Psystar sues Apple for Snow Leopard; "exploding" iPhones - Page 3

Since 2G was implemented, all cell phone communications are digital, much like the switch to digital for television, so in this case, it really is all 'data' as far as type of communication. The only difference here is that voice data will always get priority over other packet types.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone5.htm

Cell phones have been digital since PCS - which is like 15 years ago.

This was posted on Psystar's website two days ago:

"Apple has done a great job creating a stylish and functional operating system. That’s why we buy and use Apple products. We never set out to conquer Apple, what we wish is to coexist with Apple as a competitor in the industry.

It is our goal at Psystar to offer a great product (OS X) to people who are not included in Apple’s target market. Steve Jobs has even said, “There are some customers which we choose not to serve.” Some people simply cannot afford an Apple computer. Others would like to see better performance from their machines with hardware configurations that Apple does not provide. Our Psystar machines were developed to fill niches that a larger corporation like Apple doesn’t serve.

Like Apple, Psystar is an American company and provides American jobs. As such, we would like to see a market with healthy competition; competition that benefits you, the consumer. We respect Apple as a company and admire the success they have achieved.

What we offer here at Psystar is a choice as to what platform you chose to run OS X Leopard on. We screen all software updates to ensure that they all work safely on our machines before we encourage our customers to update their Psystar computer. And we will continue to support our computers through new software releases."

I don't think Psystar has a real understanding of the manner in which Apple's business structure works. Apple doesn't serve certain groups because Microsoft and the various PC OEMs do. And when you run a vertically aligned manufacturing process, it's because it benefits both your company and your customers, not because you want to eliminate competition.

Besides, and it's funny, the OSX86 community that Pedraza likes to talk about so much, literally exists to help people fill these gaps he speaks of, the difference is they realize trying to create a business out of that helps absolutely no one (which is when the head of the project has publicly cursed him on several counts). You don't make products for the extremely naggy 10% of your customers who will never be satisfied no matter what you put out, you sell to the 90% that enjoy the benefits of the ecosystem you've created.

I'm so tired of hearing this choice bullshit from them though. They've already lost that argument in court and they keep beating it into the ground. Apple existing and running its ecosystem differently from Microsoft and its 90% market domination is in and of itself choice. The idea that you have to subdivide a segment because you disagree with its business strategy is downright offensive. Apple doesn't make low-end computers for a reason and it has served it extremely well and its customers love it. The only problem here is that people like Pedraza don't know how to leave a good thing well enough alone.

Actually PCS and 2G are one in the same. 1G was analog. 2G is digital.

Then by your reasoning, Apple shouldn't care what Psystar does at all unless they start offering an "iStar", iMac clone, or similar model. By your own admission, the people purchasing from Psystar were never potential customers and thus in no way threatened Apple's potential profits. In fact, it actually benefits Apple since they (should) have been receiving $79 for each copy of OS X installed on a Psystar PC.

So the reason why Apple is fighting this, is...?

I've made no such admission. Apple doesn't make mid-range tower units because they're all extremely low margin and if you're going to base your business on the idea of profiting from your hardware, not your software, one needs to accommodate the other. Psystar doesn't have to worry about any of the overheard costs Apple incurs as a result of research & development or running a retail chain (among other things). It's a rinky dink little throw together of a company that can only even exists because it isn't paying licensing fees to anyone (Apple or the OSX86 community whose patented hacks they use without authorization).

The fact of the matter is that if people think they can get a premium experience, which is what Apple seeks to provide (I don't care to hear whether you think that's true or not), at a fraction of the cost, they will buy it every time because people are insanely cheap. There's a reason that innovation go to the Windows market to die: everyone is buying the cheap crap so there's no impetus to create anything spectacular because not enough people will buy it and you'll just lose money on it as a result. Apple running its business like Microsoft would mire into the same problem and the company would fold as a result. Apple runs its business the way it does because it is by far the best strategy for the company to take. Whoever said you fight fire with fire was a friggin inexperienced idiot.

So, to answer your question more directly, I'm sure a certain percentage of the people who buy from Psystar would never buy a Mac anyway, but these are typically the people who think Apple's stuff is overpriced no matter how competitively priced it is with its direct competition. Setting up the precedent that a non-existent market should be legally subdivided because, for instance, BMW doesn't care to make sub-$30,000 cars is the kind of reverse socialism that is going to screw the world up if its allowed to proliferate.

I mean, my g-d, when I eventually have kids, I hasten to think my son would decide that since he doesn't like my decisions he's gonna go ask the neighbor's father since I have an unfair monopoly on parenting him.

can you point me to the opposite?


How is that bad? If your son is intelligent enough to understand that he can get a 2nd opinion than all the power to him. Just because you're Daddy doesn't mean you're right.

You're missing the point, he's my child and if I decide I don't want him going to the zoo, I'll be damned if the couple across the street will take him. Just because he likes their decisions more, doesn't mean he gets to live by them. If you can't understand that, I pray you never have kids.

No, Apple is not "hyping" this up. They don't do that with pending lawsuits. And if you havent heard, Apple is one of the most recognizable and most successful companies in the world (fan or not.)

The majority of updates do not require restarts. When they do, it is because a core service is being changed and cant be overwritten while you or another program are using it. It also installs much faster and reliable when all non-essential services are closed. This is the nature of math and programming.

I don't get the animosity against psystar. So what they make hackinthoshes. A normal consumer wouldn't buy this. People who are buying this are mildy tech savvy people who already own another mac.

I'm interested in seeing how it plays out. As far as I can tell none of this is hurting apple one bit. Just take a look at their numbers. I understand apple has to defend its IP but again I don't get what all you people have against them. You act as if they killed your first born.

The problem doesn't come from Psystar in itself. In and of itself Psystar is no threat. The threat comes from if Psystar wins, that allows other OEMs like HP, Dell, Asus, Toshiba, etc to put OS X on their computers. That would destroy Apple. Just HP alone putting OS X on their computers would destroy Apple. HP is the largest computer maker worldwide

A $999.99 version of OSX would really put to shame those who complain that Windows is expensive All they need to do is price it the same as Windows, since Microsoft also has the model of not having any hardware to sell to subsidise the cost.

OK, lets say that psystar win (unrealistic I know). How would Apple respond?

They would create 2 versions of OS X. One for Apple owners for the purposes of upgrading and charge a nominal fee and one for the 3rd party manufacturers to license.

The third party version would be available for, lets say $2000 per license and come with no support from Apple whatsoever.

Then lets see Dell and HP create their clones.

Theres nothing to say at what price Apple needs to supply a license to third party cloners.

The only one who gets destroyed if Psystar wins is Psystar. Apples business model gets bruised but Apple doesnt falter. The next to lose, and to lose big, would be Microsoft, depending on how Apple handles the notion that if they sell a copy of OS X on shelves that anyone can start a business of selling that OS installed on computers so long as they take responsibility for servicing.

Apple would have several directions to take. They could raise the price to compete directly with Windows Ultimate full install disc at $400, or go even higher. They could then get certain companies like HP and Dell on board to sell a particular line of machines that Apple may support in the GUI but have a contract that limits the effect of HP and Dells direct sales against Apples HW line. They could not sell any version of Mac OS X on shelves but have some sort of one free OS update voucher with each Mac sold and/or require that you now need a valid Mac serial number in order to install the OS. They could even go with a complete digital download system that could first check to see if you have purchased a Mac in the past.

Besides Psystars business being killed by the big box companies that are ow willing to pay a premium to get out from MS thumb and MS losing significant marketshare because OS X is now being sold to other PC vendors (note that even if Apple had the largest worldwide PC marketshare that HP holds it would still only have 25% of the OS market), the Mac user also loses here. We now have a company that has a strong focus on pairing hardware to their OS and apps, have made things simple with no HW checks reporting to Apples authentication servers and a simple install process that still uses the honor system. All that would go away for a Windows-like experience at one or many of the options above.

If you find this a legal action then why are there no other companies in the US doing it. Why arent HP, Dell, and all the other companies that cant stand being beat down by Windows and having only Linux as an alternative not selling their Mac OS X on their machines. Retail versions of Windows Ultimate are $400 while a full version of Mac OS X Snow Leopard is only $29.

The problem is not with the Hackintosh community. Apple has never attacked the OSx86 Project as these are just tech savvy modders who are not selling their wares. The problems comes from Psystar creating a business around Apples own IP without their written permission. They arent the end user and they arent just selling the disc for their customers to install on OSx86 compatible HW that they put together. This is illegal.

If you are tech savvy then you dont need to pay Psystar profit and get yourself limited to their few HW choices. You can simply read the OSx86 Project Wiki HCL make your own Hackintosh. its not like any of what Psystar is doing is difficult. They arent writing any code or doing any research to make this happen, they are reading the community generated pages and stealing the code that others have written and strictly forbid from making a business around without their permission, which they wont give. The OSx86 community is none to happy with Psystar either for stealing from them, too.

PS: Are you aware of EFiX? Its a USB chip that tricks the OS into installing and running on certain MoBos? That is completely legal in that there is no alteration of OS X code and that they arent selling an entire computer where the sellers are accepting any agreement and doing a transference of code from one medium to another. Well, EFiX USA, the US distributer for the dongle, decided that they were going to compete with Psystar by selling per-made Mac clones. This was just the installing OS X on the compatible HW. EFiX dropped them as a distributer as soon as they heard. What EFIX is selling it legal, for you to use it is legal, for you create a business around it is not legal.

I imaging the IRS and FTC would very interested in finding out if Psystar is being financed from "behind the scenes". IMHO anyone financing them is a fool because if Psystar are as bungling as they appear they might be stupid enough to let slip who Daddy Bigbucks is to save their own skin.

None of Psystars actions scream that they are being funded by a larger company behind the scenes. We also know that they are in debt to their previous attorneys.

The bankruptcy thing may have been a legal ploy to delay the Apple suit as the bankruptcy was dismissed (see Moran Law Group's online glossary of Bankruptcy terms ie Psystar still owes their first batch of lawyers.

You do realize that Apple holds the licenses and copyrights for OS X. They can and do dictate what you do with the product when they sell you a license. What Psystar does is illegal. They are taking an Apple product, rebranding it as their own, and profiting off of it.

This is no different than those 'free for home use' applications. Any delusional thinking that this is somehow even remotely legal are just wishful thinking for the Hackintosh Mac wannabe owners. Apple does not license the use of OS X to any other vendor. Microsoft does. That is the difference between the two. MS sells the rights to distribute its OS to vendors like Dell, HP, Sony, etc, as well as individual licenses to home users and business to use it's product. MS also grants vendors the right to sell the OS product for resale.

Apple allows none of those things and they have no legal obligation to do so. You can't force a private company to sell a license, a product, or a service.

I'm no fan of Pie Star, but can they just sell the hardware and whatever "enabler" software they use, and have an end user buy a retail copy of OS X and install it themselves?

For those who don't understand Apple's position, you would if you spent the dollars on R&D, education, support infrastructure, advertising and marketing, among other categories. Apple's success (and our benefit) has been built by carefully managing and balancing an airtight ship with enough portals for third party developers to enter into. There is a tremendous upfront and ingoing investment to do this well, as Apple has, and for a third party to try and leverage a major aspect of that effort for their own profit without the prerogative of Apple saying yes should have no legal basis whatsoever.

Remember, this is licensing, not purchasing, so any anaology of "buying" parts is not applicable.

And will it benefit Apple if Psystar starts selling OS X notebooks (as they have threatened to do)? And Mac Mini clones?

And if Psystar is legally allowed to continue their "Mac" business then HP and DEll et al would be free to do the same. Does that benefit Apple?

I think that would be less offensive then their current business model, but still illegal. If Psystar offers an 'enabler' of any sort, it is illegal.

The exact points that the "it's all data" crowd never seem to address.

I'm pretty sure the answer is copyrights and trademarks. Until those two legal concepts are invalidated, I doubt businesses are going to get a legal right to sell hackintoshes without Apple's permission.

Pilot, you seem to think that since these folks were to cheap to buy a Mac, and that as a result, Apple wouldn't profit from them, that it follows that anything they do to work around the legalities of buying a mac are therefore legal? Do you see how silly that sounds?

Psystar damages Apples business just by competing with it with an unfair advantage.

Psystar spends 0 dollars on research and development of Apple OS X. They profit off of Apple's blood, sweat, and tears. They simply take a product that someone else made, and turn around and resell it without permission.

Had Psystar actually developed their own version of Free BSD Unix (the base that OS X was built on) then it would be perfectly legal for them to resell it. Instead, they are profiting off of another companies intellectual property. No amount of weaseling can alter that fact.

Heavens to Betsy

Apple is missing a GOLDEN opportunity

They SHOULD allow competitors to load the software, but with a two-tiered price structure. If you're loading the new OS X on an Apple product then you are entitled to "upgrade discount" for example for snow leopard and Mac users, $29. If the user is loading it on a non-apple machine. it would be a new install for which you could charge MS prices, shall we say $399 and their upgrade pathway would be some equally ridiculous figure, say $249

Why?
(1) As I've said before on this forum, Apple WILL sooner or later reach monopoly status and will be required by the anti-trust police to allow competition
(2) You force those idiots unethical enough to rip off Apple's IP by making their margins so low, that they make only $25-$50/unit sold; they'd have sell cheap to survive.
(3) Customer support would only need to ask for the serial number to find out if it's an APple Box or a Brand X box, then politely decline to help on the hardware side (some call this 110% cooperation)
(4) Once the Ripoff artists get returns of their cheaply made boxes, the customers would realise the truth in the phrase you get what you pay for. Let's be honest here, Jonny Ive et al have produced works of art; everything else is a wannabe, Heck my 4 1/2 year old Powerbook is still serving me just fine
(5) Allowing "competition" with such a razor thin profit margin would mean that such companies (e.g., Pystar) would die a natural death--and save APple a lot of money in lawyer fees)

I wouldn't be surprised if Dell or microsoft is funding this behind the scenes. Where do they get the money to do this and who in their right mind would buy them not knowing if the company will survive the 90-day warranty?

Hell, even taking the open source Darwin OS and building their own UI on it. That is too much for them to do, but Dell or HP could have done it.

Psystar could have been legal if they only sold PC hardware that was compatible with the OSx86 Project HCL. Even priming the HDD for the OS X install, but letting the user do the final step of actually installing the OS thereby having them accept the EULA and having them actually initiate the transfer from the optical media to the magnetic disk medium.

That is a better analogy, thanks.

I do find it a bit odd that neither of these guys have tried developing their own OS. I wonder if it's ever even been discussed as an option behind closed doors.

It still doesn't add up. Delaying the lawsuit means that the case takes longer to get settled. If Micheal Dell was bankrolling Psystar to get OS X on his computers, why would he want the case to take longer? So no, I'm not seeing a convincing argument that a computer OEM such as Dell or HP is playing "sugar daddy" to these people.

This is a common misconception. Having a monopoly per se is not an issue anti-trust wise. The problem comes if you abuse your monopoly position.

For example:

Let's say in 10 year's time, Apple has 99% of the mobile phone market and 99% of the portable audio/video player market, but only 10% of the computer market.

Assuming those two monopolies where built independently and with no strong-arming of third-parties (e.g. resellers, mobile network operators) there would be no problem. However, if Apple then decided that their phones and audio/video players would only work with Macs (to try and force people to buy Macs), that would be an abuse of their monopoly position and therefore illegal.

HP is the largest PC maker in the world with about a 25% marketshare. That includes mostly PCs that are sold for well under what Apple charges per machine. While I think that Apple will have to make a 13” and 15” MacBook as their higher-end gets saturated, they would not be a monopoly even if they were selling 1 out of every 4 PCs on the market like HP. MS would still likely have a 70 to 74% marketshare for their OS, depending on Linux.


That is true, except that Apple also loses out on profit, too. Apple makes more on a Mac sale than MS makes on a Windows sale. MS has to sell a lot more copies of their OS than Apple to make the same amount because Apple makes their OS to sell their Mac branded PCs.


Even the $29 version of Snow Leopard sold for a machine running Leopard for a single user can be installed on any machine as many times as you wish. Apple doesn’t see it as profitable to stop their honor system, thank goodness. Having serial numbers and a system that does checks home for validation and the people to support this system for customer service and technical support just add costs. While they could make more money in bulk sales they can also incur more costs and potentially negatively affect their current premium brand.


Or they may just install another OS on their HW, blaming OS X for all their issues.


MS is the last to fund Psystar as they are the most to be hurt if Apple were to be required to license their OS to other PC vendors.

Apple may also restrict the copyrights on Darwin as well. I'm not sure. I know it's freely available but there is 'free' and then there is free.

As long as their 'priming' the HDD for an OS X install didn't infringe on any Apple IP, then that would probably also be legal, but they cannot in any way offer OS X without license from Apple.

What Psystar does is the equivalent of buying a Yugo, sticking a Mercedes sticker on it, and then turn around and sell it as 'Mercedes-Lite' at half the Mercedes price.

Good point.

Just because you say something it doesn't magically make it true. Apple focuses on segment that will never make it monopoly. Apple does not try to get huge market share simply because most of market is created by low margin low cost machines. Apple will gladly leave this segment to Dell. Just compare the turnaround and profit of Dell and Apple and it will become quite apparent why.

I'm guessing you haven't spent much time on a PC Manufacturer's web site lately. Show me comparable hardware at Lenovo, HP, Sony, or Dell that is substantially cheaper than a comparable Mac. Other than the odd 'sale' price, they are about the same price. Sometimes more, sometimes less. It seems like these price fanatics always confuse a Reseller like TigerDirect's $600 PC for a PC Manufacturer's PC prices. A manufacturer has an entire infrastructure to sustain (Warranties, repairs, service, sales). A reseller just needs a warehouse and cheap parts. Comparing the prices between the two is illogical.

I can go to Frys Electronics, and put together a $500 dollar PC, but I can expect the power supply to fail in a year, the hard drive in 2-3, and the mother board to be either great as long as you never touch it, or a piece of crap that warps and fails, and the case to be substandard, bent, and likely missing half the package contents. I can also buy a top of the line board, memory, hard drive, display, power supply, and optical drive and case and far exceed even a PC manufacturer's price offerings. You get what you pay for. When it comes to actual manufacturer's prices, they are all about the same price, although arguably apple offers better quality since they consistently rank at the top for quality.

Here's the key word in your paragraph above: comparable. All Logisticaldron said was that most of the PCs that HP sells are cheaper than Macs. He didn't say the machines were comparable, just that they were cheaper. And it's true. Apple has no mainstream consumer desktop (i.e., one with a consumer desktop CPU in it. The Mac Pro is a workstation, the iMac is a laptop on a stick, and the Mac Mini is an ultra-compact SFF desktop which also uses laptop parts), and their laptops are comparably thin and light with mid- and high-end CPUs (and Apple have an irritating penchant for tying screen-size to computing power). HP and Dell offer low-end and mid-end machines that have no "comparable" Mac.

e.g.:

The Dell Mini 10v laptop has no Mac equivalent, but at $299 is much cheaper than any Apple laptop
The Dell Studio 17 is a 17" laptop with a starting price of $649, much much cheaper than the 17" MBpro. That's because the 17" MBP is a vastly superior machine; there is no direct Apple equivalent to the Dell
The Dell XPS Desktop starts at $849 and will absolutely piss on any iMac performance-wise. Again, there's no Mac equivalent.

Pipped by Mr. H.