Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Psystar Back in the Fight Against Apple

Tags:
Last response: in News comments
Share
July 30, 2009 3:57:07 PM

Even though I would never use OS X, I am happy to see Psystar putting up a fight against the big dudes. Apple just wants to be the only company out there providing consumers with OS X. You don't see Microsoft getting all pissed when people buy Windows and install it on a custom built machine.
July 30, 2009 4:07:51 PM

Sure hope Psystar wins. I don't like OSX myself, but I like Apple trying to force people to use it's generic overprice PC hardware even less.
Related resources
July 30, 2009 4:10:19 PM

Go Psystar!
Anonymous
July 30, 2009 4:14:54 PM

That's because that's what Microsoft wants you to do. They couldn't care less what hardware you run it on.
July 30, 2009 4:15:10 PM

I hope Psytar wins.

Forcing the consumer to buy product A with product B is a-moral.
July 30, 2009 4:34:43 PM

meh, I don't really care which way it goes. If i'm gonna by a computer with OSX, im gonna buy it from apple. there is a reason why most of their computers are so stable, all the hardware is the same for the most part so their OS works perfectly with the specified hardware.

So even if Psystar wins, which I don't think it will due to the EULA stating that you can't install OSX on non-apple hardware, I still wouldn't buy one from Psystar. Their prices aren't that much cheaper anyway.
July 30, 2009 4:39:26 PM

Hey hypocrites, remember when MS was sued because they strong armed PC manufacturers like Dell, HP, etc to sell only Windows?
July 30, 2009 4:46:26 PM

Apple build a closed market.
Banning from IPhone Apple Store every software making competition with his own OS. Banning Google and others big name.

Something with the Mac Hardware. It's a PC with specified hardware. Specified hardware that you pay over the current market price.

I think Apple build an Antitrust case with theirs products and we should stop them.

If you read all article about Apple on Toms, you can see... Apple trying to stop every user to use their software incorrectly (for them).
Actualy, if you can go somewhere else then "Apple Store" is BAD.

Basicly, if you jailbreak your IPhone, your a big hacker and you have destroyed their integrity and their phone tower.... Next step, they'll send policeman after people who have an IPhone jailbreaked...

Apple is actualy a worst Antitrust case than ever.
July 30, 2009 4:59:23 PM

I have wondered why the EU has been raping Microsoft with all these "anti-trust" suits, but they do nothing against Apple and their forcing(or attempting to force) customer to use their hardware with software the customer purchased(namely, the Mac OS).

If Microsoft did that, the EU would go into a full fledged "emo" rage. Hey, I just found a copy of OSX, I think it is time to install it on my non-Apple machine.
July 30, 2009 5:11:53 PM

montezumaI have wondered why the EU has been raping Microsoft with all these "anti-trust" suits, but they do nothing against Apple and their forcing(or attempting to force) customer to use their hardware with software the customer purchased(namely, the Mac OS).

It's not OSX customers that are being targeted by Apple, that's why you don't see them shutting down the various homebrew Hackintosh groups and hobbyists. What they're going after is other companies reselling their product against Apple's licensing terms, for a profit. Imagine if someone was buying up a bunch of DVD movies, transferring them to VHS, and then selling those tapes for a profit. That's kind of what Psystar's doing with OSX.
I dislike Apple's attitude about OSX only shipping on Apple hardware, but I also don't think Psystar has a leg to stand on in defending what they're doing either. For me this is kind of like watching two jerks get into a fight.
July 30, 2009 5:12:36 PM

People like to complain about Apple's prices but according to Consumer Reports and others, they have the most reliable machines. And the build quality is superb - better than you get from any other large manufacturer. None of this comes cheap.

You may want to remember that Apple ][ clones predated all the "Windows" machines (that used to be called PC clones after the IBM PC they mimicked). And for a while Apple even licensed third party Mac clones. When they switched operating systems to OS/X - based on a BSD Unix variant - they released the kernel, and have also released their Webkit modifications to the Linux Konqueror web browser core. What they are really protecting is the GUI, the same way M$ protects the Windows GUI.

Apple's policy of insisting on only running OS/X on their hardware may or may not stand the legal challenge. However, I'm more concerned about M$'s efforts to control the market than I am about Apple's attempts to enforce its license.

Apple at least constantly innovates while M$ seems to sit back until forced to move. Remember the long period of IE6 before Firefox forced M$ to upgrade their browser? And how about the long wait for an update to Windows XP (we're still waiting for a real upgrade)? M$ only released Vista because it was so far behind everyone else. Even Windows 7 will be playing catch up to OS/X and Linux.

Let's not forget M$'s corrupting of ISO to get their docx format accepted despite the fact that ISO rules disqualified it.

And then there is M$'s legal challenge against Tom Tom for using their FAT32 file system. The same case can be made against every USB key maker. On the "evil" scale, Apple barely registers compared to the "great Satan". :) 
July 30, 2009 5:14:10 PM

I am actually a fan of apple products. I have a couple but I have also avoided a couple because its apple's way or the highway. Regardless of whether i like a company or on, I always like it when a the little guy calls bullshit on their practices and is willing to take it to court.
Bring on the clones.
July 30, 2009 5:22:56 PM

jw_37Hey hypocrites, remember when MS was sued because they strong armed PC manufacturers like Dell, HP, etc to sell only Windows?


No - strangely, it has been only Win or Linux and Dell and HP do that. We were in favor of it when it started happening, and MS isn't worried about it.

I'm against ANY strong-arming. I'm against the strong-armer portraying themselves as "open" and as the good guy. . .
July 30, 2009 5:24:47 PM

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on MacOS X, just like MS doesn't have a monopoly on Windows. You can't have a monopoly on your own product, only on a product class/market. The EU doesn't go after Apple for MacOSX because it's less than 5% market share, ie, Apple has no leverage to impose its commercial decisions on the computer market. MS has close to 95%, anything they do WILL have a strong impact. Now if you want to hit Apple for an antithrust case, the iPod/iTunes/iTS is a much better bet (just give it a little more time).
On Psystar; they're leeches, period. They want to profit from Apple brand name and marketing to squeeze a few bucks out of greedy and incompetent customers. Nothing they provide cannot be done by relatively simple home-made hacking . Plus, they're plundering the effort of the Hackintosh community, people Apple never went after. until now. GG Psystar...
July 30, 2009 5:25:13 PM

Next Apple will claim that OSX clones will bring down the internet and set puppies on fire...
July 30, 2009 5:32:35 PM

WheelsOfConfusionImagine if someone was buying up a bunch of DVD movies, transferring them to VHS, and then selling those tapes for a profit.

What exactly is wrong here? You pay for DVD movies, you pay for VHS tapes, you put effort to produce something and you want to make profit on your effort. I think all companies are doing this every day, buy supplies/parts put some labor and produce new product and sells it for profit.
Your example is incorrect because it implies that you get single DVD and making multiple copies and this is copyright violation, but Psystar is not copying, they are buying retail box of OS X for each computer they sell.
July 30, 2009 5:34:12 PM

WheelsOfConfusionWhat they're going after is other companies reselling their product against Apple's licensing terms, for a profit. Imagine if someone was buying up a bunch of DVD movies, transferring them to VHS, and then selling those tapes for a profit. That's kind of what Psystar's doing with OSX.

Your analogy is incomplete. Psystar is only making 1-to-1 "copies". Your analogy implies they bought 1 DVD and made 100 copies, but Psystar buys 100 copies of OSX and makes 100 computers. They aren't cheating Apple out of any money with regards to OSX. Apple is upset because they don't get to the corresponding hardware sales.

Imagine if Sony Pictures sued you because you bought the latest movie release on Blu-Ray, but played it on a JVC player instead of a Sony player. That's what Apple is doing here.
July 30, 2009 5:39:05 PM

A Mac OS X that is no longer tied to Apple hardware would be a nice thing to see. It would mean that Dell or HP could then make a license agreement with Apple and sell their machines with the OS preinstalled. It would mean that Apple and Microsoft would finally be competing on even ground.

My only caveats are this.

1) As soon as Microsoft has to compete with Apple on the same hardware platform, Microsoft will shalve all future development for Mac OS X applications and suites, such as Office.

2) Large holes in driver-level support for hardware outside of Apple standard reference will become very apparent. Apple has been developing their own "drivers" (in BSD Unix, these are essentially kernel extensions) for their own hardware, to include any devices on the mainboard as well as any PCI or USB peripherals. Some third party developers are experienced in driver development for OS X, but not nearly enough to deal with the multitude of hardware available out there for Windows. Hell, not even Microsoft can keep up with the driver development, as has been demonstrated by Vista's lack of key peripheral drivers from third party developers.

3) Unstable hardware will give Apple an (even worse) name. The unwashed masses will blame pure hardware issues (ie, bad memory, faulty components, mishmashed hardware) on buggy unstable software from Apple. M$ has dealt with this for years, and while a large number of BSODs are verifiably attributable to bad programming, a large number of them are actually attributable to bad hardware. Apple uses near top-end hardware in their computers (which is less likely to have defects), while Dell (and other PC integrators) only use comparable hardware in their comparably-priced machines, while paying bottom dollar for their low end hardware that people snap up like hotcakes because it is such an unbelievable deal.
July 30, 2009 5:42:37 PM

Quote:
Imagine if Sony Pictures sued you because you bought the latest movie release on Blu-Ray, but played it on a JVC player instead of a Sony player. That's what Apple is doing here.


Except Sony would be selling you the Blu-Ray cheap, provided you only play it on a Sony player.
Apple doesn't sell "retail" version of MacOSX, only upgrades for existing customers. They require a Mac, which all come with a version of MacOS. Their only fault is not to require an install DVD to run the boxed version (like MS does for upgrade).
July 30, 2009 5:56:07 PM

The thing that really bothers me is that Apple says OS X can only be installed on Apple based hardware. But when i look at an Apple computer's specs, i see an Intel processor and nVidia graphics. What's so different other than the motherboard being proprietary. I think Apple should be like Windows and sell OS X as a stand alone operating system for people who are interested in installing the OS on a $400 desktop.
July 30, 2009 6:03:04 PM

Quote:
It's not OSX customers that are being targeted by Apple, that's why you don't see them shutting down the various homebrew Hackintosh groups and hobbyists. What they're going after is other companies reselling their product against Apple's licensing terms, for a profit. Imagine if someone was buying up a bunch of DVD movies, transferring them to VHS, and then selling those tapes for a profit. That's kind of what Psystar's doing with OSX.
I dislike Apple's attitude about OSX only shipping on Apple hardware, but I also don't think Psystar has a leg to stand on in defending what they're doing either. For me this is kind of like watching two jerks get into a fight.


I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but Your IQ has a logic deficiency
July 30, 2009 6:22:29 PM

I would love to be able to dualboot actual OS X on my main computer, hackintosh barely works as it is on my laptop.
July 30, 2009 6:23:14 PM

Dear God Tom's readers are the worst PC/M$ fanboys I've ever seen. Whenever anyone has anything positive to say about Apple and it's products they get the "thumbs down", even when the poster is unbias and uses both pc's and mac's and has something constructive to say.

...hey look! abunch of thumbs downs!...
July 30, 2009 6:31:57 PM

thats funny how mac users install windows on their macs hmmm.....
July 30, 2009 6:37:55 PM

vabeachboy0thats funny how mac users install windows on their macs hmmm.....


its funny how pc users are putting OSX on their hackintoshs hmmm....
July 30, 2009 6:55:17 PM

SAL-eWhat exactly is wrong here? You pay for DVD movies, you pay for VHS tapes, you put effort to produce something and you want to make profit on your effort.
You don't have a right to sell those VHS versions is my point. It's not about how much work you put into it, it's about copyright law restricting what you can do with something after you've bought it. In the case of Apple and Psystar it's about what Psystar's allowed to do with OSX once they buy the disc, which doesn't include pre-installing it on non-Apple hardware and selling the system.

SAL-eYour example is incorrect because it implies that you get single DVD and making multiple copies and this is copyright violation, but Psystar is not copying, they are buying retail box of OS X for each computer they sell.

hellwigYour analogy is incomplete. Psystar is only making 1-to-1 "copies". Your analogy implies they bought 1 DVD and made 100 copies, but Psystar buys 100 copies of OSX and makes 100 computers.

Well I didn't mean to imply someone was selling a bunch of VHSes made from one DVD, I just reached for an example of someone making modified copies and reselling without the proper permission to do so. Psystar was selling computers with OSX pre-installed, not just clean computers and a bundled DVD of Leopard for the customer to figure out. If they were doing the latter there probably wouldn't be any standing for Apple to even sue.

hellwigThey aren't cheating Apple out of any money with regards to OSX.

I didn't say they were, I said they weren't following the terms by which 3rd parties are allowed to install and distribute it. I personally hope those terms get struck out as illegal and non-binding, but at this point I think it's a long shot.

hellwigImagine if Sony Pictures sued you because you bought the latest movie release on Blu-Ray, but played it on a JVC player instead of a Sony player. That's what Apple is doing here.

If JVC didn't have a license to make and sell Blu-Ray players in the first place that'd be a better analogy. Unfortunately that's not the case here.

Here's hoping I didn't screw up the formatting somewhere. Tom's needs a Preview feature, if not an Edit one, for comments.
[/quote]
July 30, 2009 6:59:04 PM

I find it very annoying that people only refer to computers with Windows as personal computers! Are Mac computers not personal too? Sorry, dumb question...
July 30, 2009 7:35:02 PM

OK, get some facts straight:
(disclaimer: I do not currently own a mac, nor am I a FanBoi, but I do despise FUD and will seek to quell it when it spills)

1) NOTE: OS X retail package is NOT the OS in a box, , it is NOT the retial equivalent of Windows Vista Ultimate retail box, it is the OS UPGRADE in a box. You are required to have a "full version" to install it, which opnly comes on a mac as Apple has not provided "full version" pricing. This is NO DIFFERENT than Microsoft suing people and companies from installing OEM or Upgrade-only licences on machines that do not qualify for those reduced prices. OS X full version is the equivalent of $300. When PsyStar pays Apple $300 a copy instead of $129, they'll have a case (and a lesser equipped machine in the same price category with crap support and questionable longevity)

2) Apple's hardware is not "cheap or generic" overpriced kit. Take a REAL and HONEST look at the system components and make comparrisons to the competition. Each Apple model is either in line or significantly CHEAPER than the competition (when like hardware and features are compared), and this higher end you go the more the price is in Apple's favor. Go on, find a kit with Bluetooth, dedicated 9400GPU, fast bus, dual core, high battery life, firewire, and wireless n priced under $850 in a 13" notebook factor. Dell's Adamo machines are rediculously priced compared to Apple's 15" line, and the Dell Studio line has crap components and is simply not in the same class as the 15" pro. Yes, you can get a "generic" PC cheaper, but that PC is NOT a machine that edits video, plays WoW, and manages a database of 10,000 songs and 50,000 pictures. Apple does not buld kit for the lowest tier of users becuase the lowest tier don't do things that require Apple's software (the 1 supprot call from a $400 laptop user blows all the profit on that machine).

As examples: Dell Studio 15 (GPU not available in 13, so we go bigger and heavier) same specs as Apple 13" white macbook, updated macbook to 320GB/4GB to match Dell. Dell $1298, Apple $1199. Or, compare to 15" Macpro machine which is $1399, but has a 7 hour battery, aluminum frame, weighs less, has a faster bus, CPU, and GPU, and a cheaper 3 year waranty. Oh yea, if you qualify for Apple's student/teacher discount, the better MacPro 15" comes out $100 CHEAPER. Closest machine Dell has to compete with Apples 15" or 17" pro system specs? The Alienware 17" at WAY over $2000, and not less than $220 more expensive then the equivalent apple model, and with a whoping 1.5 hr battery and 4.6lbs more weight than even the 17" pro.

Go further, try and even come CLOSE to Apple's included free software offering: non-linear video editing application capable of handling HD and multiple intermixed audio tracks, complete DVD authoring suite, web publishing/blogging suite, fairly advanced photo editor with awesome photo management capabilities, PDF converter, A productivity suite nearly rivaling Microsoft Office, a music composition and recording system, and no requirement for AV/AS software. Even if you could get a PC for $300 less, if you edit home movies, or manage massive numbers of images and music, and need a productivity suite (the only customers Apple targets, don;t talk to me about Grandmas who only surf and e-mail, they can have a $300 shitbox PC, that's all they need!), you can't get that software for the difference and get anything worth a shit. Pinnacle studio (inexpensive at $200) is still crap for editing anything over 30 minutes of footage and is quite limited. Adobe Photo management is $49. Office home is $129. Roxio is $79. AV and AS is another $30-70 depending on your choice of coverage/simplicity (I'm excluding free here as most people who know where to find and how to properly use the free alternatives for security software don't typically buy retial built machines). Apple is HIGHLY competitive on price WITHING THEIR TARGET MARKET SEGMENT. Again, they IGNORE the low end market (no profit, often losses, and it would make the OS experience suck).
July 30, 2009 7:36:56 PM

Psystar is headed for the morgue. The problem isn't only with the copyright, it's the license agreement. Apple owns Mac OS X (with no legal ambiguity), and Psystar is violating the license agreement by circumventing the Macintosh EFI to boot on non-apple hardware. The DMCA has very specific wording regarding the use of technology to circumvent the copyright, for any reason. Good bye, Psystar.
Anonymous
July 30, 2009 7:39:38 PM

Screw a Mac clone, let's take the same BSD kernel that Apple stole, and make a free, open-source, binary compatible OSX clone. It's kind of like the ReactOS project, but it'd be a heck of alot easier, since the hard parts to code are already freely available. Apple didn't base OSX on UNIX because "it's old, awesome, and secure", they based it on UNIX because it's what they could get away with stealing from the opensource community. They would've have probably prefered to steal a bunch of GNU/Linux code, but the license makes it illegal.
July 30, 2009 8:05:05 PM

thank you Zelanni!!!! That's exactly what these people need to hear!
July 30, 2009 8:08:33 PM

I don't think many of you get why apple does what it does. I am a Network Manager for a large firm. We have 500+ PCs. Probly 10-12 different Configs. Each one with its own set of bugs. Apple is stable! 10 Times more stable than any of my PCs even when running windows. Its because of the standard systme specs. Everything is able to to be engineered to very clear specs. This is similar to how games often run better on PS3 or x-box than they do on a PC. The game can be developed for that specific hardware. This enhances the end user experience by maximizing performance. Thats all apple it trying to maintain. What is wrong with that design? I enjoy the stability of apple.
July 30, 2009 8:09:23 PM

WheelsOfConfusionYou don't have a right to sell those VHS versions is my point. It's not about how much work you put into it, it's about copyright law restricting what you can do with something after you've bought it. In the case of Apple and Psystar it's about what Psystar's allowed to do with OSX once they buy the disc, which doesn't include pre-installing it on non-Apple hardware and selling the system.

See, I knew that you are mixing the two issues. First the copyright law is only dealing with copying. Phystar is not copying the OS X. They buy single copy for single PC. So copyright law is not applicable here.
The second issue here is the EULA. Apple has business model that is supported by EULA. Phystar has found a flaw in Apples business model and are taking advantage of it. Now it is to the court to decide if Apple's EULA enforceable or not. I have my personal opinion, but it is to the court to decide. But please do not bring the copyright argument here.
July 30, 2009 8:46:45 PM

Apple just overprices i mean that is what it shows
July 30, 2009 8:57:16 PM

Apple could be nice and make a NON-Support version of OS-X and say PsyStar can have it for $100 per unit. Any driver issues or incompatibly is the responsibility of the computer owner and/or Psystar (or any other company that builds a non-MAC OS-X box).

When a end user buys Windows OEM, he doesn't get MS Support. He is his own support. If he bought the retail version, he can call MS for help. (How many people really call MS?)

So Apple, do yourself a favor.... Make a $100 retail non-Mac hardware version. People who want to buy a Mac, will SPEND the $$$ to buy a Mac. Those who want to use your OS, but not spend the $$$, they would gladly spend $100 on that, rather than Windows. Apple of course would be bared from causing any incompatibility on purpose if they were to do this.

That is a dream. Doubt it'll happen.

Quote:
cekasone :
You don't see Microsoft getting all pissed when people buy Windows and install it on a custom built machine.


Microsoft is a software company (mostly) the only computer they sell is the Xbox. Just like THEY don't sell the XboxOS on the street... think our PCs with multi-core CPUs are slower than an Xbox?

Apple is a hardware company, first. Thats their main product, has been from the start with the Apple II. Microsoft started as a software company in a tiny office.

Thats a bit of a difference.
July 30, 2009 9:33:43 PM

HoundsteethMy only caveats are ...

You have caveats?
July 30, 2009 9:48:44 PM

Zelanni, you are incorrect on virtually every point and have no ability to shop for computers whatsoever. Only competition for the 15" macbook pro is the alienware? Yeah, right. Lots of dell models carry the 9600mGT. There isn't a mac for $850 anyway. I won't waste my time telling you how almost every sentence you said was incorrect or BS. Stop drinking.
July 30, 2009 9:51:04 PM

This is Bogus. This is Apple's business model and is clearly spelled out in their user agreement. They have every right to dictate where THEIR SOFTWARE can and cannot be run. They are far from a monopoly that needs legally intervention. This is such a backwards case it should be thrown out of court and shows how screwed up our legal system is.
July 30, 2009 10:42:16 PM

zelanniiOK, get some facts straight:( disclaimer: I do not currently own a mac, nor am I a FanBoi, but I do despise FUD and will seek to quell it when it spills)1) NOTE: OS X retail package is NOT the OS in a box, , it is NOT the retial equivalent of Windows Vista Ultimate retail box, it is the OS UPGRADE in a box.~


To a degree, yes. The EULA works that way. But MS does sell OEM/Upgrade versions of their OS for about $100. Your perspective is mostly right, I think and some of it is opinion. I would like to see OS-X more out in the wild, legally. But also, Apple perspective is to protect their IP. They cannot ignore Psystar. Apple has two choices, fight such companies for ever or make a non-supported version of OS-X for non-Apple hardware at a higher price.

Quote:
Find a dedicated 9400GPU, fast bus, dual core, high battery life, firewire, and wireless n priced under $850 in a 13" notebook factor.


Okay... lets do that... or almost. To a big degree, you are correct, you can buy a $350 notebook nowadays, $450~500 or gets you a dual core notebook... these are usually junky PCs, agreed. But they do sell a lot of them.

I'm at the Lenovo Site, makers of quality notebooks - lets compare quality computers. No Office software is included. BTW: Office2007 = $85, iWork = $50. Office2008Mac = $100 MS-Works = $35, Open Office = $0

MacBook : $1050 : (cheapest model)
2.1Ghz Core2Duo / 2GB DDR3 / 250GB HD / 13" screen / BlueTooth / Camera / DVD-R Drive / ATI 3450 (about the same as the 9400m) with 256mb.

IdeaPAD U330 : $800 : /b]
2Ghz Core2Duo / 2GB DDR3 / 250GB HD / 13" screen / BlueTooth / Camera / DVD-R Drive / ATI 3450 (about the same as the 9400m) with 256mb.
(This is not Lenovos bottom end unit)

The 330 has: 6-in-1 reader, Two USB 2.0, VGA, HDMI output, ethernet (RJ-45), IEEE 1394 FireWire 400. LED back-lit display.
The MacBook doesn't include card readers. And it has a single non-standard video output jack that requires an adapter for VGA or DVI output ($20 each) - which take up more space than including an HDMI port which can use a standard $10 adaptor for DVI/VGA. The U330 = 4.3lbs vs 5.0 for the Macbook. About the same size overall.

Next up, the ThinkPAD notebook:
ThinkPad SL400 14": $855 :
2.1Ghz Core2Duo / 2GB DDR2 / 250GB HD / 13" screen / BlueTooth / Camera / DVD-R Drive / GF 105 (about the same as the 9400m) with 256mb.
It also includes: at&t G3, keyboard light, liquid pass through for the keyboard. It comes in at 5.5lbs.

Summary:
MacBook 13" = $1050
IdeaPad 13" = $800
ThinkPad 14 = $855

Want to go SLIM? (sub 1" - 13" notebooks without DVD drives)
Mac AIR : $1500 = 1.8Ghz Core2Duo / 2GB / 120HD / 1 USB, A/V out.
IdeaPad 350 : $700 = 1.3Ghz 1core / 2GB / 250HD / 3 USB, VGA & HDMI output / MultiMedia Card reader (4-in1), ethernet (RJ-45).

* I think Apple is buying up all the Core2 in this class.
* $150 more on the IdeaPad 350 = faster Core2 Solo, 4GB and 320HD. No discrete graphics... but people don't play games on such computers.
* U350 = 3.5lbs vs 3.0lbs for the Mac Air. Both up to 5hrs on battery.


Lets compare 17” notebooks with similar (as possible) configs:
3.0Ghz Core2Duo, 4GB DDR3 RAM, Camera, 128GB SSD, BT,

MacPRO 17 = $3050 : GF9600 512 / 6.6lbs /
ThinkPad w700 = $2750 : Quadro FX 2700M 512mb / 8.3lbs / Optional 2nd HD bay.
HP Pavilion17” = $585 : AMD X2 2.1Ghz / 4GB / 320 HD / ATI 320 graphics / 7.8lbs

*Thinkpad has 5 USB ports, VGA, Display port and DVI outout. Mac17 has 3 USB, a single non-standard video output.
* ThinkPad is Tornado proof
Price difference = $300 Quality or $2475 for junk.


Lets go with the CHEAPEST Mac a person can buy:
Mac Mini vs Compaq. While the Specs may not match – the performance is about the same.

Mini 320 = $897 : 2.0Ghz C2D / 2GB / 320GB HD / GF9400m (shared memory) / 5USB + Apple mouse & Keyboard.

Compaq = $370 : AMD X2 2.5Ghz / 3GB / 320 HD / Onboard Graphics / 4 USB ports.
* Any video card can be added. A really 9400 can be bought for $30~40 that’s faster than on-board mobile 9400m used in the MacMini. Since it’s a normal desktop – the PSU is replaceable.
* Best buy includes this Compaq with a 18” LCD for $400 out the door.

Price difference = $500~530.

So for similar or better quality, Apple charges $200~400 over Lenovo. Its Apple right to do so… nobody forces anyone to buy their computers… just not as many people are going to pay for it.

Quote:
Go further, try and even come CLOSE to Apple's included free software offering: non-linear video editing.

Huh? XP, Vista and Windows7 includes video editing software. Funny, many PCs include MS-Works for free. Apple charges for iWorks, they offer to sell their customers MS-Office2008 (hmmm) Apple charges for more advanced photo and video editing software ($200 each).

July 31, 2009 12:16:31 AM

Quote:
This obviously set Apple's legal team in action, who believes that the installation of Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware is a violation of the end user license agreement.
Any hardware that works with apple is not "non apple"
July 31, 2009 2:39:16 AM

SAL-eSee, I knew that you are mixing the two issues.

I'm not confusing anything, I used an analogy to put it in different terms that people would be more likely to understand. Just as you don't have the right to sell VHS copies you made from DVD, Psystar doesn't have the right to sell PCs with OSX pre-installed. The specific reasons why they don't are somewhat different but the end result is basically the same.
July 31, 2009 3:38:30 AM

WheelsOfConfusion, Sorry, your argument is wrong. If someone buys a DVD and then copies that DVD to VHS and sells both of them together with a small increase in cost to cover time and materials, it's a service more than a product, and the final owner would be within Fair Use Rights to have both copies as long as the Final user has them for personal and not commercial benefit. Otherwise Apple itself would be in big trouble with iTunes and it's CD ripping capablities. You're analogy is incapable of expressing the real problem here.
July 31, 2009 3:50:23 AM

WheelsOfConfusionI'm not confusing anything, I used an analogy to put it in different terms that people would be more likely to understand. Just as you don't have the right to sell VHS copies you made from DVD, Psystar doesn't have the right to sell PCs with OSX pre-installed. The specific reasons why they don't are somewhat different but the end result is basically the same.

WheelsOfConfusion,
I did not say or apply that you are "confusing" the issues. I say that your analogy is not accurate in this case. Yes, copying DVD to VHS is business that is effectively blocked by current copyright law. We can have discussion is this fair, good, bad, or what ever, but this discussion would be irrelevant in this case.
Phystar is violating Apple’s EULA. This case is all about the contract law. It is much more complex and has far reaching effects. EULA's are still gray area and not defined by contract law. It is form of contract that applies presumption for non-verbal agreement between the contracting parties. For example:
You put sign “Garage sell” and put item with price tag of $1. I pass by, I see the item, I reach into my pocket, and I leave $1 and take the item. This is a binding non-verbal contract between me and you. If you try to stop me I can sue you for breaching the contract. The reason is that you clearly stated your intent to sell the item and you made an offer that I have accepted.
Unfortunately EULAs are much more obscured and one party can include unacceptable or unenforceable demands. For example: Because nobody really has time to sit down and read several pages of special contract language you may agree in something that if you have opportunity to consult with a lawyer you never would. Or because some where in 2nd page of the small print Apple can include text that you are going to pay 10% of your income to the rest of your life. Nobody can prevent this from happening, but by law this is form of slavery and it is not enforceable. By law if one paragraph is not enforceable the whole contract is not enforceable with very specific exceptions. Some contracts are actually multiple contracts and if one is not enforceable the remaining are.
That is exactly why in Germany for example EULAs are not valid at all if they are sealed inside the box and you can’t read them before purchase.
So If Phystar is able to convince the judge or the jury that Apple’s requirement to install OS X only on Apple hardware is not reasonable or violates existing law they have good chance to invalidate current Apple’s EULA and win the case.
July 31, 2009 5:10:30 AM

I find it odd how people say Macs have better hardware than PC's when it's the same hardware as PC's... but by definition Mac's ARE PC's...

I need an aspirin :( 

(I assume better hardware means better case, seeing as the silicon inside is the same).
July 31, 2009 6:43:50 AM

Greg_77Next Apple will claim that OSX clones will bring down the internet and set puppies on fire...


Really?
Time for me to go buy a OSX license. =D

mac_attackScrew a Mac clone, let's take the same BSD kernel that Apple stole, and make a free, open-source, binary compatible OSX clone. It's kind of like the ReactOS project, but it'd be a heck of alot easier, since the hard parts to code are already freely available. Apple didn't base OSX on UNIX because "it's old, awesome, and secure", they based it on UNIX because it's what they could get away with stealing from the opensource community. They would've have probably prefered to steal a bunch of GNU/Linux code, but the license makes it illegal.


Nice to see someone bring this up. =D

zelanniiOK, get some facts straight:( disclaimer: I do not currently own a mac, nor am I a FanBoi, but I do despise FUD and will seek to quell it when it spills)1) NOTE: OS X retail package is NOT the OS in a box, , it is NOT the retial equivalent of Windows Vista Ultimate retail box, it is the OS UPGRADE in a box. You are required to have a "full version" to install it, which opnly comes on a mac as Apple has not provided "full version" pricing. This is NO DIFFERENT than Microsoft suing people and companies from installing OEM or Upgrade-only licences on machines that do not qualify for those reduced prices. OS X full version is the equivalent of $300. When PsyStar pays Apple $300 a copy instead of $129, they'll have a case (and a lesser equipped machine in the same price category with crap support and questionable longevity) 2) Apple's hardware is not "cheap or generic" overpriced kit. Take a REAL and HONEST look at the system components and make comparrisons to the competition. Each Apple model is either in line or significantly CHEAPER than the competition (when like hardware and features are compared), and this higher end you go the more the price is in Apple's favor. Go on, find a kit with Bluetooth, dedicated 9400GPU, fast bus, dual core, high battery life, firewire, and wireless n priced under $850 in a 13" notebook factor. Dell's Adamo machines are rediculously priced compared to Apple's 15" line, and the Dell Studio line has crap components and is simply not in the same class as the 15" pro. Yes, you can get a "generic" PC cheaper, but that PC is NOT a machine that edits video, plays WoW, and manages a database of 10,000 songs and 50,000 pictures. Apple does not buld kit for the lowest tier of users becuase the lowest tier don't do things that require Apple's software (the 1 supprot call from a $400 laptop user blows all the profit on that machine). As examples: Dell Studio 15 (GPU not available in 13, so we go bigger and heavier) same specs as Apple 13" white macbook, updated macbook to 320GB/4GB to match Dell. Dell $1298, Apple $1199. Or, compare to 15" Macpro machine which is $1399, but has a 7 hour battery, aluminum frame, weighs less, has a faster bus, CPU, and GPU, and a cheaper 3 year waranty. Oh yea, if you qualify for Apple's student/teacher discount, the better MacPro 15" comes out $100 CHEAPER. Closest machine Dell has to compete with Apples 15" or 17" pro system specs? The Alienware 17" at WAY over $2000, and not less than $220 more expensive then the equivalent apple model, and with a whoping 1.5 hr battery and 4.6lbs more weight than even the 17" pro. Go further, try and even come CLOSE to Apple's included free software offering: non-linear video editing application capable of handling HD and multiple intermixed audio tracks, complete DVD authoring suite, web publishing/blogging suite, fairly advanced photo editor with awesome photo management capabilities, PDF converter, A productivity suite nearly rivaling Microsoft Office, a music composition and recording system, and no requirement for AV/AS software. Even if you could get a PC for $300 less, if you edit home movies, or manage massive numbers of images and music, and need a productivity suite (the only customers Apple targets, don;t talk to me about Grandmas who only surf and e-mail, they can have a $300 shitbox PC, that's all they need!), you can't get that software for the difference and get anything worth a shit. Pinnacle studio (inexpensive at $200) is still crap for editing anything over 30 minutes of footage and is quite limited. Adobe Photo management is $49. Office home is $129. Roxio is $79. AV and AS is another $30-70 depending on your choice of coverage/simplicity (I'm excluding free here as most people who know where to find and how to properly use the free alternatives for security software don't typically buy retial built machines). Apple is HIGHLY competitive on price WITHING THEIR TARGET MARKET SEGMENT. Again, they IGNORE the low end market (no profit, often losses, and it would make the OS experience suck).


I see your point. The price diffenrence is actually trivial (depending on your situation).

HOWEVER!
Why do people qouting prices of apple vs PC ALWAYS!!! use Dell?
Dell is no better than apple...
July 31, 2009 7:53:31 AM

Actually, that is a misleading analogy:

You make it sound like Psystar is making illegal copies the OS-X, which they are not.

They are buying legal copies and then re-selling them installed on their machines.

This is no different than when you buy a Dell, and Dell buys and installs Windows on your new machine.
July 31, 2009 1:31:46 PM

Yes, Apple is using BSD Unix at the core. They developed a forked version of the Mach kernel. This is legacy from NeXT, which Apple bought back in 1997. The foundation of OS X is based on NeXTStep, and the version of the Mach kernel that Apple has forked and continues to develop for use is known as Darwin, and is available for download to the opensource community for free.

The closest variant of BSD Unix to Darwin is FreeBSd, NetBSD and OpenStep (the opensource version of NeXTStep). FreeBSD still has and extremely active development community, and shares many improvements back and forth with Apple and the Darwin development team, though it is not necessarily the most friendly of associations. Needless to say, once you get past the UI Layer, almost every POSIX junkie will feel right at home on Mac OS X. The terminal plays very nice with Bash script, and several of the packages you would normally find installed on a POSIX system are there already on a stock OS install, and many can be installed fairly easily if not already present.

What is proprietary is the OS layer that sits on top of the kernel, which includes all of the UI interactions as well as many subsystem API structures that make interoperability with a Unix kernel easier for the average user who doesn't like to enter commands in a terminal session. Anyone who says that Mac OS X is a kiddie OS just hasn't scratched the surface. It's an OS that's design on a stable hardened core, but designed with an interface that is so good even your 90 year old grandma can use it to get pictures of the grandkids.

Anyone who has ever had the chance to develop on both Windows and Mac OS X know how much of a night and day difference there is between the environments. Apple actually takes time to go through and clean out their legacy crap and make it easier for developers to move forward, using better coding practices, while almost every Windows IDE I have had to work with will allow you to use bad programming practices that were in vogue even 20 years ago. There is a lot to be said about a very well documented API structure that actually makes sense, as opposed to the spaghetti that I usually have to deal with in a Windows IDE.
July 31, 2009 1:36:22 PM

Yah, it's funny to me how Microsoft gets sued for bundling their own browser with Windows, but Apple is allowed to make their OS hardware-bound. Somehow, doesn't make much sense to me.

Still, there is a EULA when you buy OS X that says you agree not to install it on anything but Apple hardware; there's no such agreement when you buy Windows. Whether it makes sense or not, Apple may have legal rights.

I agree though, go Psystar!

mac_attack you are so right! Really, go with a Linux distro, OS X is one, after all, and the most expensive one at that. It may have the best looking GUI, idk, and has better developed security than other Linux distros, but that is what it is.

;) 
!