Apple, Psystar strike deal to avoid trial in Open Computer tussle - Page 3

Lets be quite clear on this SSA, because you appear to be taking my point the wrong way.

When I say that the US market for a mid-range upgradeable consumer tower... "is actually shrinking" That's exactly what I mean! Not JUST the market SHARE.... but the actual number of potential customers.

I then gave you my reasoning. Apple nearly tripling their share over the last 4 years. Notebook sales overtaking desktops. The recent NetBook trend adding to the rise in NON-desktops. The fact that mainstream PC manufacturers are adding AOIs and mini desktops to their line-ups.

Add those trends to the real figures.
US PC sales in 2004: 62 million
US PC sales in 2004: 68 million (est.)



Personally, I don't loiter outside PC stores. Quoting the Amazon best seller list is pretty unscientific.... but I'll play!

Today's Amazon top 50 desktops:

25% Apple products. Plus misc PC home servers and mini types.
25% HP and Sony All-In-Ones. The "absymal failures"
25% PC Towers under $ 500.00 (mini and maxi towers)
25% PC Towers OVER $ 500.00 (mini and maxi towers)



Yes of course they are. Hell I might even be one of them. But my contention is that Apple is already picking them off one by one. Even if the PC AOIs are not as successful as the iMac they are still selling. And the largest contributor to the desktop's decline is the rise of the notebook... in all it's shapes and sizes.

If you think that any of these trends are about to do a 360 then yes, perhaps the consumer tower will not end up as a niche product.

mac os x is way to big to be download only.

Apple's position is weak. I've said it from the start. (There's a link in my sig to my full argument, but the short version is that Psystar isn't breaking any laws and EULAs are not applicable nor are they proven effective in court in anything beyond piracy cases.)

I suspect Apple is going to go the Think Secret route and buy Psystar out of business. This case is going to set an important precedent that could have an impact on Apple's business. I don't think Apple would worry about the court costs if they had a strong enough case to put Psystar out of business and send a strong message to would-be Mac clone makers.

I'm certainly not the first to point this out, but it apparently needs to be repeated. In all those cases you cite, the hardware seller does not offer the OS as a standalone, off-the-shelf product. OS X differs from all those other examples in that regard, and it's an important distinction because it has already been established in other court cases that the end user may install and hack that software to their heart's content and the EULA doesn't legally stop anyone from doing so. If Psystar were making iPod knock-offs or XBox knock-offs and reverse engineering the operating systems out of those machines to install on theirs, then your point would be valid.

Sadly I followed your link!

If one of your arguments is that it's real easy to buy a used Mac on Ebay with it's drive wiped clean..... and now your latest contention is that "this case is going to set an important precedent" due to Apple having to "buy Psystar out of business."..... and therefor allowing any 2 bit company to follow the same route..... then methinks you had better go back to law school.

If you have time perhaps take Business 101 in the evenings.

You are allowed to privately install OS X on any computer you choose. Apple doesn't care about that.

You are not allowed to create a volume business that competes directly with Apple using Apple's intellectual property without their permission.

Psystar hasn't put up the multi-millions it has taken to develop and maintain OS X. They are not free to do whatever they want with it.

All the other poor points aside about how OS X should be the only socialized OS in existence and how buying an OS license for consumer use being the same as being a reseller of that OS, what would buying Psystar do for Apple? What does Psystar have to offer Apple? How does Apple buying Psystar prevent every other startup and the big name vendors from then offering OS X, too? Do you not see how this would be an even bigger problem for Apple? Do you not see how this is bad for Mac users?

First off Apple is a software company. Steve Jobs himself said it. Yes they sell hardware. So long as their hardware continues to have a level of desirability/reliability people will buy it, even if they can get the OS elsewhere. Your lack of faith in Apples hardware is showing.

Second, why would they need to charge $600 for the OS? It's my understanding that the hardware vendors themselves are the ones that make the drivers for the hardware they produce, not the OS maker. Apple doesn't directly need to support any hardware they chose not to support. It would be the responsibility of the vendors themselves to make sure they and the hardware they sell falls in line with Apples compatibility list.

Some of you are so stuck on the old model you can't see the better alternative. Right now Apple forces us to buy their machines if we want to run their OS. Meanwhile they do stupid things like remove firewire from $1300 computers. This would force Apple to be more competitive and benefit all of us.

Apple isn't going to lose money in this, the money they lose from hardware sales they would make back in OS sales to other machines. If you think this model doesn't work, look at Microsoft. No matter what your personal feelings are toward Microsoft they make more money then Apple. This is the perfect time for Apple to do this, in the 1990's it was not a perfect time at all.

The bold is true but even though Apple strives hard to make their hardware stand out from the rest, lets say if they make OS X open, then most people won't care about these stuffs anymore. What Apple is doing now with their hardware is something like marketing to ensure that you buy their hardware and their OS is one of the selling point.


Yeah, cause that is funding the OSX development, you think you can get all the features in Leopard at the price you are paying for it now? Look at MSoft they needed to release multiple versions of Vista which contains different features just to make it cheaper for people. I agree they do stupid things but this do not mean that we should suddenly force Apple to open their OS, I will go for this movement, you don't like it, don't buy it. Its as simple as that.


Yea, I know that you can hack the OS when you buy it YOURSELF, and INSTALL if YOURSELF, not like what Psycrap is doing.

Microsoft get the anti-competitive behavior cause you can install their OS on any product and Microsoft permits you to do so. Apple does not. Its different.

Talk about being stuck... Do you realize the value of Apple vs. the value of MS as a company is considerably high despite their very low worldwide OS X percentage in comparison to Windows? You seem to be under the impression that each Mac OS X sale somehow equals the same profit value as each Windows OS sale. In other words, you haven't considered how many Windows OEM sales have to be made to equal the sale of a single Mac. You also haven't considered why a beleaguered Apple from the 1990s and OEMs wanting to get out of the control of MS' Windows OS would not have done it then, but now when their model of marriaging has become successful it's now the "perfect time" to destroy the business model they started with, despite the loss in functionality by not having control of designing the OS and HW in tandem.

Precisely. Whatever people are trying to say to avoid this truth is silly.

If Apple had a case, they would make it. They actually don't have a case... and they seem to know that... which is indeed a worrisome sign for AAPL's future profit margins on hardware.

This is a bit of a trojan horse here. If Dell tried to do Mac clones they would risk their Dell $$$. But the Psystar dude, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain! He is a more powerful danger to Apple. Should he succeed, Dell can follow. \\

Apple will try to bribe him. But they have already shown they are unwilling to make a proper legal argument. We can only guess there is none to be made.

1) How exactly is a PC vendor with resources, like Dell, unable to make a good Mac clone, but Psystar is somehow more able?

2) A bribe, eh? And so everyone that makes an illegal Mac cloning business is going to be paid off by Apple? I can't imagine how that actually makes sense to you.

3) You et al. have still failed to make a proper legal argument as to why Psystar—and only Psystar—is allowed to be a reseller of another company's goods without their approval.

Apple does produce software, but the majority of its profits don't come from software. You think $129 covers the cost of developing and maintaing OS X.

You really think $1299 covers the cost of developing a supporting Final Cut Pro. When other video systems sell for tens of thousands.

These things are made to enhance Apple's hardware which is where they make the majority of their money.


You need to look at the profit margins between Apple and the major Windows vendors and you will clearly see the difference.

MS is positioned to sell hundreds of millions of copies of Windows. If MS only sold the 8 - 10 million copies annually such as Apple, they would not continue to be nearly as profitable.

It makes much more sense to avoid going to court if you don't have to. That is the way most business would rather handle a suit. What makes you think you have to go to court to prove you are right?

1. The question is ungrammatical and I don't understand it. But I was saying Dell would prefer not to risk a successful lawsuit from Apple. Clearly Dell has a lot of money to lose and that is exactly why they would hesitate until another player proves it is legal.

2. I agree Apple's options are not good here. It is not my job to find a way out for Apple here.

3. Plenty of companies "resell" Mac OS X in the box, literally hundreds of private companies do that. But again, this is not my problem. I am just commenting on the facts and Apple's behavior and where that might lead us. We will know the truth in time. Cheers!

If I was a song writer, composed an album and had it copyrigthed, I can do as I please with my album. I can only release it in analog, 200g audiophile vinyl, selling at $30 an album, if I want. I don't ever have to release a digital CD version of my album. Now if you want, you can buy my 200g vinyl album and make a digital CD with the software in your computer for yourself. I can't stop you from that. But you can't start selling CD's of my album just because there's a market for it. Ever. Not even if you include an original 200g vinyl album with each purchase of that CD. You can't even include the CD for free with the purchase of an original album. It's my IP and I can do as I wish with it. And if I don't want to distribute a digital copy of it, that's how it going to be. It may not be good business practice and I may be losing sales. But in the end it's still my business, my IP and I can do as I please. And in a free market, no one can force me to give up any of my rights as the owner of the IP.

And see how far you get by suing me in court because I have a monopoly on my album and I'm forcing you to listen to it on vinyl record with inferior hardware. Or that I'm forcing you to buy an expensive turntable so that you can listen to my album in CD quality. Just see how far you get by claiming that you should be allow to market a CD of my IP because you are "improving" upon my work by removing the background noise inherent in vinyl.

Apple these days is a hardware company insofar as that they make a lot of money off ipods and now the iphone, but ultimately most people buy MacOS for the software, not the hardware. Save for using EFI instead of BIOS what separates a Mac from any other x86 computer? Not much really. Beyond the slick chassis designs from Jonathan Ives there isn't much that makes a Mac a Mac except the software. While Apple sometimes gets early launches of products where they either are the first to market or very close to the first(eg. the Geforce 9400M, the Santa Rosa mobile chipset, Yonah based CPUs, Merom based CPUs, Penryn based CPUs, etc.), but generally speaking people aren't buying a Mac for the hardware specs. They buy a Mac for the Mac software experience. The thing that stops quite a few people is Apple's large hardware dongle in order to use it.

If you exclude a small cadre of people in the OSx86 project who managed to create their own Macs generally speaking one needs to buy a Mac in order to use the software. The notion that Apple couldn't be fairly profitable on selling their software. If you spread the costs of development over enough people you can easily make money selling an entire OS at that price point, just ask Microsoft. Even after their Xbox division is now profitable, their Windows and Office divisions still make up a bulk of their profit.

The usual argument against Apple licensing MacOS to others is that Apple would harm their corporate image because some Mac clone sellers may make cutrate computers that are unstable and make Apple's image look bad. This could reasonably be averted in that Apple could make limitations upon the vendors used to make any authorized Mac clones. Therefore, you couldn't use some no name cutrate vendor for your RAM or motherboard that might result in instability of said machines. Since these vendors would be paying for the privilege to resell machines with MacOS, Apple could let others take the risk of certain experiments like a Mac tablet for example. If interest in such a item really is too much of niche market then Apple wouldn't be on the hook for the losses.

This will never happen obviously due to the cult of Steve Jobs and his lieutenants who are little more than yes men to his agenda, but I don't think the idea of Apple exploring new products whether sold under the Apple name or through an authorized clone maker would be such a bad idea.

What hundreds of companies are these?

Its true OS X is the major differentiator between the Mac and PC. Because of Apple's vertical business model. Apple is able to tailer OS X to its hardware as well as tailer its hardware to OS X.

This combines to create a better computer environment that the generic Windows box.


Why bother doing all of that when Apple's current business model is performing better than the PC business model. Why adopt the business model that is less profitable?

You mean the short-sighted version.



Apple is not worry about the court cost. Apple wants to end this as quickly as possible. And going into non-binding arbitration is the fastest way to end this. Apple is confident that their case is so strong that Psystar is going to think twice about taking this to a costly drawn out court trial.

If Apple position was weak they would stall and wait for the months it's going to take before they can battle it out in court. Why would Apple go for it now it, with a weak case.

The flip side is that Psystar also agreed to the non-binding arbitration. Why aren't you saying that if Psystar had a strong case they would just take it to court and win it out right. Instead of a non-binding arbitration that they know Apple would fight in court anyways if it rules in Psystar favor.

M. Dell has already gone on record as saying that he would like to LICENSE OSX from Apple and sell Mac clones. Now I personally don't think M. Dell is the brigthest person in the world but he's not stupid. He knows that he has get a permission and pay for a license before he can market a Mac clone. That's how legal and ethical businesses do things. Otherwise it's stealing. And the last thing M. Dell wants is for consumers to assoiciate the "crooked E" in "Dell" for "Enron". Share holders already think this.

If anything, IBM, HP, Sony, Acer, Lenveno, MS and yes even Dell, are on Apple side. Not to mention all the pharmaceutical companies like pfizer, Mercks and Eli Lilly. They all own IP that they don't want to share with their competitors. They want the courts to protect their rights as IP owners. Not see the courts forcing them to give it away. Or forcing them to use it in a way it doesn't want to.

Then nothing has changed since day one of Apple Computers. Even if Apple didn't sell iPods and iPhones they are still a hardware company. Never in Apple Computers history has Apple ever made more money selling their software than their hardware. Ever.

The worst years of Apple Computers history was when Jobs was forced out and that Pepsi guy and the other guy almost drove Apple out of business. And guess what, those were the same years Apple licensed out their OS and Mac clones were on the market. (and yes there was even a mid price mini tower Mac clone. ) Not even then did Apple make more money on their OS than on their hardware.


What price point? $129.00? Not even MS gets anywhere near that for Windows. The vast majority of MS OS sales are OEM licenses to have Windows pre-installed on computers. They maybe get $30.00 per OEM copy. And then you have the MS server license where big businesses pay for a license to use Windows on their networked computers. These licenses most likely goes for less that $10 per computer. Depending on the how many licenses you need to cover all your business computers. Comparatively, MS makes very little selling the retail version of their OS. The reason MS margins are so high is because it cost next to nothing to sell a license for 5000 computers and then give the IT guy several hard copies of Windows. And then tell him he can install Windows on no more than 5000 computers. The same goes for Dell, HP, Acer and Lenveno. Do you think MS spent any money burning that OEM disk you get with a new computer?

If Apple license out OSX, they won't get anywhere near $129 per OEM copy (or license) of OSX.

And let's not forget that a vast portion of the MS OS market is not open for OSX. These would be big enterprises that network thousands of computers using MS servers. Consumers and businesses that are still using XP (and older versions of Windows) because they don't want to spend the money to upgrade their hardware. If these people aren't willing to spend the money to upgrade their hardware, do you think they're going to spend the money to also upgrade all their software? Gamers are not likey to switch to OSX. If anything they're more interested in Apple's hardware. And then there's the "Windows fanboy" that just don't see any advantage of using OSX or just hates anything that has to do with Apple and Jobs. When you add all these into the equation the potential new market for OSX isn't really that large. It mainly consist of consumers that are ready to buy a new computer (and make the switch to Vista) or small businesses ready to upgrade their networks. (and not to forget all those consumers that want a mini tower.) Apple can do better by selling their own hardware with OSX.


But this is what Apple does now. Apple don't build their own computers. (not any more) They design their computers and out source it to various venders. Apple sees to it that it's built to their specs. If Apple is going to see that each Mac clone is built to their specs, then where's the advantage for the Mac clone makers. By the time they meet Apple's specs, their hardware cost would equal or exceeds Apple's. And then they would still have to pay for OSX. Which Apple gets for free.

It's too late. MS won the OS war a long time ago. Apple will never own more of the OS market than MS. Now this doesn't mean the Apple Inc. will never be as big as MS. Apple Inc. can be bigger than MS without having anywhere near a majority of the OS market. The cell phone industry, movie industry and music industry makes the gaming industry look like a neighborhood lemonade stand. And the last time I checked, Apple isn't losing any money on each iPhone, iPod, iTunes Store song, movie or app. sold. Now the Apple TV may just be Apple's "Xbox", for now.

The only way Apple can win is to build a time machine and send a "Terminator" back in time to terminate Bill Gates mother. Or Jobs can emit a "reality distortion field" so that everyone thinks Apple won. But we all know that there's no such thing as a time machine. And that Jobs would never use his "reality distortion field" for such evil purpose.

Another example would be this. Imagine that you wrote a book in engineering and included a CD with a program you wrote related to the subject and you only sold them together for say $100 and it became a hit. A year later you came up with version 2.0 of that software and decided to sell the newer version of the CD for $5 to people who already own version 1.0 (including a clause in the EULA that permit the use of the CD for only people who already own the book). You decided to make the newer improved version to check for version 1.0 for successful installation (the same way Mac OS has safeguards against installation on non Mac hardware).

Now suppose another guy came up with a way to break this check, wrote his own crappy book about the same subject, and started including your CD (version 2.0 that he bought for $5) along with a link to download the hack in his book all without your permission. He then started selling his book for $50 and people started buying them.

As you said, the other guy still violated your copyrights and your EULA. You have control over your IP and you can choose to license it or not. The law is there to protect everyone even big greedy corporations that no ones like.

Based on what I've read. Apple and Psystar were pushed into this mediation.

AAAAAAAAGGHHHHHHH, smiling kitties.

I am always amazed at the amount of effort guys like you put into replies.

Let me make one point really clear. Doesn't matter that you think Apple is a hardware company the fact is they sell a standalone OS that you can walk and and buy at anytime without any hardware purchase. Like others have mentioned this is whats going to come back and bite them.

Its not me that only has half the info its you because you are blinded by what every other fanboy is blinded by, you think Apple should be an elite brand. It isn't they are the AOL of computers.

They build their own little arena and want everyone to play by their rules. If they wanted that they should have never switched to intel because the days are numbers where you only see OSX on Apple hardware.

Not that I really expect all that many to want it, they can't even get out the Leopard bugs on the few hardware confgs they have now. Not to mention everyone being pissed off when they tried to bundle Safari in with iTunes updates.

About 5-7% of the world that is about all Apple will ever see and decades have proven that point.

I am sure the best you can do is come back with some comment about Ballmer or Vista. Which by the way I run both Leopard and Vista x64 and Vista has had about 10% of the problem that Leopard gives me.

Maybe thats because everything isn't controlled by one company. Maybe because if I have a driver issue with my nvidia 280gpu I can revert back or change drivers, or flash bios if I need too, or not have to do an archive and install everytime Apple puts ot a security fix.

See Windows users have freedom and that is why so many new Apple users are pissed. The switchers have switched from a free world to a controlled world.

I know in your tiny brain you would love for them to all go back to Windows so that can make you feel even more special.

Yup, you got that right.


That's the problem isn't it, because these people don't understand how Apple runs, its the same when Apple is being restrictive with their OS X iPhone. If you buy a Mac so that you can configure it like your Windows machine (regardless if its the hardware of software), then you are buying a Mac for the wrong reason.


Erm no, I don't care about me feeling special or not, but I prefer those who wants Apple to make microsoft mistakes to go back to Windows.


You are the tiny brain here, want to know why they change to Intel? Cause they can't get the G5 processor to fit onto the MBP or MB without getting the notebook to become real hot.

And I don't agree with what Apple do completely thus Im not a fanboy, in fact I even recommend Windows to my friend depending on what are they going to use their computer for. I understand the strong and weakness of Apple. And yes Apple is an elite brand because look at the effort they put into designing their products. Do any company CARES how their product look before people start buying Apple because of their product looks? Compare Dell old and Dell new, big difference in design. And why do that happen, cause Apple made the market to care about looks.

Your thinking is similar to how Bill Gates think when he start Microsoft. I just want the software, I don't care about how it operate or looks. There are many reasons why Leopard is cheap compared to Vista, in fact FYI, even Ballmer agrees that Apple close system has its benefit and its benefit to the company out weights the problem it might cause.

For those who say the reason why Dell do not install OS X in their computers whereas Psystar bravely do so because they got nothing to lose is very right. If Dell loses the battle, imagine the shame it will put to the company, Psycrap on the other hand got nothing to lose, so if they lose, life goes on and nobody know that they lost (except us that is).

I hope Psystar keeps selling computers with OSX, or Dell steps up and challenges Apple on the closed OS. With the new Glass Mirror computer released by Apple I finally find myself with the pain of Apple closing their OS. I hate, really hate the new computers but I love OSX. I probably got 2 or 3 more years on my Matte MBP and I want options when it dies.

Go Psystar!!!! SInce Dell has loads of money and hates Microsoft they should challenge Apple.

Who/how exactly would (someone) go to jail in a civil trial?

And because of your own reason that you are unhappy of Apple new design not to mention your selfishness, you would rather to see Apple quality drop and how will this effects other Apple users?

As long as it is an Apple branded computer, you are correct.


Really?
Starting with Best Buy, CompUSA, MacMall, Amazon, CDW, ClubMac, J&R, Mac Zone, MacConnection, MicroCenter, Target, Outpost, Circuit City, Office Depot, etc. and then add all the smaller local local Apple Authorized resellers/AASPs.

OEMs have to have a license to install a cheaper version (OEM) of Windows on your PC before they sell it to you.

If they don't have that license, then you can only sell a RETAIL version of Windows. The only difference there is the licence and the price of said licence.

Also, the "retail" versions of Mac OS X are effectively only really UPGRADE licences, as every Macintosh comes with a version of Mac OS X pre-installed. That's why it's so cheap.

I think the Microsoft Windows / IE bundling anti-trust case was over a drastically smaller issue. Microsoft couldn't even bundle IE and make its customers use it (a free program)

What makes us think Apple is allowed to bundle its expensive hardware in with its OS? I really don't think that is possible. They can require users not to modify its core OS. Yet that also conflicts with Apple's devil-may-care attitude regarding music CD ripping. Which is illegal according to the record companies.

Apple may have a watertight case here but I sure don't see the framework they will try to use. They themselves have ridiculed such logic for years.

It's amazing that people can actually paint Apple's OS as being a monopoly when it has under 4% of the world's OS marketshare. That is like only owning Baltic Avenue* in Monopoly and saying you won the game.


Why do you think Apple should be the only company that isn't allowed to add an OS to their HW?


* That would be Whitehall for the UK.

Simply because Apple sells a retail copy of OS X and use common hardware does not mean anyone has the freedom to buy the retail copy of OS X and set up their own volume business of selling Mac clones.

Outside of your imagination where is their proof that this is permissible?


A switcher who knows the difference between Windows and Mac, would know what they are getting into. What evidence do have that switchers care about Apple's business model?

Please don't bother trying to prove that bwik doesn't know what he is talking about. Just let him do it himself.

Their is nothing Apple can do about the private hackintosh community. Their is no sign they really even care.



They are selling the upgrade for the version of OS X you already own. They are not selling a new license for do it yourself.

They do care (and show it) somewhat by having the EULA state that it can be installed on Apple branded computers only.
I doubt very, very much they would go after a bunch of individuals doing it. However, get it organized (such as Psystar) and the fact that Apple is going after them shows they do care.


And? You simply asked which (hundreds) of companies are reselling Mac OS X in the box.

This statement reveals that you don't understand the anti-trust case.

The problem with IE bundling was the fact that Windows controls 90% of the market. If MS is allowed to bundle their own software and forbid OEM's from bundling competing software. MS severely limits competition and any chance of success for other companies. Because of this Netscape basically went out of business.

Apple has done none of this.


Because Apple spends millions of dollars in its own resources to make OS X. They are free to dictate its use.

Because anyone is free to spend millions of dollars in their own resources to make their own OS and compete against Apple. They are free to sell it how they please.

I said Apple doesn't care about private use which has little direct impact on Apple. Psystar is using Apple's property to compete directly against Apple. Those are different situations.

Since Apple "doesn't care" about private use, you think the EULA (which is not for OEMs) which states it can be installed only on Apple branded computers, is aimed only at OEMs?

If Apple had significant sales of retail OS X far above and beyond sales of Macs (meaning people without Macs are purchasing it), I believe they would do something and not simply say, "Wow! We are selling a lot of OS X! Great for the bottom line!"