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."
It seems like the Psystar/Apple saga is never going to end. Just when we thought the Mac clone company was running out of steam, Psystar has filed a new suit in the hope that it might be allowed sell machines with Snow Leopard pre-installed.
AppleInsider reports that Florida-based Psystar is eager to bring Apple's latest OS to its line of knock-off Macs. In a court filing Psystar claims that it is entitled to buy copies of Snow Leopard and install them on its own computers, which the company then re-sells. AI reports that the suit alleges that the company is already capable of installing the new operating system on its hardware.
"The Psystar computers that run Mac OS X Snow Leopard are able to do so by running software, written by Psystar, that interfaces with the open-source portion of Mac OS X Snow Leopard," the filing reads, according to AI. "The manner in which Psystar computers run Mac OS X Snow Leopard is entirely different from the manner in which Psystar computers run Mac OS X Leopard."
Check out the full story here or hit up the links below for more on the back and forth between Psystar Apple.
- Mac Clone Psystar Slams Steve Jobs
- Apple Sues Psystar
- Apple Files 10 Claims Against Psystar
- Psystar Attorney Beats Around Antitrust Bush
- Psystar Files Anti-trust Suit Against Apple
- Apple Throws Ball Back to Psystar, Asks Judge to Throw Out Anti-Trust Suit
- Apple and Psystar to Settle Differences Out of Court
- Psystar Mac Clones Coming With Blu-ray Bags of Hurt
- Psystar Claim Against Apple Slammed
- Psystar Ditches Antitrust in Favor of Copyright Abuse
- Psystar Says Apple EULA is BS
- Judge OKs Psystar's Countersuit Against Apple
- Apple/Psystar to have Confidentiality Agreement
- Psystar Debuts New, Sleek OS X Hackintosh
- Psystar Working on OS X Hackintosh Netbook?
- Mac Cloner Psystar Files for Bankruptcy
- Psystar Owes Apple a Mysterious $75,000
- Apple Punches Through Psystar's Ch. 11 Stay
- Psystar Back in the Fight Against Apple
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.
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.
That's actually not a bad idea for Apple.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Computing_Corporation
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You do know IBM doesn't make PCs...right?
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.
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.
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.
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.