or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple earns key legal victory against Psystar
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple earns key legal victory against Psystar - Page 4

post #121 of 180
Quote:
I wish I could legally run OSX on some decent hardware.

Well, Apple's hardware is 'decent.' It is, for the most part, a work of art.

However, Rain has a point on the GPUs. Melgross can't just say 'it's an industry problem' when people commonly extol the virtues of Apple's mono-hardware/software whole widget culture.

If anything Apple should REALLY be on TOP of GPU driver issues seeing as they flagrantly offer limited choice, out of date GPUs that they over charge for where driver issues should have been cracked ages ago. It's not like Apple have as many GPU drivers to support as Windows does?

In that context...Apple's choice of GPU is limited, the drivers mediocre and way overpriced and simply: old. Especially on machines Apple is charging far more for than equivalent PC performance. By a factor of 100% or more in some cases.

Similarly, while the iMac has a stunning screen, the hardware on the low end is out of date. Quad core i5s are cheap. They'll be in low end PCs. Why not low end iMacs?

The Mac Pro and the ancient 30 inch plastic screen LCD look dreadful value for money. An astronomical. £1900 or nearly £2k for a mediocre quad tower in a nice case. Craaaahhhhp gpu and no monitor included. 30 inch LCD? An unbelievable £1300. £3300k for mediocre quad core and an ageing display. Sure makes the quad iMac look a bargain. But only in the context of 'Apple land.'

So, yeah. They could offer some 'decent' hardware at 'decent' prices. Don't hold your breath though. It's not like the Mac Pro couldn't have a better gpu bundled as standard and be given a steeeeeeeeeeeeeep price cut. But at 30 billion and counting...it seems to be working for Apple...to a degree. That still doesn't make the Mac Pro or Mini a value equation in my opinion.

Oh, yeah. Kinda back on topic. Psystar. You got P-owned. Serves you right. And I hope a light is shone on their backers.

But that doesn't mean Apple's desktop line up is perfect. And there's 95% of the PC market that don't want Apple product. And until they access those customer's concerns they will never reach critical mass. For me, that means a price cut, better gpus as standard (ie more vram on them) and a little more desktop choice...and possibly a 'cheaper' laptop/netbook/tablet equiv'.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #122 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximara View Post

With good reason. Even back then even the PC world knew IE had issues thought I have to admit the Mac team that worked on IE for Mac did a fantastic job. Netscape suffered from trying to do too mush and producing a bloated mess.

The booing had a lot more to do with the browser war raging at that time. The open question was whether Microsoft would be allowed to dominate the internet as they had already come to dominate PCs. So much was at stake that Apple making MSIE the "default" browser for the Mac was considered to be a big deal.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #123 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximara View Post

Given the Copyright Directive is more restrictive than the DMCA it is likely Psystar would have done a major crash and burn there too.

If one reads the decision, it can be seen that the DMCA was just one area amongst a bunch of others that the Judge ruled against Psystar.
post #124 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

... Apple should REALLY be on TOP of GPU driver issues seeing as they flagrantly offer limited choice, out of date GPUs that they over charge for where driver issues should have been cracked ages ago. It's not like Apple have as many GPU drivers to support as Windows does?... In that context...Apple's choice of GPU is limited, the drivers mediocre and way overpriced and simply: old. Especially on machines Apple is charging far more for than equivalent PC performance. By a factor of 100% or more in some cases. ....

I've heard this argument again and again over the years, but while it's technically accurate, it's always seemed like more of a red herring to me.

Even the "lamest" of mac hardware (like an old single core PPC mini with integrated graphics), "does the job" that it was intended to do. People are always mentioning that there are faster GPUs or newer ones or whatever, but if you can open and close windows and browse the web the same as with any other PC, and if there are no hangs or glitches, it's really a moot point.

Even on fast windows PC's for instance, many aspects of the OS and the GUI hang or are slow. On a Mac, even with shitty graphics capabilities, you don't tend to see any interface lag at all, so it appears "fast" to the user.

The only time any of the specs you are referring to make any difference is on xbox/ps3 type gaming (something most mac users don't do), or for high end graphic editing (most of which is done on custom hardware.) It's not irrelevant that you can buy more power for less money on the PC side, or that you can get a PC with more up to date (to the minute!), components. But it is mostly unimportant to the vast majority of people buying and using the computer.

If the user doesn't think it's slow, or notice any problem with the graphics, the fact that technically they could have put in a faster CPU or GPU is really not important. You could say that the PC is a better value, but to most people "value" is not based on tech specs alone it's the overall experience.

In general, people just don't sit down at a mac and say to themselves, "Wow this is slow, I could have got the (insert name brand) processor if I had a choice." Mostly they don't know, mostly they don't care, and mostly they think the Mac is "amazingly fast", "has wonderfully clear graphics" and words to that effect.
post #125 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Sculley's power usage was all about Sculley, Jobs' is all about getting the greatest products created. I prefer the latter.

I don't remember that at all. Scully did a pretty good job at Apple in general. He got into trouble mostly because of Copeland. He wasn't a computer person. Managing reams of programmers who were interested in their own projects more than the overall OS wasn't something he was used to. MS, which should know better has been having the same problem.

His other problem was the Newton. It was released before it was entirely ready. That held sales back, and was one of the main reasons for his demise. Sadly enough, the last version, which appeared later, was much better, and was selling much better when Jobs killed it.

Apple was also a much more open company when Scully was leading it.
post #126 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

The most interesting part for me is how both men measured their words so carefully, to the point of visible discomfort -- especially in Steve's case. This was clearly a very scripted event.

I heard form a good source, (but I can't find it now so I can't say for sure), that the video portion with Bill on the screen, was actually a recording. So it was completely choreographed if that's true.

I heard that mostly in the context of how ironic it was, because Bill would be appearing as a recording on the big screen, just like Big Brother in the original Apple advertisement.
post #127 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

If you read back to the articles run at the time, the general consensus seemed to be that Apple had been saved by Microsoft, a myth that persists to this day. This really reflects the other consensus in play at the time, which is that Bill never loses. This view came for some good reason -- Microsoft was incredibly dominant in those years, and few thought it should be any different. Still this meant that many had such a hard time seeing the deal any other way than yet another big win for Bill.

As for the booing (and cheering), partisanship was so much a part of MacWorld during these years. I attended many of the keynotes in the late '90s and it was always more tent revival than trade show. Mac fans hardly even met another Mac fan except at these events. People who attended knew what side they were on, the embattled one. It was a bit of a bunker mentality, but still, MacWorld was really a lot more fun in those days. By the mid-2000s it felt like only a trade show.

What Apple needed from them, and got, was that 5 year contract to keep developing and selling Office for the Mac. Without that, Apple would have had problems.
post #128 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximara View Post

That clause only give Congress the right to create Copyright laws the details would fall under other parts. For example one could argue that the extension of old copyrights is a violation of Article I section 9.

One can't argue that. The clause gives Congress the right to do almost anything other than to eliminate the copyright clause itself.
post #129 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by success View Post

I think it's better to say, "blow their load".

only if you want to be a crude 12 year old.
post #130 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I heard form a good source, (but I can't find it now so I can't say for sure), that the video portion with Bill on the screen, was actually a recording. So it was completely choreographed if that's true.

I heard that mostly in the context of how ironic it was, because Bill would be appearing as a recording on the big screen, just like Big Brother in the original Apple advertisement.

Could be, but it seems like Bill waited for quite awhile for the boos to let up before he started speaking. Maybe that was all anticipated. The video screen did have a "big brother" quality to it, but can you imagine what would have happened if he'd appeared live on the stage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

What Apple needed from them, and got, was that 5 year contract to keep developing and selling Office for the Mac. Without that, Apple would have had problems.

As a political matter, that announcement was important, but as a practical one, I wonder. At the time, Office 98 was well underway, so all they were really committing to was one more version (which turned out to be Office X). I don't know that Microsoft was on the verge of discontinuing Office for the Mac in any case. But the value of the symbolism was undeniable.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #131 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Nope, agreed, Sculley was a power mad, clueless MBA. Sculley's crown jewels should be on show in a large vat of Pepsi, sorry 'sugar water'.

I wonder if with the enormous egos ALL these guys have, if there's some sort of poetic justice that Sculley has to live out his days in a corporate purgatory. One where he's forced to realize not only his role in Apple's downfall, but then be forced to watch its wildly succesful rebirth under his former rival.
post #132 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Updates always make some things worse. Products are too complex these days. I remember when OS's and programs had NO bugs. But that was in the mid '70's. It's just gone downhill since.

Delusional. All software has bugs. It has always had bugs and always will have bugs.

Its just that what you expect is more complex than it was in the 70's
post #133 of 180
Dow Jones is reporting the following quote from a Psystar attorney:

Eugene Action, one of Psystar's lawyers, said the decision is "ripe for appeal."

"Judge Alsup has written some very well reasoned findings that you couldn't fault, even though they went against us," Action said. "But it looks like ( Friday's ruling) was written by misguided bloggers."
post #134 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielSW View Post

The only thing going down the toilet here are all you whiny, delusional, myopic, full-of-yourselves, "calling-yourselves-creatives" who get all caught up in your technical complexities.

You belong with Windoze where you can tinker a putter to your heart's content.

If you'd been with Apple over the long term you may recall that there have been numerous transitional phases like the current one in its (you need to learn how to spell "its" like these WITHOUT the apostrophe) history.

True creatives who love Apple products find ways to weather these "storms" and just keep working. The problems get sorted out.

The "Snow Leopard"-class transition is about the move to multi-cores to further satisfy the ever-growing need for more power. There seems to be a "back and forth" between hardware and software, too. The 8-core Pro's have been hobbled by 32-bit software, limiting apps to 4GB RAM. Now that SL is 64-bit, it's up to Adobe, et al, to upgrade to 64-bit and perhaps further optimize for Grand Central.

In the mean time, hardware is making its strides.

It all takes time and patience.

This is no time for Apple to relent and open its systems to tinkerers--especially in light of its current struggles with jackals like Pisstar and others.

I'm personally for simply staying the course and using available Apple systems to the best of my ability to make money and be ready for future upgrades, to both hardware and software.

Why should expecting more from Apple mean that he is whiny if the facts that he stated (which seem to be held up in independent testing) are accurate? Why not debate the facts he presented rather than attacking him? And by the way, if you are going to go after someone for spelling, get it right yourself. It is Windows, not Windoze - that was funny the first time someone said it 15 or 20 years ago. Now, not so much.
post #135 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

In general, people just don't sit down at a mac and say to themselves, "Wow this is slow, I could have got the (insert name brand) processor if I had a choice." Mostly they don't know, mostly they don't care, and mostly they think the Mac is "amazingly fast", "has wonderfully clear graphics" and words to that effect.

I'm not so sure...

I recently cut an HD feature on a MacBook Pro using eSata drives and it all went swimmingly well. Even when I had to resort to USB playback for a brief while (one of the striped drives went south), performance was still fine. Motion and AE also worked flawlessly. So no problems professionally.

HOWEVER... what is becoming an issue isn't so much the speed or power of Apple's offerings, but the lack of what is becoming basic, essential features - the main one being NO HDMI out. This is available on basic netbooks, and with the growing importance of HTPC computers, I'd say this is a GLARING omission.
post #136 of 180
So.... not defending Psystar's unauthorized selling of OS X-loaded systems, but since when does adding/removing/modifying kexts = copyright infringement? I've purchased hardware that has done that to OS X... is that copyright infringement too?

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #137 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

So.... not defending Psystar's unauthorized selling of OS X-loaded systems, but since when does adding/removing/modifying kexts = copyright infringement? I've purchased hardware that has done that to OS X... is that copyright infringement too?

-Clive

If you remove a KEXT to a system you own then youre fine.
If you add a KEXT to a system you own then youre fine.
If you personally modifying a copyrighted code in a KEXT is less clear as its not the same as it once was, but if you try to sell it as your work you are fine.
What Psystar has done has nothing to do with what you mention.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #138 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielSW View Post

The only thing going down the toilet here are all you whiny, delusional, myopic, full-of-yourselves, "calling-yourselves-creatives" who get all caught up in your technical complexities.

Ummm... "calling - yourselves - creatives"...
Seeing as how I'm a professional designer with an education and successful company... I feel I have the right to call myself 'creative'. I get paid a whole lot of money to be creative. And as far as getting all caught up in my "technical complexities", well, that is part of the services I also offer that people pay me lots and lots of money to have a handle on... not unlike many others here.
So i'd have to say your post is

The problem is, I'm having a video card problem, and there is no solution in sight as mum is always the word at Apple.
Don't get me wrong, after working with apple for over 20 years, converting many many people to the platform and going through all the growing pains, I'm still cheering for them and want them to get better.
However, I have some frustrations; Like a company that is drowning in an obscene amount of money can't hire one dude, or a small army, to write some damn drivers for the people who pay a premium price for their products.

So along comes a company that offers a solution, and they get squashed. Sure I understand the entire debate, and I don't necessarily support Pystar in this case... but at the end of the day, there was a solution for my needs and now their is not. Apple seems content to not address my problems, therefore, I'm not a satisfied customer at this moment.

It's hard to extol the virtue's of the Mac when your new one is years behind in technology and sitting in the shop for repairs.
post #139 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post


So along comes a company that offers a solution, and they get squashed. Sure I understand the entire debate, and I don't necessarily support Pystar in this case... but at the end of the day, there was a solution for my needs and now their is not. Apple seems content to not address my problems, therefore, I'm not a satisfied customer at this moment.

It's hard to extol the virtue's of the Mac when your new one is years behind in technology and sitting in the shop for repairs.

They never offered a solution. Ripping off someone else's IP and then repackaging it as your own is not a solution. You want a solution? Build a hackintosh.

Pretty shocking that a business owner is even the least bit supportive of corporate thieves. But maybe when your own IP rights are threatened, you'll understand.
post #140 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

They never offered a solution. Ripping off someone else's IP and then repackaging it as your own is not a solution. You want a solution? Build a hackintosh.

Pretty shocking that a business owner is even the least bit supportive of corporate thieves. But maybe when your own IP rights are threatened, you'll understand.

Didn't say I was supportive of Pystar. Right or wrong, they were offering a technical solution that Apple seems content to not address.

Don't want to build a hackintosh, want Apple to put some of their BILLIONS back into their company and catch up to the rest of the industry.

Have my IP rights threatened every day. Sucks. But I don't go around punishing my clients because of what someone else does.
post #141 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Didn't say I was supportive of Pystar. Right or wrong, they were offering a technical solution that Apple seems content to not address.

Don't want to build a hackintosh, want Apple to put some of their BILLIONS back into their company and catch up to the rest of the industry.

Have my IP rights threatened every day. Sucks. But I don't go around punishing my clients because of what someone else does.

Fair enough. Is a Mac Pro not a solution? Even as a business owner, though, perhaps it might be a bit steep, especially in these times . . .
post #142 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Didn't say I was supportive of Pystar. Right or wrong, they were offering a technical solution that Apple seems content to not address.

Don't want to build a hackintosh, want Apple to put some of their BILLIONS back into their company and catch up to the rest of the industry.

Have my IP rights threatened every day. Sucks. But I don't go around punishing my clients because of what someone else does.

I don't think you are being honest here. There is so much hyperbole in these comments and the others you made earlier. There's also a lot of unspoken assumptions in evidence and some major anger just beneath the surface of everything you're saying.

Apple needs to "catch up to the rest of the industry?"
Who says? (and what do you really mean by that?)

You "get your IP rights threatened every day?" WTF?

You sound reasonable on first read, but me thinks you have some serious axes a' grinding there.

If you really cannot afford a new computer more than every five years or so, then why are you using a Mac in the first place? Either your a professional that needs the performance of a Mac, or your a low-end user and it doesn't matter what you use. Macs have advantages over PCs, but not so big of an advantage that being poor or cheap doesn't instantly make the Windows alternative more attractive.
post #143 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post

All I can say is:

F*** YOU, stupid Psystar pirates. And of course, a big F*** YOU to all you morons who bought Psystar products against Apple's continued investments in R&D and innovation...it's an exemplary judgement to block all such hackers from freeriding on someone else's efforts...now where are the pundits who said that the EULA was unenforceable? Go study some Law before you babble such incongruities, MS-fanboy geniuses!

Some nice lingual skills you've got there

Only one thing I can't understand: what do you think MS fanboys have to do with all this? Real MS fanboys wouldn't care less as he/she wouldn't touch Psystar - nor Apple's own, matter of fact - computers even with a stinky stick.

Psystar was trying to cater for OSX fanboys who wouldn't/couldn't pay for Apple hardware. I guess some Apple fanboys also were hoping Psystar and likes will eventually force Apple to change their hardware game a bit - as in releasing mid-range proper desktop Mac with decent expansion capabilities.
post #144 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Fair enough. Is a Mac Pro not a solution? Even as a business owner, though, perhaps it might be a bit steep, especially in these times . . .

You might have missed my earlier post... I have a Mac Pro, the video card fried and now i'm without a mac pro while I wait for repairs/replacement.
The best card available for the Mac Pro has the worst drivers imaginable, and the last 2 SL patches have made things even worse. It's also antiquated by over a year and inferior to it's PC counterpart ... It's a ridiculous situation, and I expect more from a company like Apple.
post #145 of 180
I am a supporter for Psystar. I personally use Linux (many different flavours) as my main OS, I have a hackintosh as well as a "real" Mac and honestly I think its very un-innovative and anti-competitory for Apple to withhold all its software like it does.

The open source community is ever expanding and ever growing because it has no limitations to the developers imaginations! But with Apple, you have to wait and let the hired developers come up with the ideas. Now after saying that I am in NO way meaning that Apple should just open source their OS (hhahaha way far fetched of that even being an idea) but if they plan on keeping their inclining take of market share they are either going to have to cut prices or expand their OS to more hardware.

Think about how anti-competitor this is for hardware vendors! If Apple is to gain 25% of market share (just for example) then that would cut into hardware vendors pockets for sure! Especially ATI and AMD, with Apple choosing Intel and Nvidia, they will lose those customers that use to be in that percentage that had a PC with their hardware.

So unless Apple plans on REALLY having anti-trust laws problems they better release Mac's with more hardware vendors or keep their prices high where they dont gain much more market share.
post #146 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Apple needs to "catch up to the rest of the industry?"
Who says? (and what do you really mean by that?)

Says the entire Mac Pro computing population looking for GPU solutions... where yah been man?
If your not up to speed on the situation... the GPU solutions for Mac Pro's are in a dismal state at the moment.

If you want read up on it more:
Bearfeats.com
Apple discussion forums
xlr8yourmac
Appleinsider
Macworld
even EVGA's site discusses that they are aware of the driver problems and there is nothing they can do about it.

etc...

Yah... I'm miffed at the moment. Who wouldn't be in my situation?
If you want a metaphor... Apple is content to put wooden wheels on a Ferrari. Sure it gets you there, but it's a slow bumpy ride and embarrassing when passed by a Yugo.

Don't agree with what Pystar was doing... but I would sure love to be able to stay current with my computer hardware. The Mac Pro is supposed to be upgradeable, but the choices for upgrades (GPU's) is anemic and pathetic.

I want the best of both worlds. That is my 'ideal' and I want it... and I think Apple is partially responsible for my attitude here.

QQ
post #147 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post

Delusional. All software has bugs. It has always had bugs and always will have bugs.

Its just that what you expect is more complex than it was in the 70's

No, back then, most programs we wrote were less than 4KB. It didn't take too long to write them, and it didn't take too long to de-bug them. Computers couldn't run anything bigger. Often, there wasn't more than 8KB of RAM and for storage we had, well uh, nothing.
post #148 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Dow Jones is reporting the following quote from a Psystar attorney:

Eugene Action, one of Psystar's lawyers, said the decision is "ripe for appeal."

"Judge Alsup has written some very well reasoned findings that you couldn't fault, even though they went against us," Action said. "But it looks like ( Friday's ruling) was written by misguided bloggers."

That's very funny. If he thinks the findings were very well reasoned, that can't be faulted, then there is no basis for appeal. Appeal isn't made on the facts, it's made on the law. Id there were no errors by the judge, then where's the appeal?
post #149 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

So.... not defending Psystar's unauthorized selling of OS X-loaded systems, but since when does adding/removing/modifying kexts = copyright infringement? I've purchased hardware that has done that to OS X... is that copyright infringement too?

-Clive

Psystar did this as an unauthorized entity. Those who make peripherals for the Mac are considered to be authorized agents. You are allowed to alter software to make your equipment work WITH something that has copyrighted software. That's been established.

But you're not allowed to alter the software to make it run on an unauthorized computer.
post #150 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Didn't say I was supportive of Pystar. Right or wrong, they were offering a technical solution that Apple seems content to not address.

Don't want to build a hackintosh, want Apple to put some of their BILLIONS back into their company and catch up to the rest of the industry.

Have my IP rights threatened every day. Sucks. But I don't go around punishing my clients because of what someone else does.

Why don't we just talk about LEGAL solutions?

It's not likely that your IP is costing you any money by your clients actions. They are YOUR clients.
post #151 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

You might have missed my earlier post... I have a Mac Pro, the video card fried and now i'm without a mac pro while I wait for repairs/replacement.
The best card available for the Mac Pro has the worst drivers imaginable, and the last 2 SL patches have made things even worse. It's also antiquated by over a year and inferior to it's PC counterpart ... It's a ridiculous situation, and I expect more from a company like Apple.

Was that under warrantee? Why would this be any different if Your Dell's video card was fried and you were waiting for repair/replacement?
post #152 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by shavex View Post

I am a supporter for Psystar. I personally use Linux (many different flavours) as my main OS, I have a hackintosh as well as a "real" Mac and honestly I think its very un-innovative and anti-competitory for Apple to withhold all its software like it does.

The open source community is ever expanding and ever growing because it has no limitations to the developers imaginations! But with Apple, you have to wait and let the hired developers come up with the ideas. Now after saying that I am in NO way meaning that Apple should just open source their OS (hhahaha way far fetched of that even being an idea) but if they plan on keeping their inclining take of market share they are either going to have to cut prices or expand their OS to more hardware.

Think about how anti-competitor this is for hardware vendors! If Apple is to gain 25% of market share (just for example) then that would cut into hardware vendors pockets for sure! Especially ATI and AMD, with Apple choosing Intel and Nvidia, they will lose those customers that use to be in that percentage that had a PC with their hardware.

So unless Apple plans on REALLY having anti-trust laws problems they better release Mac's with more hardware vendors or keep their prices high where they dont gain much more market share.

I don't understand your argument at all.

Open source has plenty of problems on its own. If fact, all of the major Distro projects are at least two years behind their announced schedules. In addition, you have to recompile much software to get it to work on different distro's, and then, it often doesn't work as well from one to the other.

Rarely are open source programs nearly as polished as those from the for profit firms' software is.

Open source is great for those who want to spend lots of time with their computers maintaining them. Most people just want to buy something, plug it in, and start using it.

Apple isn't being anti-competitive at all. In fact, Apple gives more back to the open source community than any other company.

If people wanted to, they could take Darwin, the core of Apple's OS, and build a GUI around it, just like Apple does.
post #153 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That's very funny. If he thinks the findings were very well reasoned, that can't be faulted, then there is no basis for appeal. Appeal isn't made on the facts, it's made on the law. Id there were no errors by the judge, then where's the appeal?

Yeah.. Eugene Actions statement seems to be written by one of the frequent posters in this forum

There is no chance for Psystar to win this case.
post #154 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That's very funny. If he thinks the findings were very well reasoned, that can't be faulted, then there is no basis for appeal. Appeal isn't made on the facts, it's made on the law. Id there were no errors by the judge, then where's the appeal?

Not only that, but there are some issues still to be decided by THIS judge. It is hard to imagine he will appreciate being insulted by Psystar's lawyer. I am sure he will try to be impartial.
post #155 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't understand your argument at all.

Open source has plenty of problems on its own. If fact, all of the major Distro projects are at least two years behind their announced schedules. In addition, you have to recompile much software to get it to work on different distro's, and then, it often doesn't work as well from one to the other.

Rarely are open source programs nearly as polished as those from the for profit firms' software is.

Open source is great for those who want to spend lots of time with their computers maintaining them. Most people just want to buy something, plug it in, and start using it.

I think anyone who looks at OpenOffice, Gimp, Inkster, or even WINE would ask just what you are smoking!

I would like to remind you that in many ways the MacOS is effectively a shell program (like bash and all the rest) that runs on top of an open source OS--Darwin.
post #156 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

Can somebody explain me this:
Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started? I understand that a judge has to rule on issues of what exactly the trial is about (ie, what charges are dismissed and which go to trial) and what evidence should be allowed.

If an issue is a simple matter of law, as opposed to a matter of fact, the judge can make a decision of summary judgment. In jury trials, the jury makes decisions based on facts presented, but if the law has something specific to say, it's the judge who makes the call, not the jury. If all issues in a case are matters of law, then the judge can decide the whole case on summary judgement without it even going to trial.
post #157 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That's absurd.

Should your employers given themselves the "freedom" to force you to work without paying you?

That's not exact relevant to anything really, is it?

However, you and your employer have entered into a contract, and they do have the right to expect you to undertake an reasonable (not illegal) task as part of your job for renumeration. It's certainly not as "free" as you might think. You may not like the task they want you to do, but if it's a reasonable request, then tough shit...you've got to get on with it.
post #158 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post

so..

a company that generates huge profits for US investors, employs many thousands of US citizens, run by one of the industries richest men...

wins a case in its homestate against a no name company

in a country where presidents can steal elections....

hmm..... where's the news here?

I wish that this case had been in Europe..

Not being funny, but Apple hadn't abused copyright, so I don't think that the summary judgment would have been any different.

Psystar's claims were just BS from the start, and to be fair the same goes for the rest of their allegations. Which I'm sure we'll find out when it goes to trial.
post #159 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Updates always make some things worse. Products are too complex these days. I remember when OS's and programs had NO bugs. But that was in the mid '70's. It's just gone downhill since.

No you don't, you just remembered when there was no economic gain to be had from OS/program bugs.

In the mid-70's it was all still a bit nuts-and-bolts programming, so there would be more chance of bugs. The world was less connected, so there was less exposure to find/exploit bugs.
post #160 of 180
I agree that Psystar did not have the legal right to sell the modified OS.

I do feel that Apple should open up OS X to other hardware, but I do see why Apple does it, and it is not because of a "potential loss of sales". Most people that would buy OS X and run it on their PCs are not going to buy a Mac (initially), but if given the opportunity to try OSX for about $125.00, they may change their minds. The reason that Apple does not allow this is actually because they do not want to support other hardware. This is why OS X "just works"...it has hand-picked hardware that is guaranteed to work. If Apple opened up OS X to anyone who wanted to install it on a PC, they would find that OS X simply does not "just work". It seems that Apple is concerned about how others folks would view OS X if it was not the "wonder OS" they claim it to be. If OS X were opened up to a wider range of hardware, they would have all the same problems Windows does regarding drivers, etc. Apple doesn't not want to rely on third parties to write drivers for OS X to support other hardware. If the code was badly written it would look bad on OS X/ Apple.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple earns key legal victory against Psystar