Adding another blow to the lawsuit brought on by Apple, Psystar has started making Leopard restore disks available at no extra cost to customers who purchase Mac Clones from the company.Psystar has received several comments and questions asking if they are still selling Mac clones - their answer: "Definitely". Mac "Clones" sold by the company are a fraction of the price of Apple's machines, some as low as a quarter of the price of an equivilent "authentic" Mac. The company claims the difference is caused by Apple marking the cost of Mac hardware up by 80%.
Will Apple be able to beat Psystar? At the moment, it's looking fairly unlikely (they are still pulling the copyright card - which an Antitrust ruling (which, coincidentally, Apple are attempting to challenge) voided). Either way, it looks like it's going to be a very long game of cat and mouse.
News source: InformationWeek
Repackaging Microsoft Service Packs and updates is also copyright infringement. Pystar can buy 100 licenses for OSX, but it gives them zero modification & redistribution rights.
Repackaging Microsoft Service Packs and updates is also copyright infringement. Pystar can buy 100 licenses for OSX, but it gives them zero modification & redistribution rights.
That's why they aren't installing OSX but only provide the disks use can use to install OSX (from Apple) on PsyStar PC.
However, claiming they aren't ("No, no, that's not what we're doing -- we're just selling a computer and just happen to be putting a boxed license of an OS X upgrade in the box for the user's Macs at home...") when they say they are on their site (while disparaging Apple at every opportunity), developing a boot loader for the install DVD, and packaging it all together is still illegal. You might want to nitpick, or think you are weaseling out of reality, or wish it were so -- but no judge is going to agree with you once you're in a courtroom. Not with their own boot loader/restore CD and copy on their site saying they are selling you a computer that runs a license of Mac OS X.
There are plenty of hackintosh options out there that do what you say (by making the owner do much of the work), that don't use Apple trademarks, that don't disparage the brand and attempt to get press -- coincidentally, Apple hasn't sued them.
Related, all packaged version of Mac OS X are merely upgrade licenses for existing Apple computers. So even if they were smarter about their practices Apple would still have grounds to go after them if they could prove there is an intent to load the OS on non-Apple hardware.
Last edited by dp123 on 15 Aug 2008 - 14:29
I.... don't think so.....
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=639781
Same here, I cant believe how long apple has been able to prevent marketable cloning... GO PSYSTAR!
Where is this nonsense coming from? There has been no "antitrust ruling". It remains Apple's copyright suit and Psystar hopes to defend themselves with an antitrust defense (which most consider unlikely). Nothing has been voided. Unless you have some mystery secret court documents from a mystery secret trial that's already happened. Of course, since Psystar won't even submit their initial response to the case until the 18th, I doubt you have this "antitrust ruling" document.
Last edited by dp123 on 14 Aug 2008 - 23:48
So where does MS and it's total domination of the market come into play?
Lets see. . People do what they are told, even if they do not realize it. Both Microsoft and Apple spend hundreds of millions of dollars advertising their wares, telling them to use their product. There are legions of Mac users out there that believe the "I'm a Mac" advertisements and accept them as fact. Some even idolize Steve Jobs as if he was some kind of supreme being. On the other hand, you have Microsoft. Even if they're not throwing dirt around, they still maintain a very nice lead over Apple, and surprisingly maintain their own fan base even though they eat "underdogs" every day.
Now, combine this with the fact that the only Linux advertisements you're likely to see are ads from Novell and IBM, promoting Linux servers. The only information people are likely to get about Linux on the desktop will come from Apple and Microsoft fanboys. . who either tried Linux 10 years ago, are spouting off garbage they heard from someone else, or are just idiots who would have just as much trouble switching between Windows and MacOS as they would trying out Linux. With that in mind, would anyone like to take a guess as to how a description of Linux will sound coming from someone who has already chosen another platform?
Interestingly enough, Vista is in the same predicament Linux is in. All people hear about Vista is bad. Not surprisingly, many of those people have never even used it. The same goes for Linux, for all the same reasons. Linux has no marketing team. No advertising budget. Its free for you to use, take it or leave it. If you like it, great! If not? That's OK too, but try not to be such an ass.
Back on topic. . personally I would much rather buy a Psystar than a Mac. If the company wins this legal battle, I may be buying a Psystar next. Personally I wonder what the install routine is like. . trying to install MacOS on a Psystar. Does it just install, or do I have to muck around with cracks to get the thing to install without checking for official Apple hardware?
On another note.. now that Gates is slowly leaving Microsoft, I wonder how Windows, Linux, and MacOS will do once each leader of each platform retires or passes away. I don't see Ballmer keeping Microsoft going at the same pace Bill did. Linus and Steve, they won't live for ever either. It should be interesting to see what happens once each of these charismatic leaders passes away. Can you imagine each platform without their figureheads?
DISCLAIMER: 3 Linux boxes (not counting my Linksys AP) and 3 Windows Vista Home Premium boxes (With legit licenses!
Last edited by Divide Overflow on 15 Aug 2008 - 04:54
You shoud try Vista Ultimate once. Don't Portage, XFCE etc on Vista sound interesting?
Don't know where this whole antitrust business is going in in this case, since it has nothing to do with it.
Why aren't people up in arms that you can only run PalmOS on Palm hardware? What about every other vendor that ties their OS to their hardware?
werd.
apple dont want to dominate nothing, whats the problem with them not wanting THEIR OS to run on nothing more than THEIR hardware? thats how apple sells hardware, because theyve got a great OS, and if the people want to use the great os that mac os is, they have to buy apple hardware.
microsoft is another thing, because they dont sell nor make computers.
what apple does is far from being a monopoly, as oposed to microsoft.
i personally think apple its in all its rights to sue that company, that in fact is modifying the os to work on their hardware, they are not giving you the os to install by yourself, check their webpage, systems come with os preinstalled, or at least they were.
im no apple fanboy, and im no mac owner, but i hope apple f*** that company, what they are doing is ilegal.
This is not antitrust, they can limit their OS however they like, they are not stopping competition, competition can make an OS, hardware etc... and sell computers. By not allowing other companies to the OSX apple is protecting their IP, not limiting competition. Competition is not limited by others not selling OSX.
People want to see Apple de-railed more for emotional reasons (and some sort of vague, nebulous ethical gripes) than anything else.
Something to do with "smugness" or some other ridiculous reason which has nothing to do with how well the OS performs on the hardware it was meant to run on (and it performs extremely well, as we all know.)
And if it's this childlike clamouring for cheaper Apple software that isn't tied to specific hardware - this fantasy that we're all entitled to everything on the cheap (sense of entitlement, typical!
This case, I believe, is already setting a troubling, dangerous precedent (if not a legal one.) You no longer have complete control over your product - you can no no longer decide how to limit its use to ensure that the user experience is what it is meant to be.
Pretty scary.
This case, I believe, is already setting a troubling, dangerous precedent (if not a legal one.) You no longer have complete control over your product - you can no no longer decide how to limit its use to ensure that the user experience is what it is meant to be.
Pretty scary.
Wow...Your total devotion to Apple is scary! If I buy a product, I would expect a certain degree of freedom in its use...After all, I PAID FOR IT! Companies that require complete control of their product, are few and far between, and show an underlying fear. Consumers are not kids! If I buy something, I dont need the company that sold me the product to babysit me in its use! There should just be warranty clauses, and thats it! If I open the case and it breaks, etc, I should be lose the guarantee. The company should not limit my use of their product to what they perceive the "user experience" to be.
If you need someone to hold your hand and tell you what you must experience, or how to experience something, then I feel sorry for you. I am not bashing Apple, all I am saying is that a thinking for yourself once in a while is a good thing.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.