Recently uncovered in Psystar’s bankruptcy filings is a note showing that the company owes Apple $75,000.
Both Psystar and Apple have been in a legal horn-locking as of late over Psystar’s sale of PCs pre-loaded with Mac OS X. Psystar recently bowed out of the legal battle with its filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Computerworld has noticed in Psystar’s documents that the company owes Apple $75,000, which is curious considering its stance that it hasn’t done anything to wrong Apple.
Apparently under "Schedule F -- Creditors Holding Unsecured Nonpriority Claims," Psystar had Apple Inc. as being owed $75,000, also with terms "Litigation Pending" and "consideration for claim."
Could this be Psystar’s way of repaying Apple for damages? It’s hard to say. Computerworld figured that, at the list retail price of $129 per license, the $75,000 translates into 581 copies of Leopard. Surely Psystar must have sold more than 581 Mac clones, right?
You really think the retailer himself wont make a dime ?, or that the same prices go if you buy 75,000 worth of goodies even at a retail store ?
And yes even so ... psystar cant have sold that many units so i wont be amazed if they never hit the 1000 unit mark.
It wouldn't be the first time Apple has done something in the grey area of the law, and they've even broken it, and managed to settle it out of court (I'm referring to the iPhone trademark on that last note).
Apple's hands are as dirty as Microsoft or for that matter, any other companies. The fact that Apple passes itself off as an Angel pisses me off.
(FY 2008) is lunch money.This is disgusting.
They`re claiming bankruptcy, good luck claiming it.
Granted, I don`t knows the laws in associated said country...
And I realize to Macintosh $75,000 is nothing, so why are they even botheringÉ
And he'll assure you that you're "virus free!"
Apple is a company that is making money. I don't know their profit on their computer sales... but they should look at how MS makes money by NOT selling hardware.
What would make a better buy?
$130~190 for Vista upgrade (Home / Business) or $240~300 for Retail.
$110 for Apple OS X Retail (not an upgrade)
Back in the 90s, I used to run Mac emulation on my Amiga (Both designs used Motorola 68000~68030 CPUs) and it ran better than a real Mac. The emulation software was about 110K if I remember right. And I had a Macintosh "software partition" on the HD.
I'd love to see MacOS for everyone.
Let me tell you a little secret. Apple does not want more marketshare.
When it comes down it, Apple cannot do what Microsoft does. Microsoft has to support pretty much all the hardware out there, and needs to offer features that cater to nearly every computer users needs. Not to mention Microsoft is the largest target for virus attacks, as not only does it has most personal users, but it has the largest percentage of business users (computers that would have a high quantity and quality of valuable information).
Apple is untested in security, which is why it always falls the fastest at the Pwn2own. There are plenty of vulnerabilities, but no one cares to find them.
If Apple increased their marketshare, they'll have many more security issues than Microsoft ever had, not to mention their lose their elitist user base.
I believe what Tindytim was referring to is/was a weakness in Safari which was not found on the first day of competition, but was exploited the second day when direct network access was permitted. And the winner Charlie Miller, had admitted having previous knowledge of the weakness. So doing it in the time he did it in, not really an indicator of platform security. Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 also fell to the wayside, leaving only Ubuntu 7.10. That aside, OS X is based on BSD and Unix (which the "all secure, all knowing" Linux is based on), which are generally considered to be two of the more secure platforms by many security professionals.(http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2822483,00.html) BSD being at the top of that list for servers. So, I'm not sure Apple would have all the same issues or more that Microsoft has had. Many of Microsoft's have come from poor design and bad programming, because they are a relatively young OS, when compared with Unix and some others. But to say that because Apple WOULD have many more because they aren't tested as often (I assume Tindytim means there are fewer of them, so they are not as glaring of a target) is not necessarily correct, and in not a valid conclusion. However, on the flip side, he may be right. But I am led not to agree given the platform base which OS X stands on, and is built upon.
While I agree with almost everything you said, this I Do not “Apple does not want more marketshare”
Just like AMD wants to be more power friendly and less expensive…. If AMD could dethrone Intel they would, if Apple could be in the top spot they would take it as well. No one chooses second as a marketing plan.
Everything else you said is spot on, If Apple somehow swapped positions with M$ tomorrow they would be in for a world of hurt.