Psystar Sues Apple Over Snow Leopard

[JMcEntegart]

Psystar late last week filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction and damages due to Apple's "anticompetitive attempts to tie Mac OS X Snow Leopard to its Macintosh line of computers."

Psystar Sues Apple Over Snow Leopard : Read more

 

[Guest]

But..but if Pystar is allowed to pre-install Apple OS, we won't have the pleasure of paying the $500+ Apple Tax!

 

[Tech-Boy]

Come on with the apple news! Oh, well.

 

[tayb]

The OS is cheap because they make so much money on the hardware. You can't have the cake and eat it too. Pystar wants to buy the OS at the discount given to hardware consumers without buying any of the hardware. Apple should just make an edition of Snow Leopard available to companies like Pystar except price the software at about $500 per license and tell them they can install it on whatever hardware configuration they like.

 

[megamanx00]

That's nice, except, I don't care about OSX so.......

 

[audioee]

tayb,

If Apple did start to sell a hardware free version of OSX for $500 or even $300, Apple fanboys could not use the high price for Windows in arguements about how OSX is better.

 

[adamovera]

[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]The OS is cheap because they make so much money on the hardware. You can't have the cake and eat it too. Pystar wants to buy the OS at the discount given to hardware consumers without buying any of the hardware. Apple should just make an edition of Snow Leopard available to companies like Pystar except price the software at about $500 per license and tell them they can install it on whatever hardware configuration they like.[/citation]

That's actually not a bad idea for Apple.

 

[Sicundercover]

Im just curious how Psystar can afford all these law suites. Of course you gotta love how relentless they are, but at want point are you just throwing money down the drain.

 

[IzzyCraft]

I'd hardly agree it's their right to do that, as most company's have a pretty tight grip around distribution deals etc. I would agree on principal that apple has the right to deny them from doing that, but i mean after some of these anti trust poundings to various company's for various random shit who knows now of days.

 

[doomtomb]

I don't like Macs even if they are made by Psystar

 

[tayb]

Sigh. I wonder if you people are so segregated on all of your everyday things. You love college ruled paper and absolutely despise and refuse to use wide ruled. You love chocolate but you berate anyone who likes vanilla. You have a Mercedes and every BMW is an overpriced pile of crap.

Just don't get it. OS X is really cool. So is Windows 7. Can't fathom why so many people would choose to not only refuse to try the other but actively attack and berate anyone who does. I can spend $1,300 and get a damn fast refurb Apple laptop that comes with the exact warranty of a brand new machine and a brand new battery. Matching the specs with HP, Dell, Lenovo, Toshiba, etc the price is a complete wash. HP is a little cheaper, Lenovo is a little more, Dell is about even, etc.

Why do you sit in a corner, refuse to come out, and ridicule the other corner endlessly. Without OS X the best OS Microsoft would have released is Windows XP. Vista was a disaster and had Apple not existed Windows 7 would be a shell of what it is right now. Thank you competition. At the very least if you can't manage to utter anything but "Apple sucks" acknowledge that the presence of Apple alone makes Microsoft try harder, and when that happens we all win.

 

[Major7up]

If Apple starts allowing third parties to create Mac clones then they will have a very difficult time controlling their current image. Cheap Macs would be nice but cheaper systems tend to lead to less satisfied customers and could (at least in Apples eyes) tarnish the Apple image. But they also don't want to lose sales to competing systems. This article explains it all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Computing_Corporation

 

[deck]

tayb,

I berate Apple because they stole the linux kernel and returned nothing to the open source community. They do this, and then have audacity to tout how great "their" OS is.

Then they take it a step further by launching a series of adds which are slanderous and inaccurate. They censor internet forums that speak poorly about their products. They contractually bind people whos iPods expload so that they can no longer speak publically about the incident.

So to sum up, I berate apple beucase they are not a moral company.

When Apple steals open source code, only Apple wins.

 

[hellwig]

[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]Sigh. I wonder if you people are so segregated on all of your everyday things. ... OS X is really cool. So is Windows 7. Can't fathom why so many people would choose to not only refuse to try the other but actively attack and berate anyone who does.[/citation]

Tayb: You have missed the entire point of Psystar's lawsuit. I don't own an Apple computer, I can't justify paying more money for slower hardware (I build my own desktops). Therefore, I (according to Apple's team of lawyers) am not legally able to run OSX. As good of an OS as it may be, Apple is actively telling me I cannot use it.

Why would I have anything good to say about a product when the maker would sue me if I tried to run it on the hardware I already own? Microsoft never made me pay $1500 to run their OS. In fact, I bought a Student version of Win XP for less than $100 that I was able to install on my own hardware.

 

[raptor550]

BTW, I am a M$ user.

Apple is expensive because it still actually costs $1200 to make a good computer. Sure you can buy a piece of shit dell for $300... but it just doesn't compare to Apple's systems. I commend them for upholding their quality. That is why I use IBM, they are the Apple for Windows users. They have a high sense of quality. To be honest I wouldn't buy the crap that Psystar makes.

 

[njalterio]

[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]Sigh. I wonder if you people are so segregated on all of your everyday things. You love college ruled paper and absolutely despise and refuse to use wide ruled. You love chocolate but you berate anyone who likes vanilla. You have a Mercedes and every BMW is an overpriced pile of crap. Just don't get it. OS X is really cool. So is Windows 7. Can't fathom why so many people would choose to not only refuse to try the other but actively attack and berate anyone who does.
[/citation]

Most people here (the sane ones) don't have anything against people who use Macs. It's when people (always with little or no computer knowledge) suggest Macs are somehow technically superior or a better bargain than Windows based computers folks here get irritated.

[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]
I can spend $1,300 and get a damn fast refurb Apple laptop that comes with the exact warranty of a brand new machine and a brand new battery. Matching the specs with HP, Dell, Lenovo, Toshiba, etc the price is a complete wash. HP is a little cheaper, Lenovo is a little more, Dell is about even, etc.
[/citation]

It's been proven time and time again by the readers here (in addition to an article written by the staff) that for the same hardware, Apple is always more expensive. I'd like to see where you get your numbers from.


[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]
Why do you sit in a corner, refuse to come out, and ridicule the other corner endlessly. Without OS X the best OS Microsoft would have released is Windows XP. Vista was a disaster and had Apple not existed Windows 7 would be a shell of what it is right now. Thank you competition. At the very least if you can't manage to utter anything but "Apple sucks" acknowledge that the presence of Apple alone makes Microsoft try harder, and when that happens we all win.[/citation]

You have no way of knowing what Microsoft would or would not have done, if anything, differently. Unless you are calling the shots at Microsoft, you have no idea what affect Mac OS X had on Vista or Windows 7; that is purely your conjecture. Regardless, Macs have roughly 10% of the market share, which is good, but it is not an even competitor with Microsoft.

 

[Grims]

[citation][nom]raptor550[/nom]BTW, I am a M$ user.Apple is expensive because it still actually costs $1200 to make a good computer. Sure you can buy a piece of shit dell for $300... but it just doesn't compare to Apple's systems. I commend them for upholding their quality. That is why I use IBM, they are the Apple for Windows users. They have a high sense of quality. To be honest I wouldn't buy the crap that Psystar makes.[/citation]


You do know IBM doesn't make PCs...right?

 

[deck]

[citation][nom]raptor550[/nom]BTW, I am a M$ user.Apple is expensive because it still actually costs $1200 to make a good computer. Sure you can buy a piece of shit dell for $300... but it just doesn't compare to Apple's systems. I commend them for upholding their quality. That is why I use IBM, they are the Apple for Windows users. They have a high sense of quality. To be honest I wouldn't buy the crap that Psystar makes.[/citation]

Strange, my computer is worth about $500. It is perfectly stable and does everything I ask it to. If you build your own computer and put your own parts in, there is no reason why you can't have a quality system for cheep. Your statement is completly false.

Forcing OSX to only run on Apple hardware does nothing to ensure the "quality" of their systems. OSX running on apple hardware would be just as stable whether it was able to run on other hardware or not. Now whether OSX would be stable on Psystar or not is a completly different question. But allowing the OS to run on different platforms would not in any way affect the stablity of OSX on Mac Hardware.

 

[Greg_77]

[citation][nom]raptor550[/nom]BTW, I am a M$ user.Apple is expensive because it still actually costs $1200 to make a good computer. Sure you can buy a piece of shit dell for $300... but it just doesn't compare to Apple's systems. I commend them for upholding their quality. That is why I use IBM, they are the Apple for Windows users. They have a high sense of quality. To be honest I wouldn't buy the crap that Psystar makes.[/citation]

IBM is no longer in the personal computer business. You are most likely using a Lenovo, the company that acquired the Thinkpad name. I, too, use a Lenovo Thinkpad and find it a great machine. That being said, the hardware in my Lenovo can be found in $800 dollar machines. My computer may have a better keyboard and better overall build quality (it has a metal frame), but I wouldn't call a lower cost machine a piece of "shit". Less durable, maybe, unworthy of being purchased, no.

 

[tayb]

[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]Most people here (the sane ones) don't have anything against people who use Macs. It's when people (always with little or no computer knowledge) suggest Macs are somehow technically superior or a better bargain than Windows based computers folks here get irritated. [/citation]

Oh please. Do you even read the comments? The first things posted here were "I don't care about OS X." "Oh goody a $500 apple tax." And other nonsense. Who provoked them by talking about Apple being technically superior?

[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]It's been proven time and time again by the readers here (in addition to an article written by the staff) that for the same hardware, Apple is always more expensive. I'd like to see where you get your numbers from.[/citation]

Um. Directly from the Apple website and directly from the other websites? 2.53Ghz, 13.3" LED, 4GB Ram, Illuminated Keyboard, 250GB Hard drive, Web cam, bluetooth, multi-touch trackpad. All for $1,300 + tax. Matching those specs on the competitors website the prices are a complete wash. It just flat out IS NOT more expensive. Getting a desktop from Apple is certainly more expensive but for laptops? No, not really. You just can't buy a slow underpowered machine from Apple, that's all.


[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]You have no way of knowing what Microsoft would or would not have done, if anything, differently. Unless you are calling the shots at Microsoft, you have no idea what affect Mac OS X had on Vista or Windows 7; that is purely your conjecture. Regardless, Macs have roughly 10% of the market share, which is good, but it is not an even competitor with Microsoft.[/citation]

LOL. Okay then. Microsoft directly targeted Apple in an advertising campaign. I don't really think I need more proof that Apple had a direct effect on Microsoft.

 

[balister]

[citation][nom]raptor550[/nom]BTW, I am a M$ user.Apple is expensive because it still actually costs $1200 to make a good computer. Sure you can buy a piece of shit dell for $300... but it just doesn't compare to Apple's systems. I commend them for upholding their quality. That is why I use IBM, they are the Apple for Windows users. They have a high sense of quality. To be honest I wouldn't buy the crap that Psystar makes.[/citation]

You'd be very, very wrong. It's quite easy to build a great computer for $1200, a good computer will run you around $600 if that. Apple has no one to blame, but themselves for people hitting them right where it's going to hurt, the cost. The inflate the prices much, much more than they should be inflated.

 

[Greg_77]

[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]Oh please. Do you even read the comments? The first things posted here were "I don't care about OS X." "Oh goody a $500 apple tax." And other nonsense. Who provoked them by talking about Apple being technically superior? Um. Directly from the Apple website and directly from the other websites? 2.53Ghz, 13.3" LED, 4GB Ram, Illuminated Keyboard, 250GB Hard drive, Web cam, bluetooth, multi-touch trackpad. All for $1,300 + tax. Matching those specs on the competitors website the prices are a complete wash. It just flat out IS NOT more expensive. Getting a desktop from Apple is certainly more expensive but for laptops? No, not really. You just can't buy a slow underpowered machine from Apple, that's all. LOL. Okay then. Microsoft directly targeted Apple in an advertising campaign. I don't really think I need more proof that Apple had a direct effect on Microsoft.[/citation]

Comparing retail prices in unfair. You can easily find discounts on a Windows PC, while Apple computers are rarely discounted due to Apple strict pricing control. Like it or not, an Apple computer is not price competitive for their respective hardware. I have seen Asus gaming PCs with much better hardware for less money. Whether you prefer OSX and the case design of Apple is an opinion, but it is an undeniable fact that Apple charges more for hardware than other computer brands. Refurbished prices do not count when compared to another companies new products.

 

[christop]

I hope it works out for them....

 

[balister]

[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]
Um. Directly from the Apple website and directly from the other websites? 2.53Ghz, 13.3" LED, 4GB Ram, Illuminated Keyboard, 250GB Hard drive, Web cam, bluetooth, multi-touch trackpad. All for $1,300 + tax. Matching those specs on the competitors website the prices are a complete wash. It just flat out IS NOT more expensive. Getting a desktop from Apple is certainly more expensive but for laptops? No, not really. You just can't buy a slow underpowered machine from Apple, that's all.
[/citation]

Try $1500 from Apple's site. For $1200 you get 13.3" LCD, 2G RAM, a 160G HD, a backlit keyboard, 2.26 GHz processor, and a 8x DVD-Rom Drive.

If I got to someplace like NewEgg and look at already configured laptops with similar stats to the $1200 model, I can get them for around $800 to $900 with 4GB of RAM instead and a 320G Hard Drive. For only $50 mores ($1250), I can buy a laptop that blows Apple's Macbook Pro out of the water.

If you're going to argue that Mac's are reasonably priced, atleast do your research first cause if you had, you would have realized how wrong you are on Apple's reasonability in pricing.

 

[njalterio]

[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]Oh please. Do you even read the comments? The first things posted here were "I don't care about OS X." "Oh goody a $500 apple tax." And other nonsense. Who provoked them by talking about Apple being technically superior?
[/citation]

Maybe it is YOU who need to read the comments. I specified THE SANE PEOPLE do not bash unfairly.

[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]
Um. Directly from the Apple website and directly from the other websites? 2.53Ghz, 13.3" LED, 4GB Ram, Illuminated Keyboard, 250GB Hard drive, Web cam, bluetooth, multi-touch trackpad. All for $1,300 + tax. Matching those specs on the competitors website the prices are a complete wash. It just flat out IS NOT more expensive. Getting a desktop from Apple is certainly more expensive but for laptops? No, not really. You just can't buy a slow underpowered machine from Apple, that's all.
[/citation]
Straight from Lenovo....
ThinkPad T400 - 1 Yr Depot Warranty
Edit 2764CTO $943.99 1 $943.99
Operating system: Genuine Windows Vista home 1
Display type: 14.1 WXGA TFT, w/ CCFL Backlight 1
System graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon 3470 with 256MB 1
Total memory: 4 GB PC3-8500 DDR3 SDRAM 1067MHz SODIMM Memory (2 DIMM) 1
Harddrive: 250 GB Hard Disk Drive, 5400rpm 1
Keyboard: Keyboard US English 1
Pointing device: UltraNav (TrackPoint and TouchPad) 1
Optical device: CD-RW/DVD-ROM Combo 24X/24X/24X/8X Max, Ultrabay Slim (Serial ATA) 1
System expansion slots: Express Card Slot & PC Card Slot 1
Wireless card: ThinkPad WiFi (BGN) 1
Mobile Broadband: Integrated Mobile Broadband upgradable 1
Battery: 4 cell Li-Ion Battery 1
Power cord: Country Pack North America with Line cord & 90W AC adapter 1
Language pack: Language Pack US English 1
Accessories and options:
ThinkPad T400 / R400 14W Privacy Filter 43R2472 $0.01 1

That's $350 cheaper for same or better hardware. Eat it fanboy!

[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]
LOL. Okay then. Microsoft directly targeted Apple in an advertising campaign. I don't really think I need more proof that Apple had a direct effect on Microsoft.[/citation]
[/citation]

More conjecture. Just the facts please.