Of course they have comparable equipment. You're just not looking hard enough. It's there under their high end offerings. I already did this research. You'll find their prices are the same as well
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Here's the key word in your paragraph above: comparable. All Logisticaldron said was that most of the PCs that HP sells are cheaper than Macs. He didn't say the machines were comparable, just that they were cheaper. And it's true. Apple has no mainstream consumer desktop (i.e., one with a consumer desktop CPU in it. The Mac Pro is a workstation, the iMac is a laptop on a stick, and the Mac Mini is an ultra-compact SFF desktop which also uses laptop parts), and their laptops are comparably thin and light with mid- and high-end CPUs (and Apple have an irritating penchant for tying screen-size to computing power). HP and Dell offer low-end and mid-end machines that have no "comparable" Mac.
e.g.:
The Dell Mini 10v laptop has no Mac equivalent, but at $299 is much cheaper than any Apple laptop
The Dell Studio 17 is a 17" laptop with a starting price of $649, much much cheaper than the 17" MBpro. That's because the 17" MBP is a vastly superior machine; there is no direct Apple equivalent to the Dell
The Dell XPS Desktop starts at $849 and will absolutely piss on any iMac performance-wise. Again, there's no Mac equivalent.
Of course they have comparable equipment. You're just not looking hard enough. It's there under their high end offerings. I already did this research. You'll find their prices are the same as well
You’re still not getting it. Neither I nor Mr. H has stated that comparable non-Mac PCs and Mac PCs do not cost about the same. We’ve stated that the PC vendors with the highest marketshare have the highest marketshare because of they sell cheap PCs to a market segment that Apple doesn’t target. My comment was only to show that even with HP’s marketshare that Apple would still not have any OS monopoly as was suggested.
Let me tackle this from another angle. If you go into a store that sells PCs, what would be the average PC being sold? A $400 notebook? These low cost machines using old tech are the reason that Dell and HP have such high unit sales. It’s also the reason why Acer with their <$300 netbooks are moving up in the rankings very quickly.
PS: If you are so sure they have comparable equipment then prove Mr. H’s examples wrong. Where is the 17” notebook from Apple that costs $650?
Um, please point to where that ruling was issued? The current case is scheduled to be heard in full court in January. The only thing that I know that has been thrown out as far as Psystar's suit goes was their original reasoning for their suit, which the judge said was wrong, so they filed a second reason that the judge has accepted as worthy of being heard (regardless of whether or not its legally valid).
You are correct about the ruling. But it's not the current case that will be heard in Jan. 2010. That's when original lawsuit Apple filed against Psystar is scheduled to be heard. Hopefully, this current case will be ruled on before then.
Apple filed a lawsuit against Psystar on July of 2008. It's schedule for trial in Jan. 2010.
Psystar counter sued Apple on anticompetitive practices. Their original reasoning was that Apple has a monopoly and thus was illegally tying OSX to Apple hardware. This case was dismissed. The Judge gave Psystar 20 days to file an amended complaint. Psystar is now counter suing that Apple is being anticompetitive by misusing Copyright Laws and DMCA to tie OSX to a Mac. This is what we're reading about currently. If Psystar can't convince the Judge that Apple is misusing Copyright Laws and DMCA, there will be no trial in Jan. 2010. As Psystar will not have any defense against Apple's original Copyright infringement lawsuit.
Original lawsuit filed by Apple against Psystar in July of 2008_
I don't get the animosity against psystar. So what they make hackinthoshes. A normal consumer wouldn't buy this. People who are buying this are mildy tech savvy people who already own another mac.
I'm interested in seeing how it plays out. As far as I can tell none of this is hurting apple one bit. Just take a look at their numbers. I understand apple has to defend its IP but again I don't get what all you people have against them. You act as if they killed your first born.
I tell you a few reasons why I hate Psystar.
A) They ripped off the free hardwork of the hackintosh community. A lot of the major people involved did a lot of work to make this stuff work, and Psystar ripped it off and made a company out of it. They now have some hired geeks and randomly contribute back because they had to create a few things. But the majority of it was taken from the higher ups in the community. Without thanks btw.
This next one requires a comparison. JDM companies do a lot of research and development to create parts for race cars. Spending millions of dollars to create parts to increase aerodynamics on cars and trucks. A new company can come along, purchase their part and make a mold of it and resell it for a fraction of the cost. Why is it fair that company (a) spends all the time and money on the part while company (b) simply copies it and resells it for their gain? What it has done is put some of these good companies out of business. Which ultimately hurt the customers. If Psystar got big enough, it could eventually hurt apple and hurt apple's sales which would hurt the end customer on price.
C) The way Psystar handles itself as a company is downright sleezy. The court procedings, the constant movement of the company to dodge questioning, and the way it suddenly was created as a big competitive name for court are scary things for end consumers.
If Apple wants to have others sell their OS, great. More power to them. But I think it's very sleezy to do anything without permission and then try and pretend you did nothing wrong.
You?re still not getting it. Neither I nor Mr. H has stated that comparable non-Mac PCs and Mac PCs do not cost about the same. We?ve stated that the PC vendors with the highest marketshare have the highest marketshare because of they sell cheap PCs to a market segment that Apple doesn?t target. My comment was only to show that even with HP?s marketshare that Apple would still not have any OS monopoly as was suggested.
Let me tackle this from another angle. If you go into a store that sells PCs, what would be the average PC being sold? A $400 notebook? These low cost machines using old tech are the reason that Dell and HP have such high unit sales. It?s also the reason why Acer with their <$300 netbooks are moving up in the rankings very quickly.
PS: If you are so sure they have comparable equipment then prove Mr. H?s examples wrong. Where is the 17? notebook from Apple that costs $650?
I said they had comparable equipment in their high end. Please show me a high end 17" laptop for $650? You seem to think I am arguing against you. I am simply stating that Apple's prices are comparable to every one elses similar hardware offerings. It is illogical to state Apple is overpriced in a niche they don't even have a product in.
I don't necessarily want to see other companies selling OS X as I think it would be disaster-us for Apple. Home users may still stick with Apple machines, but when it comes to any large company looking at saving IT costs they would just go with someone else.
However if someone is paying full price for some software I think that should then be theirs for them to sell on second hand if they so wish. They would always be at a disadvantage to Apple as they had paid full market price rather than a price you make profit on. The OS is also only 1 part of what there selling so its not the same as a scenario of buying all the parts that make a Toyota and then selling as your own. All the other parts of the machine are not made by Apple making it a different finished product.
I am also very against the fact it seems to always be 1 rule for MS and another for Apple. If Apple is in a PC market and not a Mac market, why can they force Safari and iTunes on their users in a default install but MS can do the same with IE and Media Player. If its a Mac market then why do they get to force the hardware?
Lastly I doubt MS are funding Pystar, it would serve no purpose. There is only two possible outcomes, Apple starts to take over as the dominant OS and they loose out or Apple can't continue making so much money as they can't charge a premium from all the users locked in to having to use Macs. If the second happens then MS will have to start spending giving Apple money as they have to have a viable competitor to avoid being a monopoly.
They SHOULD allow competitors to load the software, but with a two-tiered price structure. If you're loading the new OS X on an Apple product then you are entitled to "upgrade discount" for example for snow leopard and Mac users, $29. If the user is loading it on a non-apple machine. it would be a new install for which you could charge MS prices, shall we say $399 and their upgrade pathway would be some equally ridiculous figure, say $249
Why?
(1) As I've said before on this forum, Apple WILL sooner or later reach monopoly status and will be required by the anti-trust police to allow competition
Apple will never achieve monopoly status with their OSX or Mac. As long as OSX is tied to a Mac I doubt if Apple will never have more than 30% of the computer hardware or OS market.
If Apple release OSX for PC, they will have to compete with Microsoft. And I can't see Apple getting a monopoly share of the OS market going against MS. If anything, Apple can end MS monopoly in the OS market.
HP and Dell may very well be part of Pystar's investors. My theory is that pissed off billionaire Michael Dell, invested in or even created Pystar because Apple refused to license him OS X for his Dell machines. That's the only thing I can think of since Pystar seems to be able to magically keep pulling money out of its company ass.
Yeah because where it keep getting money for these lawsuits. I doubt they even had that many sales of its crap systems. Then trying to force Apple to let them to use Mac OS X. There's a gauntlet that Psystar don't see and they wish they can get Snow Leopard but if they did they regret its not going to work. That's the advantage I think that Apple did. Legality and agreements updated if they missed it. Whatever crack they got in is close. Now they just going to waste money and time.
Actually I went back and reread the original post. You are correct. It is specifically talking about The volume of sales and not specifically statng that Apple is overpriced.
(1) As I've said before on this forum, Apple WILL sooner or later reach monopoly status and will be required by the anti-trust police to allow competition
Can you explain how Apple WILL reach this monopoly status... either sooner ...or later?
Note. Apple's current 'monopoly' status in the US is around 8% share.
Can you explain how Apple WILL reach this monopoly status... either sooner ...or later?
Note. Apple's current 'monopoly' status in the US is around 8% share.
Someone else also made a good point. Even the industry leader (HP) only has a 30% share of the market give or take. I don't think these folks understand what a monopoly is.
1.\texclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
End the end, for a business, it all comes down to money. If Apple was the only company out there selling PC's and OS software, I'd be concerned. Considering the market is alive and well with a plethora of competition on the hardware side, and there are multiple choices for both Mac and PC in regards to OS choice, including free alternatives, then this argument will never win. Since the very fact that you can buy cheap low end hardware and put any number of operating systems on it, there is no monopoly. No one forces someone to buy Apple. They can walk into any electronics store and are far more likely to find PC hardware. You have to specifically go hunting for Apple to even know where to find it.
At least Psystar is being very clear about their claim. They have every right to raise the issue in court. We will see what the judge says. The judge may not actually be an Apple fanboi or shareholder, which only goes to suggest he might look at the legal precedents in the computer industry with significant skepticism... of both sides.
Or, if Apple claims that it is the integration of the whole software hardware thing that Apple has going for it to create the Apple Experience, then the judge might want to know why Apple created Boot Camp to allow Windows OS to operate on a Mac. Windows on a Mac, kind of ruins to whole Mac Philosophy of "Think Different" and is like "tits on a bull". To which Apple can say, if you don't want Windows on your Mac, don't buy the Windows OS and you'll have no need to use Boot Camp to run it. To which the judge says, if you don't want a Psystar computer as a Mac, don't buy it, but rather go to your Apple store and have at it. To which Apple says it's our OS. To which the customer can say, as a iPhone owner, I should be able to use on any carrier I wish and screw the Apple/ATT exclusivity deal, to which Psystar says, we made the computer, we bought the Mac OS, it's ours to run on any computer we want. To which is why I am glad I am not a lawyer in this case. There are way too many caveats that either side can use to enhance their viewpoint while blowing the other sides point of view out of the water... Ow, ow, brain freeze, migraine headache...
Forgive me if this has been discussed already, but Psystar has stated that the can install Snow Leopard on their machines. I know this true since I have installed Snow Leopard on my OSx86 test machine. So why haven’t they changed the OS on their website from Leopard to Snow Leopard? Are they not investing any more money into what they’ve purchased at this time? Are they not want to pay the $169 for the full install with iLife/iWork and afraid that installing the $29 copy (which can’t possibly be the price of the full OS) will hurt them in court? Is there new wording in the EULA or on the box when you buy that there lawyers have informed them not to sell Snow Leopard?
Or, if Apple claims that it is the integration of the whole software hardware thing that Apple has going for it to create the Apple Experience, then the judge might want to know why Apple created Boot Camp to allow Windows OS to operate on a Mac. Windows on a Mac, kind of ruins to whole Mac Philosophy of "Think Different" and is like "tits on a bull". To which Apple can say, if you don't want Windows on your Mac, don't buy the Windows OS and you'll have no need to use Boot Camp to run it. To which the judge says, if you don't want a Psystar computer as a Mac, don't buy it, but rather go to your Apple store and have at it. To which Apple says it's our OS. To which the customer can say, as a iPhone owner, I should be able to use on any carrier I wish and screw the Apple/ATT exclusivity deal, to which Psystar says, we made the computer, we bought the Mac OS, it's ours to run on any computer we want. To which is why I am glad I am not a lawyer in this case. There are way too many caveats that either side can use to enhance their viewpoint while blowing the other sides point of view out of the water... Ow, ow, brain freeze, migraine headache...
You do realize that apple also controls the WIndows experience on a mac by using Boot Camp right? They supply the drivers, they handle the setup (pop in a CD and your done). You typically only see that level of refinement from a manufacturer with a pre-built windows image, or an IT shop at a business, either of which applies.
You answered your own question right there. Psystar is not 'running on any computer they want'. They are 'selling it as their own on any computer they want', without license from Apple. I can't believe they actually found a lawyer willing to work towards such a hopeless case.
Forgive me if this has been discussed already, but Psystar has stated that the can install Snow Leopard on their machines. I know this true since I have installed Snow Leopard on my OSx86 test machine. So why haven?t they changed the OS on their website from Leopard to Snow Leopard? Are they not investing any more money into what they?ve purchased at this time? Are they not want to pay the $169 for the full install with iLife/iWork and afraid that installing the $29 copy (which can?t possibly be the price of the full OS) will hurt them in court? Is there new wording in the EULA or on the box when you buy that there lawyers have informed them not to sell Snow Leopard?
Someone suggested that since they are already claiming to be able to install Snow Leopard in advance of it's release, that they are in violation of the beta agreement assuming they acquired it legally. I haven't seen the agreement, but I could see how that could complicate things even further for them (is complicate even a strong enough word?).
Comments
Here's the key word in your paragraph above: comparable. All Logisticaldron said was that most of the PCs that HP sells are cheaper than Macs. He didn't say the machines were comparable, just that they were cheaper. And it's true. Apple has no mainstream consumer desktop (i.e., one with a consumer desktop CPU in it. The Mac Pro is a workstation, the iMac is a laptop on a stick, and the Mac Mini is an ultra-compact SFF desktop which also uses laptop parts), and their laptops are comparably thin and light with mid- and high-end CPUs (and Apple have an irritating penchant for tying screen-size to computing power). HP and Dell offer low-end and mid-end machines that have no "comparable" Mac.
e.g.:
The Dell Mini 10v laptop has no Mac equivalent, but at $299 is much cheaper than any Apple laptop
The Dell Studio 17 is a 17" laptop with a starting price of $649, much much cheaper than the 17" MBpro. That's because the 17" MBP is a vastly superior machine; there is no direct Apple equivalent to the Dell
The Dell XPS Desktop starts at $849 and will absolutely piss on any iMac performance-wise. Again, there's no Mac equivalent.
Of course they have comparable equipment. You're just not looking hard enough. It's there under their high end offerings. I already did this research. You'll find their prices are the same as well
You’re still not getting it. Neither I nor Mr. H has stated that comparable non-Mac PCs and Mac PCs do not cost about the same. We’ve stated that the PC vendors with the highest marketshare have the highest marketshare because of they sell cheap PCs to a market segment that Apple doesn’t target. My comment was only to show that even with HP’s marketshare that Apple would still not have any OS monopoly as was suggested.
Let me tackle this from another angle. If you go into a store that sells PCs, what would be the average PC being sold? A $400 notebook? These low cost machines using old tech are the reason that Dell and HP have such high unit sales. It’s also the reason why Acer with their <$300 netbooks are moving up in the rankings very quickly.
PS: If you are so sure they have comparable equipment then prove Mr. H’s examples wrong. Where is the 17” notebook from Apple that costs $650?
So the reason why Apple is fighting this, is...?
Because the package is for upgrading customers. I doubt that $79 would be the cost for new installation.
Because Apple sells for their own equipment NOT someone else.
Um, please point to where that ruling was issued? The current case is scheduled to be heard in full court in January. The only thing that I know that has been thrown out as far as Psystar's suit goes was their original reasoning for their suit, which the judge said was wrong, so they filed a second reason that the judge has accepted as worthy of being heard (regardless of whether or not its legally valid).
You are correct about the ruling. But it's not the current case that will be heard in Jan. 2010. That's when original lawsuit Apple filed against Psystar is scheduled to be heard. Hopefully, this current case will be ruled on before then.
Apple filed a lawsuit against Psystar on July of 2008. It's schedule for trial in Jan. 2010.
Psystar counter sued Apple on anticompetitive practices. Their original reasoning was that Apple has a monopoly and thus was illegally tying OSX to Apple hardware. This case was dismissed. The Judge gave Psystar 20 days to file an amended complaint. Psystar is now counter suing that Apple is being anticompetitive by misusing Copyright Laws and DMCA to tie OSX to a Mac. This is what we're reading about currently. If Psystar can't convince the Judge that Apple is misusing Copyright Laws and DMCA, there will be no trial in Jan. 2010. As Psystar will not have any defense against Apple's original Copyright infringement lawsuit.
Original lawsuit filed by Apple against Psystar in July of 2008_
http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/a...star-examined/
Original countersuit by Psystar in Aug. of 2008-
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic...pples_Lawsuit/
Dismissal of original countersuit in Nov. of 2008-
http://www.itworld.com/legal/58061/j...-against-apple
Amended countersuit in Dec. of 2008-
http://www.idgconnect.com/index.cfm?...cid=116&pk=664
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...251/204881/48/
Apple response to amended countersuit in Jan. 2009-
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...251/204881/44/
A more detail analyst of the dismissal of original countersuit pertaining to Apple "monopoly"-
http://news.worldofapple.com/archive...ystar-lawsuit/
I don't get the animosity against psystar. So what they make hackinthoshes. A normal consumer wouldn't buy this. People who are buying this are mildy tech savvy people who already own another mac.
I'm interested in seeing how it plays out. As far as I can tell none of this is hurting apple one bit. Just take a look at their numbers. I understand apple has to defend its IP but again I don't get what all you people have against them. You act as if they killed your first born.
I tell you a few reasons why I hate Psystar.
A) They ripped off the free hardwork of the hackintosh community. A lot of the major people involved did a lot of work to make this stuff work, and Psystar ripped it off and made a company out of it. They now have some hired geeks and randomly contribute back because they had to create a few things. But the majority of it was taken from the higher ups in the community. Without thanks btw.
C) The way Psystar handles itself as a company is downright sleezy. The court procedings, the constant movement of the company to dodge questioning, and the way it suddenly was created as a big competitive name for court are scary things for end consumers.
If Apple wants to have others sell their OS, great. More power to them. But I think it's very sleezy to do anything without permission and then try and pretend you did nothing wrong.
You?re still not getting it. Neither I nor Mr. H has stated that comparable non-Mac PCs and Mac PCs do not cost about the same. We?ve stated that the PC vendors with the highest marketshare have the highest marketshare because of they sell cheap PCs to a market segment that Apple doesn?t target. My comment was only to show that even with HP?s marketshare that Apple would still not have any OS monopoly as was suggested.
Let me tackle this from another angle. If you go into a store that sells PCs, what would be the average PC being sold? A $400 notebook? These low cost machines using old tech are the reason that Dell and HP have such high unit sales. It?s also the reason why Acer with their <$300 netbooks are moving up in the rankings very quickly.
PS: If you are so sure they have comparable equipment then prove Mr. H?s examples wrong. Where is the 17? notebook from Apple that costs $650?
I said they had comparable equipment in their high end. Please show me a high end 17" laptop for $650? You seem to think I am arguing against you. I am simply stating that Apple's prices are comparable to every one elses similar hardware offerings. It is illogical to state Apple is overpriced in a niche they don't even have a product in.
However if someone is paying full price for some software I think that should then be theirs for them to sell on second hand if they so wish. They would always be at a disadvantage to Apple as they had paid full market price rather than a price you make profit on. The OS is also only 1 part of what there selling so its not the same as a scenario of buying all the parts that make a Toyota and then selling as your own. All the other parts of the machine are not made by Apple making it a different finished product.
I am also very against the fact it seems to always be 1 rule for MS and another for Apple. If Apple is in a PC market and not a Mac market, why can they force Safari and iTunes on their users in a default install but MS can do the same with IE and Media Player. If its a Mac market then why do they get to force the hardware?
Lastly I doubt MS are funding Pystar, it would serve no purpose. There is only two possible outcomes, Apple starts to take over as the dominant OS and they loose out or Apple can't continue making so much money as they can't charge a premium from all the users locked in to having to use Macs. If the second happens then MS will have to start spending giving Apple money as they have to have a viable competitor to avoid being a monopoly.
Heavens to Betsy
Apple is missing a GOLDEN opportunity
They SHOULD allow competitors to load the software, but with a two-tiered price structure. If you're loading the new OS X on an Apple product then you are entitled to "upgrade discount" for example for snow leopard and Mac users, $29. If the user is loading it on a non-apple machine. it would be a new install for which you could charge MS prices, shall we say $399 and their upgrade pathway would be some equally ridiculous figure, say $249
Why?
(1) As I've said before on this forum, Apple WILL sooner or later reach monopoly status and will be required by the anti-trust police to allow competition
Apple will never achieve monopoly status with their OSX or Mac. As long as OSX is tied to a Mac I doubt if Apple will never have more than 30% of the computer hardware or OS market.
If Apple release OSX for PC, they will have to compete with Microsoft. And I can't see Apple getting a monopoly share of the OS market going against MS. If anything, Apple can end MS monopoly in the OS market.
Because the package is for upgrading customers. I doubt that $79 would be the cost for new installation.
Because Apple sells for their own equipment NOT someone else.
I know why Apple is fighting this, but others seem to subscribe to the belief that Apple doesn't know what is good for them.
HP and Dell may very well be part of Pystar's investors. My theory is that pissed off billionaire Michael Dell, invested in or even created Pystar because Apple refused to license him OS X for his Dell machines. That's the only thing I can think of since Pystar seems to be able to magically keep pulling money out of its company ass.
Yeah because where it keep getting money for these lawsuits. I doubt they even had that many sales of its crap systems. Then trying to force Apple to let them to use Mac OS X. There's a gauntlet that Psystar don't see and they wish they can get Snow Leopard but if they did they regret its not going to work. That's the advantage I think that Apple did. Legality and agreements updated if they missed it. Whatever crack they got in is close. Now they just going to waste money and time.
My apologies
Yeah because where it keep getting money for these lawsuits.
Their current legal representation is working on a contingency fee basis.
(1) As I've said before on this forum, Apple WILL sooner or later reach monopoly status and will be required by the anti-trust police to allow competition
Can you explain how Apple WILL reach this monopoly status... either sooner ...or later?
Note. Apple's current 'monopoly' status in the US is around 8% share.
Can you explain how Apple WILL reach this monopoly status... either sooner ...or later?
Note. Apple's current 'monopoly' status in the US is around 8% share.
Someone else also made a good point. Even the industry leader (HP) only has a 30% share of the market give or take. I don't think these folks understand what a monopoly is.
http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...?db=dictionary
The first definition pretty much sums it up:
1.\texclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
End the end, for a business, it all comes down to money. If Apple was the only company out there selling PC's and OS software, I'd be concerned. Considering the market is alive and well with a plethora of competition on the hardware side, and there are multiple choices for both Mac and PC in regards to OS choice, including free alternatives, then this argument will never win. Since the very fact that you can buy cheap low end hardware and put any number of operating systems on it, there is no monopoly. No one forces someone to buy Apple. They can walk into any electronics store and are far more likely to find PC hardware. You have to specifically go hunting for Apple to even know where to find it.
At least Psystar is being very clear about their claim. They have every right to raise the issue in court. We will see what the judge says. The judge may not actually be an Apple fanboi or shareholder, which only goes to suggest he might look at the legal precedents in the computer industry with significant skepticism... of both sides.
Or, if Apple claims that it is the integration of the whole software hardware thing that Apple has going for it to create the Apple Experience, then the judge might want to know why Apple created Boot Camp to allow Windows OS to operate on a Mac. Windows on a Mac, kind of ruins to whole Mac Philosophy of "Think Different" and is like "tits on a bull". To which Apple can say, if you don't want Windows on your Mac, don't buy the Windows OS and you'll have no need to use Boot Camp to run it. To which the judge says, if you don't want a Psystar computer as a Mac, don't buy it, but rather go to your Apple store and have at it. To which Apple says it's our OS. To which the customer can say, as a iPhone owner, I should be able to use on any carrier I wish and screw the Apple/ATT exclusivity deal, to which Psystar says, we made the computer, we bought the Mac OS, it's ours to run on any computer we want. To which is why I am glad I am not a lawyer in this case. There are way too many caveats that either side can use to enhance their viewpoint while blowing the other sides point of view out of the water... Ow, ow, brain freeze, migraine headache...
Or, if Apple claims that it is the integration of the whole software hardware thing that Apple has going for it to create the Apple Experience, then the judge might want to know why Apple created Boot Camp to allow Windows OS to operate on a Mac. Windows on a Mac, kind of ruins to whole Mac Philosophy of "Think Different" and is like "tits on a bull". To which Apple can say, if you don't want Windows on your Mac, don't buy the Windows OS and you'll have no need to use Boot Camp to run it. To which the judge says, if you don't want a Psystar computer as a Mac, don't buy it, but rather go to your Apple store and have at it. To which Apple says it's our OS. To which the customer can say, as a iPhone owner, I should be able to use on any carrier I wish and screw the Apple/ATT exclusivity deal, to which Psystar says, we made the computer, we bought the Mac OS, it's ours to run on any computer we want. To which is why I am glad I am not a lawyer in this case. There are way too many caveats that either side can use to enhance their viewpoint while blowing the other sides point of view out of the water... Ow, ow, brain freeze, migraine headache...
You do realize that apple also controls the WIndows experience on a mac by using Boot Camp right? They supply the drivers, they handle the setup (pop in a CD and your done). You typically only see that level of refinement from a manufacturer with a pre-built windows image, or an IT shop at a business, either of which applies.
You answered your own question right there. Psystar is not 'running on any computer they want'. They are 'selling it as their own on any computer they want', without license from Apple. I can't believe they actually found a lawyer willing to work towards such a hopeless case.
Fake Steve needs to send in 'Moishe' to take out these Psystar nuisances!
Well look who finally showed up!
Forgive me if this has been discussed already, but Psystar has stated that the can install Snow Leopard on their machines. I know this true since I have installed Snow Leopard on my OSx86 test machine. So why haven?t they changed the OS on their website from Leopard to Snow Leopard? Are they not investing any more money into what they?ve purchased at this time? Are they not want to pay the $169 for the full install with iLife/iWork and afraid that installing the $29 copy (which can?t possibly be the price of the full OS) will hurt them in court? Is there new wording in the EULA or on the box when you buy that there lawyers have informed them not to sell Snow Leopard?
Someone suggested that since they are already claiming to be able to install Snow Leopard in advance of it's release, that they are in violation of the beta agreement assuming they acquired it legally. I haven't seen the agreement, but I could see how that could complicate things even further for them (is complicate even a strong enough word?).