be the end of Apple!

Then they will have to be content (like the poor AMIGA users) to using an outdated (eventually) OS w/no one left to update it. Yeah, sounds really

good! That's thinking ahead!

[jman3001]

Actually Apple is 100% of their market. Apple Macintosh is not a PC and so can't be put in the same league. Apple would like people to think they are competing with the PC, but PCs don't run OS X, because Apple says they can't. So, if Apple is competing with PC then Apple has to allow the OS to cross-over for any real competition. Apple stands alone because the applications that run on a Mac only run on a Mac OS and if you want to run the OS you must buy the over-priced Apple boxes.

This point is brought up again with another lawsuit against Apple, AT&T & the iPhone.

Speaking of unconscionable, that is just what a court has ruled that some of the terms of the AT&T iPhone user agreement may be. The court has ruled that Apple and AT&T may have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act when they had a secret agreement that locked customers in for five years, three years past the two-year agreements that customers thought they were signing. The court ruled as well that Apple may have violated the same law by limiting the market for iPhone applications to those available through the Apple Store. In addition, the court ruled that Apple's decision to permanently disable unlocked iPhones with its Version 1.1.1 update may have also violated the law.

This is typical of recent Apple business tactics. It's a monopolizing tactic to force the consumer into paying inflated prices for their products. Apple is forcing people that buy an iPhone to pay more than they should and take a contract for the phone that is longer than it should be, and quite frankly, illegal. The same idea applies that the consumer has no right to install their OS on any box but the one Apple makes. And to say that Apple only goes after companies that sell their product (after the company has paid for a full license) is ludicrous, because Psystar is allowing the purchaser the option of what HE or SHE wants to install. The individual decides on the OS, not the company. The profit that Psystar makes on the OS sale is virtually zero. It's limited to the cost of the OS to the consumer.

Apple wants every consumer that buys an Apple product to pay through the nose for the privilege. That's something the courts are liable to look down on, as Apple continues to dig a deeper and deeper hole for itself.

[dbutenhof]

jman3001 said:

Actually Apple is 100% of their market. Apple Macintosh is not a PC and so can't be put in the same league. Apple would like people to think they are competing with the PC, but PCs don't run OS X, because Apple says they can't. So, if Apple is competing with PC then Apple has to allow the OS to cross-over for any real competition. Apple stands alone because the applications that run on a Mac only run on a Mac OS and if you want to run the OS you must buy the over-priced Apple boxes.

I see. So nobody ever makes a choice between Windows and Mac OS X. Nobody ever makes a choice between Windows and Linux. They're separate markets, each their own private monopolies competing with nobody.

Wow. That makes sense. Why didn't we see it before? You must be some sort of genius.

I'm a monopoly, you're a monopoly, we're all monopolies!

Then again, you're also confusing hardware and software. "PC" in common usage refers to a computer system capable of running Windows. Windows competes with Mac OS X, not with Apple hardware, because Microsoft doesn't make computer hardware and, if they did, it wouldn't be called Windows. Apple presents a unified package of hardware and software, which competes in the personal computer market against the combination of Microsoft Windows plus hardware from some other vendor. (And Apple is one of those vendors.) That Apple doesn't choose to support Mac OS X on anyone else's hardware is no different from Microsoft choosing not to release a Linux version of Office; or NVIDIA and ATi choosing not to release open source graphics drivers for Linux. Google is releasing a Mobile maps application that does "street view", and not for iPhone... or probably for various other phones as well. There are mobile applications that only run on Blackberry, or Palm, or WinMob; and simply aren't available on others. In all these cases, no matter what you might like, they don't have to. Just as I have no right to walk into your house and insist that you cook dinner for me.

Gripe all you want; you're wrong. Your facts are wrong, and your opinions are misinformed. Your desires are your own; and they're going to stay that way.

Quote

This point is brought up again with another lawsuit against Apple, AT&T & the iPhone.

Speaking of unconscionable, that is just what a court has ruled that some of the terms of the AT&T iPhone user agreement may be. The court has ruled that Apple and AT&T may have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act when they had a secret agreement that locked customers in for five years, three years past the two-year agreements that customers thought they were signing. The court ruled as well that Apple may have violated the same law by limiting the market for iPhone applications to those available through the Apple Store. In addition, the court ruled that Apple's decision to permanently disable unlocked iPhones with its Version 1.1.1 update may have also violated the law.

In fact, all that's been ruled so far is to reject the request that the case be dismissed out of hand. That means the parties begin to collect evidence and prepare arguments. You try to act as if something's been decided, and you're simply wrong. It hasn't even started yet.

Quote

This is typical of recent Apple business tactics.

Well, yes, but you've quite deliberately and completely misinterpreted and probably misunderstood every bit of it. Which, as it happens, is completely typical of your posts.