or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar appeals Apple lawsuit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar appeals Apple lawsuit - Page 2

post #41 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

MS makes software. Whether it's 'liked' or not, if they integrate their browser into the OS, that's their right, isn't it? The government said no, because they were big. Not that the principle of tying the two together was inherently wrong. Apple is tying their OS and hardware, but it's only because they're small that it's legal for them.

You almost have it, you're just missing the abusive part. Being "big" is not the reason they were punished.
post #42 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


By the way, I don't remember anyone putting a gun to my head and forcing me to buy a Mac, do you?!

Apparently they put the gun to your head after you buy the Mac nowadays.
post #43 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Even though I'm happy with my MBP, I applaud Psystar. You can't just put what you like in an EULA and assume that that makes it legal. What if Microsoft had stated in their EULA that you had to accept IE as the default browser? They're making the product -- they have the right to determine what's in it and control the experience. You have the option to buy it and agree to the EULA, or not buy it and go get something else.

Apple's defense of their EULA is a standard of practice in law - EULAs have been routinely upheld since Microsoft brought the concept into personal computing. So we are clear - it is clearly and unequivocally stated you are purchasing media upon which a LICENSED COPY of intellectual property has been placed. When you install the licensed software you are asked to agree to comply with the EULA - which states that you are allowed to use the software (under such terms as are listed in the EULA). YOU DO NOT OWN the IP, you are using a licensed copy of it - the only thing you own is the media upon which it was copied. It has been clearly stated time and again - it is a fact of law and a standard of practice for a couple of decades now. Psystar's defense is simply a silly, idiotic populist defense which only the uninformed would actually support, not something to applaud. I'm sure counsel told them they needed to keep up the "Jack the Giantkiller" routine to try and capture some sympathetic mindshare. There is tons of free, unlicensed software to be had without EULA. The laws are specific frugality about what is and is not allowed in a EULA - bad EULA's have been struck down in court just as standard and acceptable EULAs have been upheld. Use unlicensed and free software if you do not like the EULA concept and standard - or better yet grab a free, unlicensed copy of the Mach kernel and write yourself something BETTER than MacOSX and offer it free to the world without EULA. There's nothing so satisfying as spending all those long work-hours refining and honing an operating system and then offering it for free to everyone. The warm fuzzies alone should keep you blissed and rolling in dough - oh wait - well at least blissed.
post #44 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

Apparently they put the gun to your head after you buy the Mac nowadays.

LOL ^_^

Too true!
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #45 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

It isn't the same principle though. MS was making sure you had no choice at all, from anyone, for a browser to use. Before they tried that stunt there was competition for market share amongst browser companies. MS killed them all. And to keep them from coming back, they tied IE into Windows so it couldn't be uninstalled.

Right. So consider the following scenario: Let's say that Apple originally made only OS's and no hardware and sold to the Dells and HPs and Psystar, or made the OS's and hardware but also sold the OS to other hardware makers. Then they decided to pull it all in-house, change their EULA to say that it can only be run on their hardware. Would Psystar then have a case? Since they're still small compared to MS, would it be allowed?

Part of MS's problem is that the browser wasn't integrated, and then they wanted to integrate it. Had they originally designed Windows with a built-in browser, would they have had the problems that they had? They would have a monopoly, but it would always have been part of the OS, so no one would know any different.
post #46 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav View Post

Apple's defense of their EULA is a standard of practice in law - EULAs have been routinely upheld since Microsoft brought the concept into personal computing. So we are clear - it is clearly and unequivocally stated you are purchasing media upon which a LICENSED COPY of intellectual property has been placed. When you install the licensed software you are asked to agree to comply with the EULA - which states that you are allowed to use the software (under such terms as are listed in the EULA). YOU DO NOT OWN the IP, you are using a licensed copy of it - the only thing you own is the media upon which it was copied. It has been clearly stated time and again - it is a fact of law and a standard of practice for a couple of decades now. Psystar's defense is simply a silly, idiotic populist defense which only the uninformed would actually support. There is tons of free, unlicensed software to be had without EULA. The laws are specific frugality about what is and is not allowed in a EULA - bad EULA's have been struck down in court just as standard and acceptable EULAs have been upheld. Use unlicensed and free software if you do not like the EULA concept and standard - or better yet grab a free, unlicensed copy of the Mach kernel and write yourself something BETTER than MacOSX and offer it free to the world without EULA. There's nothing so satisfying as spending all those long work-hours refining and honing an operating system and then offering it for free to everyone. The warm fuzzies alone should keep you blissed and rolling in dough - oh wait - well at least blissed.

Just a minor point (nice post by the way), even Linux is under license, but it is not licensed as proprietary software, and the license grants far more freedoms.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #47 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Right. So consider the following scenario: Let's say that Apple originally made only OS's and no hardware and sold to the Dells and HPs and Psystar, or made the OS's and hardware but also sold the OS to other hardware makers. Then they decided to pull it all in-house, change their EULA to say that it can only be run on their hardware. Would Psystar then have a case? Since they're still small compared to MS, would it be allowed?

Part of MS's problem is that the browser wasn't integrated, and then they wanted to integrate it. Had they originally designed Windows with a built-in browser, would they have had the problems that they had? They would have a monopoly, but it would always have been part of the OS, so no one would know any different.

Again, no, unless you could prove that Apple was using anti-competitive practices. There are any number of OS's that these vendors could put on their hardware besides OS X, including Unix, Linux, Windows, etc. Unless you can prove that Apple's actions put competing software companies at a disadvantage by Apple's actions, according to your example, then they would have no case. There are simply too many OS's out there that they can use. A monopoly isn't illegal. It's only when you use that monopoly to unfair advantage that it becomes illegal.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #48 of 132
"A publisher cannot forbid you from reading a book in the bathroom or listening to a music disc while riding your bicycle. There should be no difference in the software realm, no matter how much money Apple or anyone else throws at it. That is the real issue here and what we have always been fighting for."

that statement translated to psystar would be accurate...if the book you're reading in the bathroom...is in someone else's bathroom you're illegally occupying...and the bicycle you're riding while you listen to music...is actually a bike you've stolen...
post #49 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Right. So consider the following scenario: Let's say that Apple originally made only OS's and no hardware and sold to the Dells and HPs and Psystar, or made the OS's and hardware but also sold the OS to other hardware makers. Then they decided to pull it all in-house, change their EULA to say that it can only be run on their hardware. Would Psystar then have a case? Since they're still small compared to MS, would it be allowed?

Part of MS's problem is that the browser wasn't integrated, and then they wanted to integrate it. Had they originally designed Windows with a built-in browser, would they have had the problems that they had? They would have a monopoly, but it would always have been part of the OS, so no one would know any different.

One minor point in your example. If Apple did have market dominance, and then pulled their OS and they also started building the only hardware that could run OS X after establishing OS X as the dominant OS, that would be anti-competitive.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #50 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Right. So consider the following scenario: Let's say that Apple originally made only OS's and no hardware and sold to the Dells and HPs and Psystar, or made the OS's and hardware but also sold the OS to other hardware makers. Then they decided to pull it all in-house, change their EULA to say that it can only be run on their hardware. Would Psystar then have a case? Since they're still small compared to MS, would it be allowed?

Part of MS's problem is that the browser wasn't integrated, and then they wanted to integrate it. Had they originally designed Windows with a built-in browser, would they have had the problems that they had? They would have a monopoly, but it would always have been part of the OS, so no one would know any different.

Apple did in fact license earlier OS's to 3rd parties, and it did not work out so well. Jobs put an end to that when they went from OS7 to OS8. From then on you were never allowed to do it. The limitations of being on PPC made it so most people weren't interested in even using OS X. Now that you can theoretically, you would assume it's ok. But it's been this way since the mid 90's. The box retail version is an upgrade license, not a retail one.
post #51 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Just a minor point (nice post by the way), even Linux is under license, but it is not licensed as proprietary software, and the license grants far more freedoms.

Thank-you! I have a friend who hates (and I do mean hates) licensed operating systems. He writes his own code for use on older models of x86 and Motorola (early Apple Macs) chipsets that runs like a cheetah on crack on these older machines. Hardly a discernible pause as things move on the screen. Very impressive. He shares his concepts in a couple forums I think but keeps the code largely to himself. He is trying to build the next great hot OS to release to the world for free. He supports himself as a high school science teacher and complains bitterly that the job keeps getting in the way of building his universal OS for the masses. I sympathize, but I only pointed out once that while his goal was highly altruistic, it was his "job" that kept him in his house and gave him the means to write his code. That prompted a blow-up of monumental proportion - and banned me from his house for a month or two. So yeah he is a tad eccentric. But brilliant in his own unique way. Even he recognizes EULAs for what they are (and aren't). However, Psystar are a bunch of opportunist parasitic wannabes, with delusions of piles of money being made on someone else's' efforts. They copped the code off of x86 group and reverse engineering their own copy of it (after using it without permission of the original creator), and then advanced this lamerz crap about how they "bought the software (MacOSX) at the store and therefore "own it"" Then after failing in their attempts to defend the indefensible, they declared bankruptcy to avoid paying their original legal team and took their case to a different team. I just don't get how anyone with a shred of commonsense could support such a complete steaming mound of fraudulent behavior. It boggles the mind.
post #52 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by carrboro View Post

Hunh? The computer is part of the Mac line (unless it were say an Xserve) regardless of what OS it is running. The OS also has "Mac" in the name. Just because you associate Mac with the OS doesn't mean that the computers aren't also Macs. I mean, taking your logic nobody should have a ThinkPad or a Vaio, etc. but rather a Lenovo (or IBM) or Sony PC, etc. The Mac is the computer first, it's Mac OSX because it was designed to be used on Macs.


Right, a Mac was a Mac awhile ago because the hardware and the processor was different than what's on the PC.

Mac's had PPC processors, larger capacity interfaces like Firewire, stereo in/out and a their own version of a graphics card. Even sporting things first like cd drives and so on to create music cds. Mac's were for the graphics and creative markets, who needed the extra horsepower and ease of use, stereo for recordings etc. Also they had better font control and higher resolution of type for the desktop publishing market Apple founded.


PC's had Intel processors (or like Intel), mono in and out for dictation/answering phone and office use. They didn't have or need Firewire and a floppy disk was good enough for them for quite some time.

So they were at one time, two different machines for two different markets. One business and one creative.

So at that time a Mac was a Mac and a PC was a PC.



Now of course PC's come with stereo, run creative software like Abode and Quark, cd/dvd drives and USB 2 which is about as fast as Firewire 400.

Mac's have adopted Intel's processors and hardware speaking are really no different than PC's, Mac's use the same parts from the same suppliers as PC's. Apple is even slowly dropping Firewire support and is now incorporating SD slots in their computers, just like PC's!

So essentially Mac's are no longer "Mac's" they are Apple PC's with Apple's operating system installed by default.

Apple keeps pretending and marketing their PC's as Mac's, because of the history.

But in actuality, anyone can install Windows, Linux or Unix on a Apple PC and that' makes it a PC.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #53 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

So essentially Mac's are no longer "Mac's" they are Apple PC's with Apple's operating system installed by default.

Apple keeps pretending and marketing their PC's as Mac's, because of the history.

But in actuality, anyone can install Windows, Linux or Unix on a Apple PC and that' makes it a PC.

Yes and no. All Apple computers are PC's, just as IBM's were. The term PC is all too often misused. The Apple brand hasn't changed though. Just the hardware. It doesn't matter if it's a PPC or an Intel processor. It's still an Apple Mac which also happens to be a Personal Computer.

Apple could start selling Mac's tomorrow with Windows with identical hardware to Dell's, yet it would still be a Mac (and a PC). I think part of the reason for this is simply because Microsoft wanted people to associate Windows as a 'PC' since they don't actually sell PC hardware. I can see the advantages of people always thinking of Windows when they think of a personal computer.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #54 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Your right of course and not defending Pystar but...


Computers from the earliest days, were machines that people ran different programs on. In fact there wasn't even a operating system. You wanted to run a program you stuck the 5 1/4 " floppy in or the spools of tape and turned the machine on.

Later operating systems came along to make the application coders job more easier. Still different operating systems came and went, but you could still use the same hardware pretty much.

Even today you can take a PC and put Windows, Linux, Unix or various other operating systems on it.

Apple comes along as says "you can't use our OS on anything but our machines".

Well that just smacks in the face of everything a geek learns in school and how the computing world works.

Sure it was easy before because Mac's used the PPC processor so that gave them a hardware lock so OS X wouldn't run on the rest of the computers in the world.

But now that's gone and Mac's ARE PC's in every way. One can even run Windows, Linux, Unix and all the other PC operating systems on Apple branded computers.

Apple should change their ad campaign from "Get a Mac" to "Get a Apple", like "Get a Dell".

With the release of Bootcamp, allowing Windows and Linux to be the native boot OS of a Apple computer, is it a "Mac" anymore? Of course not, it's a Apple branded PC.

So Apple should call their computers PC's with the choice of operating systems, either OS X, Linux or Windows and be done with it. Triple their sales volume too boot.

Ok, I'm done playing devils advocate. Just wanted people to know what the other side thinks.

It's only another PC in that it uses many similar internal hardware components. Apple had developed a great deal of software and innovated many hardware aspects every PC user enjoys. Don't give me this, Apple's just another PC with a different OS crap. Apple pretty much invented the entire personal computing market as we know it today. I realize they borrowed many ideas, but that's the nature of innovation. Innovation is not being wildly original, it's designing some that make huge improvements for the end user experience, whether in hardware or software. All the PC geeks out there who love their Windows or their Linux, or their track pads, or their tablet computers, or their PDAs, or their smart phones, or their web-browsers, or their USB, or their Firewire, or their GUIs, or their laptop palm rests, etc., etc., etc... owe Apple a tremendous amount of thanks. If you learn anything about computing history it doesn't take long to discover Apple has paved the way in nearly every common place computing technology we enjoy. So if Apple wants to tie their OS to their hardware they have that right. They've invested tens of millions to make the experience excellent, and they have the right to protect that experience. The law allows them to.
post #55 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Right. So consider the following scenario: Let's say that Apple originally made only OS's and no hardware and sold to the Dells and HPs and Psystar, or made the OS's and hardware but also sold the OS to other hardware makers. Then they decided to pull it all in-house, change their EULA to say that it can only be run on their hardware. Would Psystar then have a case? Since they're still small compared to MS, would it be allowed?

Part of MS's problem is that the browser wasn't integrated, and then they wanted to integrate it. Had they originally designed Windows with a built-in browser, would they have had the problems that they had? They would have a monopoly, but it would always have been part of the OS, so no one would know any different.

As its been statedthough repeating because you dont seem to understandhaving a monopoly is not inherently illegal. MS abused their monopoly position as the anti-trusts cases have found.

Consider these scenarios: Apple has a monopoly on the PMP market. You can DL all their iPod OS and iPhone OS firmware online. Should Psystar (or anyone) be able to circumvent the software locks Apple included by installing and selling it on their own HW? I doubt youd say yes to that, but its the same situation. Charging $29 for a consumer upgrade does not change the fact that Apple doesnt license their OS to other HW vendors. If I can make iPhone OS for the Touch run on a Zune Apple wont come after me unless I try to sell their unlicensed OS as my own.

Here is another scenario: Cisco has a dominate place in the router market. There IOS is freely available online. Do you think Im allowed to use their IOS IP to make my own routers? Of course not. Do you nog see at all why in a healthy free market a company is allowed to choose who they license their intellectual property to and why a company wouldnt want just anyone representing them?
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 #56 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Yes and no. All Apple computers are PC's, just as IBM's were. The term PC is all too often misused. The Apple brand hasn't changed though. Just the hardware. It doesn't matter if it's a PPC or an Intel processor. It's still an Apple Mac which also happens to be a Personal Computer.


A PC is called a PC (by name) because of the IBM PC and it's clones, which IBM sued and failed to stop the cloners.

Mac's were called "Mac's" back then (or "Macintoshes") and not PC's (by name) although they fell in that general personal computer category.

I have to check, but I believe the name or reference "PC" didn't come around until IBM coined it.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #57 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

A PC is called a PC (by name) because of the IBM PC and it's clones, which IBM sued and failed to stop the cloners.

Mac's were called "Mac's" back then (or "Macintoshes") and not PC's (by name) although they fell in that general personal computer category.

I have to check, but I believe the name or reference "PC" didn't come around until IBM coined it.

Not even close. IBM was the first to refer to PC in their product name but personal computer predated the IBM PC by many years, possibly decades. The fact is, Macs were always personal computers. It was Apple that made a point to separate itself from the non-GUI machines after the Mac launched. It was a smart marketing move but now it seems to have backfired as some dont think that a Mac are personal computers. \
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 #58 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by heath.gerlock View Post

It's only another PC in that it uses many similar internal hardware components. Apple had developed a great deal of software and innovated many hardware aspects every PC user enjoys. Don't give me this, Apple's just another PC with a different OS crap. Apple pretty much invented the entire personal computing market as we know it today. I realize they borrowed many ideas, but that's the nature of innovation. Innovation is not being wildly original, it's designing some that make huge improvements for the end user experience, whether in hardware or software. All the PC geeks out there who love their Windows or their Linux, or their track pads, or their tablet computers, or their PDAs, or their smart phones, or their web-browsers, or their USB, or their Firewire, or their GUIs, or their laptop palm rests, etc., etc., etc... owe Apple a tremendous amount of thanks. If you learn anything about computing history it doesn't take long to discover Apple has paved the way in nearly every common place computing technology we enjoy. So if Apple wants to tie their OS to their hardware they have that right. They've invested tens of millions to make the experience excellent, and they have the right to protect that experience. The law allows them to.


Don't get your fanboy panties in a knot now, I've been a MacHead since day one and never bought a PC in my life.

I know quite well it's Apple hardware and software integration and attention to detail that makes the Mac experience unique and special.

But technically speaking, a Mac isn't a Mac anymore, it's a (IBM like) PC like all the others.

I'm not suggesting Apple allow OS X for PC's, not at all. That will kill it's hardware sales, in fact it's killing them now from the hackintoshes.


Because Apple switched to common Intel processors, like in PC's, is why they have a problem from cloners, hackintoshes and the likes of Pystar.

Obviously they didn't have any choice about processors, but they could have made some hardware changes or extras that OS X wouldn't run without it without a great deal of time and effort recoding.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #59 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Don't get your fanboy panties in a knot now, I've been a MacHead since day one and never bought a PC in my life.

But technically speaking, a Mac isn't a Mac anymore, it's a (IBM like) PC like all the others.

1) Nope, youve been a PC user. Macs are personal computers. Always have been.

2) x86 has nothing to do with being a personal computer. MS could have made Windows run on PPC architecture if they wanted. Wait, they did, but not for personal computing but for their game console line. You see the difference?
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 #60 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

(To use the same bad grammar), a publisher *can* "forbid you from" putting a new cover on that book and re-selling it as your own product however.

If I paid for their product, I can resell it in any condition I choose, bundled in any configuration I want, for any price I want. There is no legal restriction preventing such a transaction.
post #61 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Not even close. IBM was the first to refer to PC in their product name but personal computer predated the IBM PC by many years, possibly decades. The fact is, Macs were always personal computers. It was Apple that made a point to separate itself from the non-GUI machines after the Mac launched. It was a smart marketing move but now it seems to have backfired as some dont think that a Mac are personal computers. \


Well you basically just said what I said then.

Mac's are PC's and now they are clones of PC's to boot.


Good night.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #62 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Well you basically just said what I said then.
Mac's are PC's and now they are clones of PC's to boot.
Good night.

You really need to learn what a clone is. For instance, you are becoming a clone of Teckstud.

Actually, oure going back to the ignore list. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but you are getting more and more like Teckstud and Jfanning with your lack of comprehension and your ability to derail threads.

Good night.
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 #63 of 132
I thought those Psystar idiots were gone for good. They are like a character in a bad terror movie that keeps coming back, over and over ad nauseaum...
X7DWA-N Supermicro mobo,Dual QC 3.0 Xeons, 12Gb RAM, 6 Raptor drives + 500 Gb TM drive, 2x DVR-218L burners, M-Audio 7.1 sound card, Titan 650 case running Leopard 10.6.6,Win7 x64, Linux Fluxbox...
Reply
X7DWA-N Supermicro mobo,Dual QC 3.0 Xeons, 12Gb RAM, 6 Raptor drives + 500 Gb TM drive, 2x DVR-218L burners, M-Audio 7.1 sound card, Titan 650 case running Leopard 10.6.6,Win7 x64, Linux Fluxbox...
Reply
post #64 of 132
Yep, Apple is just a PC clone maker, like Dell, HP, etc.

Except that one is consistently #1 in satisfaction ratings, year after year, while the others are not. Must be fairy dust or something.
post #65 of 132
They aren't "fighting" for anything. If they were fighting for the betterment of society and the freedom to use software on any kind of hardware, they wouldn't be selling their EFI software. Nor would they be packaging and selling PCs with OS X on them. Nor would they be stealing code from the OSS community to make those two enterprises profitable...
post #66 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Later operating systems came along to make the application coders job more easier. Still different operating systems came and went, but you could still use the same hardware pretty much.

Even today you can take a PC and put Windows, Linux, Unix or various other operating systems on it.

Apple comes along as says "you can't use our OS on anything but our machines".

You are wrong!

Hardware and software were strongly tied and that was the norm until the IBM PC and clones came into dominance.

Even today you'll see a lot of examples of hardware-software integration, whether it is servers, smartphones or embedded systems.

Try getting HP-UX to run on anything except HP's server hardware, or AIX on anything except IBM's sever hardware, or WebOS on anything except Palm's smartphones, etc...

Every video game console ties the software to hardware. Try forcing Sony to let you play God of War 3 on your PC or Mac. They'll laugh you off and rightly so!

Hardware-software integration is the right way to do things. That's why Microsoft released the Zune and XBox.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #67 of 132
It won't sync my iPhone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Want the OS X look without OS X?

Install Ubuntu Linux and the Mac4lin theme.


http://images.howtoforge.com/images/..._m2ad3b0cf.jpg


There is even a OS X theme for Firefox, for Windows.


Several minutes and your done.


If you want OS X on your PC and don't have RebelEFI, get the original open source EmpireEFI.


But fair warning, OS X on a Mac is a much nicer experience.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #68 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landcruiser View Post

You can't fix Stupid.

That sums up Psystar rather nicely.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #69 of 132
Quote:
Your right of course and not defending Pystar but...


Computers from the earliest days, were machines that people ran different programs on. In fact there wasn't even a operating system. You wanted to run a program you stuck the 5 1/4 " floppy in or the spools of tape and turned the machine on.

Later operating systems came along to make the application coders job more easier. Still different operating systems came and went, but you could still use the same hardware pretty much.

Even today you can take a PC and put Windows, Linux, Unix or various other operating systems on it.

Apple comes along as says "you can't use our OS on anything but our machines".

Well that just smacks in the face of everything a geek learns in school and how the computing world works.

Sure it was easy before because Mac's used the PPC processor so that gave them a hardware lock so OS X wouldn't run on the rest of the computers in the world.

But now that's gone and Mac's ARE PC's in every way. One can even run Windows, Linux, Unix and all the other PC operating systems on Apple branded computers.

Apple should change their ad campaign from "Get a Mac" to "Get a Apple", like "Get a Dell".

With the release of Bootcamp, allowing Windows and Linux to be the native boot OS of a Apple computer, is it a "Mac" anymore? Of course not, it's a Apple branded PC.

So Apple should call their computers PC's with the choice of operating systems, either OS X, Linux or Windows and be done with it. Triple their sales volume too boot.

Ok, I'm done playing devils advocate. Just wanted people to know what the other side thinks.

Yeah? Well, waist of breath. Macs are Macs. Apple make that distinction. Sure, they're 'personal computers...' So were the ones that predated IBM's 'typewriter.'

It may be semantics. Yes and no. Apple call it a Mac and it works in its own special way. A badge of honour and distinction. Apple call it a 'PC'. Dream on. Because it's 'not.'

As for Psycho-star. Do they have any ethics? You can't take someones software and do whatever you like with it, modify it, change it...pass it off as you're off and make a profit off it.

They were in clear violation of EULA. They were trying to be smart. Cute. And those steaming pile of bandits got their ass handed to them care of Apple legal.

Sure, I'd like Apple to make their products a little cheaper, sure I'd like a mid-tower and feel they easily could. But that doesn't validate Psystar's postion. If they're so creative...why not make their own OS?

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 #70 of 132
...and let somebody else bundle it for 'free' with their computers?

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 #71 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landcruiser View Post

You can't fix Stupid.

No you can't. But Psystar is using the new Stupid 1.1.5 update that makes Stupid much more powerful!
post #72 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by carrboro View Post

With the release of Bootcamp, allowing Windows and Linux to be the native boot OS of a Apple computer, is it a "Mac" anymore?

Yes. Bootcamp is part of OSX. The Bootcamp code in OSX allows you to select a Start-Up Disc to boot into another OS.
post #73 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenburg View Post

Yes. Bootcamp is part of OSX. The Bootcamp code in OSX allows you to select a Start-Up Disc to boot into another OS.

Perhaps I should have worded that differently.

Since it's now possible to place other operating systems on Apple's PC's and erase OS X completely, does it still make a Mac a Mac anymore?

Is a Apple branded PC with only Windows to boot into a "Mac"? It's not.

What makes a Mac is the combination of Apple branded PC and OS X.

Once you take OS X away, it's no longer a "Mac" because OS X is (at least) half of the user experience.

That was my point.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #74 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Perhaps I should have worded that differently.

Since it's now possible to place other operating systems on Apple's PC's and erase OS X completely, does it still make a Mac a Mac anymore?

Is a Apple branded PC with only Windows to boot into a "Mac"? It's not.

What makes a Mac is the combination of Apple branded PC and OS X.

Once you take OS X away, it's no longer a "Mac" because OS X is (at least) half of the user experience.

That was my point.

Now you're just being a bit ridiculous. If you buy a Chevrolet, and put Dodge rims on it, does it make it a Dodge? Of course not. It's a Mac brand, and no amount of silly word play will change that.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #75 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

..As for Psycho-star. Do they have any ethics? You can't take someones software and do whatever you like with it, modify it, change it...pass it off as you're off and make a profit off it.

Yes they were wrong. They also used EmpireEFI to make RebelEFI too.


Quote:
If they're so creative...why not make their own OS?


Or use Ubuntu Linux, it's already available.

However one thing is a problem, the lack of third party software.

Business wise it makes sense to code for the operating system with the most market share and we know who that is.

Apple has been struggling with this problem for decades, so their approach has been to open retail stores and sell as many Mac's as they can to increase their market share so more developers will code for OS X. This in turn will strengthen the platform.

Pystar was trying to cash in on the low margin market that Apple is ignoring (and has to ignore or people will buy the less margin machines), thinking that Apple would allow them to continue and thus increase OS X's market share, which helps Apple in the long run against Microsoft.

But obviously Apple has other plans. The iSlate, with the iPhone/iSlate OS UI and the App Store combination to eventually replace OS X UI as we know it.

If Apple prices the iSlate to sell to gain market share, it will turn the cheap PC market on it's behind.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #76 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Your right of course and not defending Pystar but...


But now that's gone and Mac's ARE PC's in every way. One can even run Windows, Linux, Unix and all the other PC operating systems on Apple branded computers.

Apple should change their ad campaign from "Get a Mac" to "Get a Apple", like "Get a Dell".

With the release of Bootcamp, allowing Windows and Linux to be the native boot OS of a Apple computer, is it a "Mac" anymore? Of course not, it's a Apple branded PC.

So Apple should call their computers PC's with the choice of operating systems, either OS X, Linux or Windows and be done with it. Triple their sales volume too boot.

Ok, I'm done playing devils advocate. Just wanted people to know what the other side thinks.



Why is this playing devil's advocate?
Apple advertises BootCamp and Windows + Mac OS on a Mac (and, no, "Apple" is not the name of the computer, nor is "PC")

By the way, I've run Windows on PPC Macs it seems like forever...though not anymore. There is no longer any Windows software giving me a reason to. iWork 09 does better by legacy MS Word and PowerPoint documents than Mac Office 2008.
post #77 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Now you're just being a bit ridiculous. If you buy a Chevrolet, and put Dodge rims on it, does it make it a Dodge? Of course not. It's a Mac brand, and no amount of silly word play will change that.

You can't change a user experience with a car as easily as you can with a computer.

Anyone who has had the displeasure of running Windows on a Mac knows all about this.

I'm just playing devils advocate anyway, trying to explain how and why Pystar thinks like they do.


Why they think it's ok to run any operating system on any computer.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #78 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

You can't change a user experience with a car as easily as you can with a computer.

Anyone who has had the displeasure of running Windows on a Mac knows all about this.

I'm just playing devils advocate anyway, trying to explain how and why Pystar thinks like they do.


Why they think it's ok to run any operating system on any computer.

And yet I still have a better experience running windows on my Mac's than I did with my Vaio's, or my HP laptops. It's still a Mac, and the OS is irrelevant. All cars have the same basic components, yet they all retain brand names regardless of how much you customize them. The degree of the 'user experience' is irrelevant.

Anyone who says a Mac isn't a personal computer should do less drugs. Anyone who says 'Windows' is a PC also needs to do less drugs. Windows is an OS, and a Mac is a PC. This whole sub-thread is stupid.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #79 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochias View Post

Why is this playing devil's advocate?
Apple advertises BootCamp and Windows + Mac OS on a Mac (and, no, "Apple" is not the name of the computer, nor is "PC")

Apple advertises "Bootcamp" to sell hardware? That's interesting. Slowly sliding to the dark side I assume.

Quote:
By the way, I've run Windows on PPC Macs it seems like forever...though not anymore. There is no longer any Windows software giving me a reason to. iWork 09 does better by legacy MS Word and PowerPoint documents than Mac Office 2008.

Yea the last couple of years I have been running XP and Vista in Fusion, thinking Apple was going to kiss off OS X.

After all why the heck call it "Bootcamp"? It's definition means a training camp, training for what? no more OS X?

Sometimes I think Apple doesn't research their names very well, like Mighty Mouse for instance.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #80 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

And yet I still have a better experience running windows on my Mac's than I did with my Vaio's, or my HP laptops. It's still a Mac, and the OS is irrelevant. All cars have the same basic components, yet they all retain brand names regardless of how much you customize them. The degree of the 'user experience' is irrelevant.

Anyone who says a Mac isn't a personal computer should do less drugs. Anyone who says 'Windows' is a PC also needs to do less drugs. Windows is an OS, and a Mac is a PC. This whole sub-thread is stupid.


Yes, I should have used "personal computer" instead of PC in various locations to avoid confusion.

But in my opinion a Mac is isn't a Mac anymore without OS X. Windows and Linux just cheapens the experience that makes the Mac what it is.

In fact, running OS X on anything but a Apple PC cheapens the experience as well.

And yes, I'm not going to respond anymore, it's gone round and round enough.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar appeals Apple lawsuit