That's great, but it is Apple's property and they have the right to stipulate the terms of the licenses under which it is used. They obviously believe that it's more valuable to them as a means of selling hardware -- you want OS X, you buy Apple hardware. Why should anyone be able to force them to sell it standalone, harming their business model, their shareholders, and their bottom line? (Note: I'm not interested in anyone's theories about how this would help Apple's profits -- that's just speculation from people who don't have the knowledge, experience, and track record that Apple's corporate officers do.)
Apple could decide that they wanted to explore selling the OS licensed for as a standalone product for use on non-Apple hardware. If Apple doesn't want to do that, why should anyone be able to force them to do that?
Let's look at it a different way: Suppose that Ferrari was selling replacement engines with a contract that specified that they would only be installed in Ferrari branded automobiles. Does that mean that I should be able to go out, buy the engines, and install them in tarted up Kias that I sell for profit? Should I be able to buy the engines under that contract, disregard the terms of the contract, and then sue Ferrari? Really, that's what we're talking about here.
Um no, actually it would be Ferrari suing you because you disregarded your contract, and you telling Ferrari the contract doesn't say what Ferrari thinks it says. Then let the court decide. That's what we're talking about here.
Your whole scenario defeats the purpose of using OS X in the first place. If Apple did what you wanted it would not only kill their Mac business, it would render OS X into a Windows clone. Apple's entire Mac business model, and the whole point of using OS X in thr first place, rests on OS X being tied to Apple hardware. It's just that simple.
So in other words, people like you, not only look for excuses to circumvent Apple's IP rights (or have other companies do it for you), but also want to compromise (perhaps unwittingly) MY computing experience in the process.
Compromise OS X and the whole reason for using Macs just because YOU and those like you want to be cheap? Hell no.
So you are an elitist Apple fanboy then? You are speculating that it would render OS Ten into a Windows clone, while I think it would just cripple their hardware sales. I find it hard to believe Unix would have trouble surviving on mixed hardware. We just disagree on that issue. I'm not cheap, but I'm not rich. Denying people licensing also keeps the market share smaller due to they cannot afford the hardware. Does this make poor people bad? Middle class? Am I less intelligent because I feel different about spending so much on a computer?
I already own a MacBook Pro, a Mac Mini, an TV, and I used to have the 2006 MBP, and a 2.0GHz G5 tower. Before that I had a blue and white G3. I have an iPhone 3G. I don't think you will ever understand my side of the argument simply because you don't want to. That doesn't change the fact that I'd like to see open licensing for the OS, at a premium maybe even to Windows.
Let's say Apple opened up their licensing and dropped the Macs altogether. Would they make more money? I think they would, given some time and penetration into the business world. You trying to argue your side is what my friends belly-ached about when they moved from PPC to Intel. Oh, the troubles begin, they said. I bought AAPL at $22 and didn't look back. Market share increasing without development costs, R+D expansion or anything else going up is good for the bottom line, no matter what your friends tell you.
So now we have duplicate trials in two different states. What a wonderful use of tax dollars, brilliant.
yes and no.
this move is conceivably advantageous for Psystar because if the first judge isn't sympathetic the second one might be (assuming they can pull off an argument that the two versions are really different products)
but in the end, this could backfire. How?
well first Apple goes to the second court and requests that all discovery etc for this second trial be put on hold until after the first one is completed to allow both parties to focus their attention on one matter at a time. a reasonable request that could be granted.
then Psystar loses their case. Apple's previous wins of 'there is no Macintosh Market' and "Apple's tying of hardware and software is not abusive' stand. and so on.
Apple goes to the second court and immediately files a notion for summary judgement against Psystar citing that in fact for all material purposes Leopard and Snow Leopard being merely versions of the Macintosh Operating System Software makes this an identical issue as the just decided other case. Even though what happens in one district doesn't carry the weight of commandment in all other districts, they do look to each other for guidance and suggestion, particularly in matters of Federal law. so there is a very good chance that the second judge would buy the 'identical' argument and agree with the decision of the first judge and find against Psystar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This has been covered a bazillion times, but Apple doesn't stop anyone from using the products as they see fit. They have no interest at all in "stopping people" from doing these kinds of things.
actually that isn't a 100% true statement. Apple probably would stop folks if they could. But it isn't plausible for them to be able to go after every Tom, Dick and Harry that is quietly building a hackintosh in his garage when he keeps his mouth shut about what and how he is doing it. In the case of Psystar, they pulled out a giant bullhorn and a blinking skyscraper sized billboard and yelled "yo apple, yeah we did it. F U"
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh
It is not like Psystar is not paying Apple the full retail price for the copies of OS X, they are. They are paying what Apple has established OS X to be worth.
you know this for a fact. so you are the keeper of the receipts that Psystar claims they don't have that show how they got all those retail disks. good to know. I'm sure the IRS will be very happy to know this info
So you are an elitist Apple fanboy then? You are speculating that it would render OS Ten into a Windows clone, while I think it would just cripple their hardware sales. I find it hard to believe Unix would have trouble surviving on mixed hardware. We just disagree on that issue. I'm not cheap, but I'm not rich. Denying people licensing also keeps the market share smaller due to they cannot afford the hardware. Does this make poor people bad? Middle class? Am I less intelligent because I feel different about spending so much on a computer?
I already own a MacBook Pro, a Mac Mini, an TV, and I used to have the 2006 MBP, and a 2.0GHz G5 tower. Before that I had a blue and white G3. I have an iPhone 3G. I don't think you will ever understand my side of the argument simply because you don't want to. That doesn't change the fact that I'd like to see open licensing for the OS, at a premium maybe even to Windows.
Let's say Apple opened up their licensing and dropped the Macs altogether. Would they make more money? I think they would, given some time and penetration into the business world. You trying to argue your side is what my friends belly-ached about when they moved from PPC to Intel. Oh, the troubles begin, they said. I bought AAPL at $22 and didn't look back. Market share increasing without development costs, R+D expansion or anything else going up is good for the bottom line, no matter what your friends tell you.
The last time Apple licensed out OS X, it was disastrous for the company.
There is no way you can compete against Windows on price, unless you differentiate yourself substantially. OS/2 falied (despite being a nice OS), as well as others, for precisely this reason. There's a good reason OS X is tied to Apple hardware, and it isn't just to command a higher price. And there is also a good reason why, in 2009, there currently is no consumer-level mass-marketed operating system in existence that runs on generic hardware besides Windows. There is no OS/2. Windows has no real competition other than OS X, but OS X is a closed system that plays at the Premium end of the market.
Frankly, the last thing anyone in their right mind would want is for Apple to let go of their Macs/OS X business model. Apple succeeds spectacularly with Macs and OS X precisely because it's a closed, controlled ecosystem. Anything else (or anything less), and OS X becomes a Windows clone. And who the hell would want that?? The whole reason behind Apple's business model when it comes to Macs (and their resulting success) is that OS X is tied to Apple's hardware. This is the reason customer satisfaction rates are so high, year after year. This is the reason the also-rans of the industry aspire to render their products more "Mac-like" in every way possible.
This "freely use computing hardware the way they want" notion lives and dies in small corners of the internet, and in the even smaller corners in which Apple fan sites live, fuelled mainly by the geek/tech-enthusiast minority that (wrongly) thinks it knows whats best for everyone else. In fact, Apple seems to know best. Period. Hackintoshes and mucking around with the OS and wailing about "freeing" it is alright for that small segment of Apple's user base (a segment which in the grand scheme of things is inconsequential anyway), but it would be a monumental disservice to the average user.
Apple succeeds because of these specific differentiations. It's a coveted business model that others only wish they could emulate successfully. We're at the point now, where if the average user has $1000+ to spend (and apparently, plenty of them do!) a Mac will be near or at the very top of their list. That's quite an accomplishment. It's the reason Ballmer ends up looking stupid, flustered, and tongue-tied at press conferences, especially when he's in a room-full of Macs.
And by the way, the last thing Apple's numbers, record Mac sales, and dominance of consumer mindshare and opinion would suggest is for Apple to free its OS. There's simply no demand for that and no reason to do so.
Now, Macs ARE PCs, every last bit of them, same things HP and Dell and Acer and such are selling. Because the OS is written for the same processors and chipsets as a standard PC, that is why people are doing this.
This is only because IBM left the market for processors for personal computers, leaving Intel type processors the only game in town. (in sufficient quantities/competing price)
Intel was going down the road of multi-core/cooler processors for laptops and nobody else was following.
Apple has it's options open buying that processor maker PA Semi (I think it was), and Apple has switched processor families before and they reserve the right to do it again.
Processor advantages sell a LOT of hardware, like the G5 processor did ("Big Mac" and other supercomputers), and Apple is a HARDWARE company first, software second.
Sure OS X got the jump on Microsoft's crappy Windows, but M$ is closing that hole (they say Windows 7 is pretty good) and has the advantage of cheap ass PC makers on it's side. M$ could be back up to over 90% market share again (M$ just copies anything Apple does in software anyway). Apple has to innovate and their own processors advantages would do that nicely.
It's that or sell Apple to Intel and game over just like Pixar.
IMMO the reason Apple is preventing supported use of OS X on other PC type hardware is because they might and possibly plan another processor switch later down the road as they GROW BIGGER.
Customers of Apple's Mac's have the comfort of knowing their software and familiar OS will still be fine, even if the hardware changes under the hood, again.
Obviously any hackintosh customer base created by the cloners will be left out and Apple can't be tied to one processor just because a bunch of short sighted small time operators want to poach Apple's hardware sales. They are not part of Apple's future, most big timers know this, so I suspect something ELSE is going on here.
Obviously Pystar has gotten some secret money, either from Intel or Microsoft, to try to flush out what Apple has in it's future, by what they reveal or not reveal in court.
The last time Apple licensed out OS X, it was disastrous for the company.
There is no way you can compete against Windows on price, unless you differentiate yourself substantially. OS/2 falied (despite being a nice OS), as well as others, for precisely this reason. There's a good reason OS X is tied to Apple hardware, and it isn't just to command a higher price.
Frankly, the last thing anyone in their right mind would want is for Apple to let go of their Macs/OS X business model. Apple succeeds spectacularly with Macs and OS X precisely because it's a closed, controlled ecosystem. Anything else (or anything less), and OS X becomes a Windows clone. And who the hell would want that?? The whole reason behind Apple's business model when it comes to Macs (and their resulting success) is that OS X is tied to Apple's hardware. This is the reason customer satisfaction rates are so high, year after year. This is the reason the also-rans of the industry aspire to render their products more "Mac-like" in every way possible.
This "freely use computing hardware the way they want" notion lives and dies in small corners of the internet, and in the even smaller corners in which Apple fan sites live, fuelled mainly by the geek/tech-enthusiast minority that (wrongly) thinks it knows whats best for everyone else. In fact, Apple seems to know best. Period. Hackintoshes and mucking around with the OS and wailing about "freeing" it is alright for that small segment of Apple's user base (a segment which in the grand scheme of things is inconsequential anyway), but it would be a monumental disservice to the average user.
Apple succeeds because of these specific differentiations. It's a coveted business model that others only wish they could emulate successfully. We're at the point now, where if the average user has $1000+ to spend (and apparently, plenty of them do!) a Mac will be near or at the very top of their list. That's quite an accomplishment. It's the reason Ballmer ends up looking stupid, flustered, and tongue-tied at press conferences, especially when he's in a room-full of Macs.
And by the way, the last thing Apple's numbers, record Mac sales, and dominance of consumer mindshare and opinion would suggest is for Apple to free its OS. There's simply no demand for that and no reason to do so.
When did they license OS X?
If you are referring to 8 and 9, those Systems ran on completely different hardware than x86, if I remember correctly. That is not the same situation, and Steve wasn't around.
What I envision for OS X and what you are mentally stumbling on is that the hardware does not make any difference now. They are the same thing, and this is proven by Windows running on Macs. The game has changed since the mid-90's when Apple thought their sh*t didn't stink, and they didn't have the reputation to carry them through a Motorola to IBM transition. Exactly the way Ballmer acts now is how Apple acted then. Too much crap for sale, literally, and no innovation.
Microsoft then was run by the best business man on the planet, Bill Gates. He might not know sh*t about coding, but he knew how to sell.
I think that this Unix based OS would thrive on anything you put it on, that's my opinion. And I also happen to think that it would outsell Windows given the opportunity. Microsoft fails because they are spread too thin, with all their different things going on they don't know where to stop nor what to focus on.
"And who the hell would want that?? " I wouldn't mind since you asked. You see, the innovation is only in the actual case designs now. Where I want to see Apple head, and I think they are going there (shrinkin profit margins on hardware have already begun, mind you), is to move away from "ground-breaking battery design" and into some thing like this:
1) OS x.7 utilizes as many cores as you can throw at it.
Scientists and governments buy OS X and no need to change your hardware, yippie!
2) Upgrade you existing Windows Servers guys, it's time for server X.7 and cut your resource needs by 1000%.
It's an IT revolution, yay!
3) Outsource the hardware, and make Lenovo build it, or Asus.
The hardware is going to become moot, it's simply too expensive to keep it up.
4) Whatever else, really, I don't know, don't really care. There are some things better than drilled out aluminum prettyness, one of those is called cash money.
The point of the above bullets is that these things are only possible if OS X is licensed to something outside of a consumer line, free from Apple's teenager minded hardware. Like the mini, was just bring your monitor keyboard etc. This could be: here's your business class, NASA approved server, faster than any other, for $999.
It's not just about you mom and dad liking Apple's OS. It's about business, and enterprises buy more PC's than anyone. But they won't spend that kind of money on a cool looking toy. Apple could penetrate, although this is not their current model. Doesn't mean they cannot change, just look at the revolution they started circa 1999. Maybe they will get out of hardware, maybe not.
This is only because IBM left the market for processors for personal computers, leaving Intel type processors the only game in town. (in sufficient quantities/competing price)
Intel was going down the road of multi-core/cooler processors for laptops and nobody else was following.
Apple has it's options open buying that processor maker PA Semi (I think it was), and Apple has switched processor families before and they reserve the right to do it again.
Processor advantages sell a LOT of hardware, like the G5 processor did ("Big Mac" and other supercomputers), and Apple is a HARDWARE company first, software second.
Sure OS X got the jump on Microsoft's crappy Windows, but M$ is closing that hole (they say Windows 7 is pretty good) and has the advantage of cheap ass PC makers on it's side. M$ could be back up to over 90% market share again (M$ just copies anything Apple does in software anyway). Apple has to innovate and their own processors advantages would do that nicely.
It's that or sell Apple to Intel and game over just like Pixar.
IMMO the reason Apple is preventing supported use of OS X on other PC type hardware is because they might and possibly plan another processor switch later down the road as they GROW BIGGER.
Customers of Apple's Mac's have the comfort of knowing their software and familiar OS will still be fine, even if the hardware changes under the hood, again.
Obviously any hackintosh customer base created by the cloners will be left out and Apple can't be tied to one processor just because a bunch of short sighted small time operators want to poach Apple's hardware sales. They are not part of Apple's future, most big timers know this, so I suspect something ELSE is going on here.
Obviously Pystar has gotten some secret money, either from Intel or Microsoft, to try to flush out what Apple has in it's future, by what they reveal in court or not reveal.
That's my opinion anyway.
Apple can move to AMD tomorrow and put the systems on the shelves the same day.
The last time Apple licensed out OS X, it was disastrous for the company.
When did that happen? Unless you mean OS 7 or 8 on the various PPC clones. Personally when I hear your arguments defending Apple's right to squash Psystar *and* osx86 I have to remember Woz's blue boxes and how you would have probably howled about Ma Bell's right to protect her property. I want Apple to crush Psystar because they are the ultimate business-scum middlemen, profiting primarily through the hard work of the uncompensated hacker/enthusiast community. They're like guys at the swapmeet who sell DVD-ROMs. On the other hand I want people to be able to continue to be able to build hackintoshes personally. There will be kids who are good at it and will build up little stables of people to support then a system upgrade will come along and break things and a lot of those people will get tired of maintaining things and they'll just go buy a real mac. I've watched it happen with a young friend of mine. Not the end of the world.
This is only because IBM left the market for processors for personal computers, leaving Intel type processors the only game in town. (in sufficient quantities/competing price)
Intel was going down the road of multi-core/cooler processors for laptops and nobody else was following.
Apple has it's options open buying that processor maker PA Semi (I think it was), and Apple has switched processor families before and they reserve the right to do it again.
Processor advantages sell a LOT of hardware, like the G5 processor did ("Big Mac" and other supercomputers), and Apple is a HARDWARE company first, software second.
Sure OS X got the jump on Microsoft's crappy Windows, but M$ is closing that hole (they say Windows 7 is pretty good) and has the advantage of cheap ass PC makers on it's side. M$ could be back up to over 90% market share again (M$ just copies anything Apple does in software anyway). Apple has to innovate and their own processors advantages would do that nicely.
It's that or sell Apple to Intel and game over just like Pixar.
IMMO the reason Apple is preventing supported use of OS X on other PC type hardware is because they might and possibly plan another processor switch later down the road as they GROW BIGGER.
Customers of Apple's Mac's have the comfort of knowing their software and familiar OS will still be fine, even if the hardware changes under the hood, again.
Obviously any hackintosh customer base created by the cloners will be left out and Apple can't be tied to one processor just because a bunch of short sighted small time operators want to poach Apple's hardware sales. They are not part of Apple's future, most big timers know this, so I suspect something ELSE is going on here.
Obviously Pystar has gotten some secret money, either from Intel or Microsoft, to try to flush out what Apple has in it's future, by what they reveal or not reveal in court.
That's my opinion anyway.
Here's intel at a very latest (and cool I may add) demo running what appears to be a Hackintosh...
To break the psystar plans, instead of apple, I would create a version of Mac OS X for x86 .
Sure enough psystar will die, cause nobody will buy its products, there are even cheaper x86 models then psystar offers.
Anyway Apple will loose a big part of support by doing this. We all know that the money apple gets, are from selling hardware not software. The software apple sells is the key to hardware selling (no software, no hardware).
I agree that Apple has the right to its own opinion and point of view. But do they possess regulatory powers over how customers use their products... for example the standalone OS, which at least notionally, is a "product" and not an "upgrade"...
Apple could have avoided this whole THING by calling every copy of OSX an "upgrade" that is only valid with preexisting OSX, which all Macs were born with. But.... TMK..... they neglected to do that. Psystar noticed and pounced before Apple wised up. At this point Apple would love to make OSX "upgrade only" as I just mentioned but AAPL is evidently horrified that Psystar would howl and maybe even win an antitrust settlement against Apple, in that scenario. Still, it may be the best option to make OSX upgrade-only. That would shut down Psystar. It would be obvious they had no source of OSX licenses for their machines.
As it stands now, the murky issue is that Psystar claims they ARE buying legit OSX licenses... and in my view they're right...
Apple could have sealed this up tight... but they screwed up. At the very least this is serious bother... at worst, it's going to turn into a nightmare.
This case has nothing to do with the copy of OSX that Psystar claimed to have purchased. It makes no difference whether it's considered or labeled as an "upgrade".
What's in question is that copy of OSX that comes installed in a Psystar PC. Copyright Laws, not their EULA, gives Apple all the rights to that installed copy. Psystar must have Apple's authorization if they want to sell or transfer that copy along with the sale of their PC's. It makes no difference if Psystar includes an original retail disc of OSX with each PC they sell. Psystar has no right to sell or give away any copies made from that disc without Apples authorization. Regardless of whether it was installed using a full or upgrade version of OSX.
So what about all those people selling Macs, on eBay, with OSX installed? You might ask next. Apple can authorize all Macs to be sold with OSX installed. It's within Apple's rights to allow this. While still not allow any generic PC to be sold with OSX installed. Those rights are granted to Apple as registered owner of the copyright to OSX. Not because of anything they stated in their EULA.
First EULA doesn't matter. Psystar is not end user, Psystar was granted no license to distribute OS X.
Secondly you can't just compare Apple to Microsoft. Just because licensing software works for Microsoft it doesn't mean it would work for Apple. The reason why Microsoft is making money are OEM vendors. The profits from retail are far far behind.
Apple will never license OS X. What good is marketshare when you profits go to hell? Just look at Apple and Dell turnaround and then compare the profits. Apple has much bigger margins. They can afford it because they sell premium products (whether you like them or not). They provide additional value (OS X) that differentiates them from other manufacturers. Why on earth would Apple want to get rid of this huge advantage?
Never mind having to support wide range of (mostly low quality) hardware.
You should try some logic sometime. You might find it refreshing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh
It is not like Psystar is not paying Apple the full retail price for the copies of OS X, they are. They are paying what Apple has established OS X to be worth.
So if Audi offers free scheduled maintenance, the value of that maintenance is zero, because Audi is giving it away? And you should be able to drive your Saturn in there and get free maintenance? Because that's the crux of your argument: If a company offers subsidized goods or services to owners of their expensive, premium product, then some third party company should be able to buy at those artificially low prices and then bundle what they buy with their competing, low-end product.
Um no, actually it would be Ferrari suing you because you disregarded your contract, and you telling Ferrari the contract doesn't say what Ferrari thinks it says.
Um, no, actually I am completely correct and you are just displaying your ignorance of this case. Psystar has sued Apple -- at least twice now:
Then let the court decide. That's what we're talking about here.
What an incredibly stupid idea: Let everyone violate terms of software licenses, tie the rightful owners of the software up in court, and hope the they get a judge to make a bad decision.
In another post, you claimed that the value of something was determined by the price at which it was offered. We will keep that in mind while reading your free advice to Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit
and what you are mentally stumbling on is that the hardware does not make any difference now. They are the same thing, and this is proven by Windows running on Macs
In the sense that Ferraris and Kias are the same thing; this is proven by a Kia driver successfully driving a Ferrari.
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit
You see, the innovation is only in the actual case designs now.
So all manufacturers use a System Management Controller (microcontroller) to tell their systems when to turn on, turn off, sleep, wake, idle, and so forth, handle system resets from various commands, and control the fans based on readings from multiple temperature sensors?
So why the hell is my 8 core, 16GB RAM, 4TB hard drive Mac Pro almost silent while the Celeron-based Dell I've got on the other side of the room sounds like a jet spooling up for take-off? Why isn't there a SATA backplane in the Dell so that I can slide my SATA drives in and have them dock with connectors? Instead, I have to disassemble the entire case and deal with the rat's nest of wires inside. I can literally swap a drive in my Mac Pro in under 30 seconds while it takes about 15 minutes to do the same thing on my Dell (which is, admittedly, one of the worst designs).
If Apple hardware isn't innovative, then explain why they beat every other major manufacturer out the door the Nehalem Xeon CPUs. Explain why the 2008 Mac Pro used a specialized heatsink on the RAM to allow slower fan speeds while still cooling the RAM. Explain why my Mac Pro has error correcting RAM when almost no other desktop system does. Explain why Apple introduced a 30" display when other manufacturers have topped out at 24" (and much lower resolution). Explain the Magsafe connector that has prevented countless laptops from hitting the floor when people tripped on the cords. Explain the Mini Displayport connector that Apple invented and that now will be part of the VESA Displayport 1.2 specification. Explain why the RAM in my Mac Pro is on riser cards that I can remove and load with RAM rather than having to poke around in the guts of the machine, pushing SATA cables, motherboard power cables, drive power cables, USB ribbon cables, etc. out of the way.
If you think that the MacBook Air is nothing but an exercise in case design, then lets see you build a computer that fits into that case.
Frankly, you sound like one of those disgruntled guys who can't afford a Mac and wants to make himself believe that they are no different than Dell, HP, Acer, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit
There are some things better than drilled out aluminum prettyness, one of those is called cash money.
I would rather have less money and a computer built as well as my Mac Pro than to have yet another cheesy Antec/Chieftec/Dell/HP/Vantec/etc. POS plastic case enclosing some generic motherboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit
The point of the above bullets is that these things are only possible if OS X is licensed to something outside of a consumer line, free from Apple's teenager minded hardware.
What kind of stupid insult is that? "Teenager minded hardware"? Oh, you mean hardware that has been praised by the computer and consumer press as being the best available and worth the money? You mean the hardware that nabbed Apple top spot in every class of laptop rated by Consumer Reports (top 3 in the 13" category?
So all manufacturers use a System Management Controller (microcontroller) to tell their systems when to turn on, turn off, sleep, wake, idle, and so forth, handle system resets from various commands, and control the fans based on readings from multiple temperature sensors?
So why the hell is my 8 core, 16GB RAM, 4TB hard drive Mac Pro almost silent while the Celeron-based Dell I've got on the other side of the room sounds like a jet spooling up for take-off? Why isn't there a SATA backplane in the Dell so that I can slide my SATA drives in and have them dock with connectors? Instead, I have to disassemble the entire case and deal with the rat's nest of wires inside. I can literally swap a drive in my Mac Pro in under 30 seconds while it takes about 15 minutes to do the same thing on my Dell (which is, admittedly, one of the worst designs).
If Apple hardware isn't innovative, then explain why they beat every other major manufacturer out the door the Nehalem Xeon CPUs. Explain why the 2008 Mac Pro used a specialized heatsink on the RAM to allow slower fan speeds while still cooling the RAM. Explain why my Mac Pro has error correcting RAM when almost no other desktop system does. Explain why Apple introduced a 30" display when other manufacturers have topped out at 24" (and much lower resolution). Explain the Magsafe connector that has prevented countless laptops from hitting the floor when people tripped on the cords. Explain the Mini Displayport connector that Apple invented and that now will be part of the VESA Displayport 1.2 specification. Explain why the RAM in my Mac Pro is on riser cards that I can remove and load with RAM rather than having to poke around in the guts of the machine, pushing SATA cables, motherboard power cables, drive power cables, USB ribbon cables, etc. out of the way.
If you think that the MacBook Air is nothing but an exercise in case design, then lets see you build a computer that fits into that case.
Frankly, you sound like one of those disgruntled guys who can't afford a Mac and wants to make himself believe that they are no different than Dell, HP, Acer, etc.
I would rather have less money and a computer built as well as my Mac Pro than to have yet another cheesy Antec/Chieftec/Dell/HP/Vantec/etc. POS plastic case enclosing some generic motherboard.
What kind of stupid insult is that? "Teenager minded hardware"? Oh, you mean hardware that has been praised by the computer and consumer press as being the best available and worth the money? You mean the hardware that nabbed Apple top spot in every class of laptop rated by Consumer Reports (top 3 in the 13" category?
I don't know if this has been mentioned or not. I didn't read all the responses because to be honest.. any article relating to the psystar situation brings out many-a-moron and quite frankly I'm tired of hearing the same argument.
However...
Someone did say that Apple will never allow Mac OS X to be available for clones because it would hurt Mac hardware sales and that Mac sales is where they make their money.
Actually, the profit margin for Mac hardware sales is probably one of their smallest streams of income.
The REAL money makers are the iPhone App Store and the iTunes Store. (It truly is "found money" in every sense of the phrase.) Also, the iPod line brings in a hefty sum of profits.
The Mac computer line is why Apple is here initially, and the Mac computer provides a hub that ties everything else together in an elegantly Apple-branded way..
While the Mac hardware sales are profitable... Apple will never open Mac OS X because it would hurt the hardware sales (not because of money, but because of principle)
Even if the computer line started to lose money, as long as Apple continued to make money overall, they would sell computers to support all other businesses.
Edit:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit
What I envision for OS X...
In another post, you claimed that the value of something was determined by the price at which it was offered. We will keep that in mind while reading your free advice to Apple
.
One of the most intelligent burns I have read in quite some time... Excellent post fmaxwell
They should have thought of that before selling (selling!) new client licenses of OS X. Why do it?... They could give every machine a Mac OS ID number. If it's not on the list then OSX should not install.
As it is now, there are still some copies of OS X floating about. Those... in my opinion... make any machine a legitimate, fully paid-for OS X client. Which can be sold, if you wish, as a used computer.
In your opinion. That's nice, for what it is.
What evidence do you have to support your contention that Apple has ever sold (sold!) any full license copies of OS X?
They have always stated that every copy of OS X ever sold was only ever licensed for installation on an Apple computer. They have also always stated that the software covered by the license was a combination of the software actually contained on the distribution DVD or CD, together with the low-level firmware (OpenFirmware, BIOS, EFI, whatever you call it) contained in the ROM of the Mac itself. Coupled with the fact that every Mac ever sold has come with an initial copy of OS X, it is easy to reach the conclusion that all separate copies that they have ever sold (sold!) have been upgrades to the initial full-version licenses originally included with the initial hardware purpose.
The technological means they use to (or don't use) to enforce their license is totally irrelevant to the validity of the license in the first place: Violating the license is just as much an infringement of your contract with Apple, whether they use technological measures to make it difficult to commit the violation, or not. By analogy, you are committing the same felony by stealing something from my house if you just walk in through the open front door, as if you were to break in through five deadbolts and set off an alarm.
What's in question is that copy of OSX that comes installed in a Psystar PC. Copyright Laws, not their EULA, gives Apple all the rights to that installed copy. Psystar must have Apple's authorization if they want to sell or transfer that copy along with the sale of their PC's. It makes no difference if Psystar includes an original retail disc of OSX with each PC they sell.
Wrong. US Copyright law actually takes that away from the copyright holder, and assigns it to the owner of the physical medium on which their copy was conveyed. They specifically have permission to transfer ownership of the physical medium over to somebody else, provided they also either destroy, or else include as part of the transfer, every other copy that has been made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leathien
First EULA doesn't matter. Psystar is not end user, Psystar was granted no license to distribute OS X.
They don't need permission to distribute OS X. The doctrine of first sale gives permission of the legitimate owner of any physical medium on which a copyrighted work is contained, to transfer ownership of that physical medium over to any other person without seeking the copyright holder's permission.
Normally this doctrine only applies in cases where no additional copies of that copyrighted work were made. But in the case of computer software, additional copies may also be made for the purpose of running the software on a computer or for emergency backup purposes. But such copies must also be either destroyed, or else included along with the transfer of ownership of the original physical medium.
Comments
That's great, but it is Apple's property and they have the right to stipulate the terms of the licenses under which it is used. They obviously believe that it's more valuable to them as a means of selling hardware -- you want OS X, you buy Apple hardware. Why should anyone be able to force them to sell it standalone, harming their business model, their shareholders, and their bottom line? (Note: I'm not interested in anyone's theories about how this would help Apple's profits -- that's just speculation from people who don't have the knowledge, experience, and track record that Apple's corporate officers do.)
Apple could decide that they wanted to explore selling the OS licensed for as a standalone product for use on non-Apple hardware. If Apple doesn't want to do that, why should anyone be able to force them to do that?
Let's look at it a different way: Suppose that Ferrari was selling replacement engines with a contract that specified that they would only be installed in Ferrari branded automobiles. Does that mean that I should be able to go out, buy the engines, and install them in tarted up Kias that I sell for profit? Should I be able to buy the engines under that contract, disregard the terms of the contract, and then sue Ferrari? Really, that's what we're talking about here.
Um no, actually it would be Ferrari suing you because you disregarded your contract, and you telling Ferrari the contract doesn't say what Ferrari thinks it says. Then let the court decide. That's what we're talking about here.
Your whole scenario defeats the purpose of using OS X in the first place. If Apple did what you wanted it would not only kill their Mac business, it would render OS X into a Windows clone. Apple's entire Mac business model, and the whole point of using OS X in thr first place, rests on OS X being tied to Apple hardware. It's just that simple.
So in other words, people like you, not only look for excuses to circumvent Apple's IP rights (or have other companies do it for you), but also want to compromise (perhaps unwittingly) MY computing experience in the process.
Compromise OS X and the whole reason for using Macs just because YOU and those like you want to be cheap? Hell no.
So you are an elitist Apple fanboy then? You are speculating that it would render OS Ten into a Windows clone, while I think it would just cripple their hardware sales. I find it hard to believe Unix would have trouble surviving on mixed hardware. We just disagree on that issue. I'm not cheap, but I'm not rich. Denying people licensing also keeps the market share smaller due to they cannot afford the hardware. Does this make poor people bad? Middle class? Am I less intelligent because I feel different about spending so much on a computer?
I already own a MacBook Pro, a Mac Mini, an TV, and I used to have the 2006 MBP, and a 2.0GHz G5 tower. Before that I had a blue and white G3. I have an iPhone 3G. I don't think you will ever understand my side of the argument simply because you don't want to. That doesn't change the fact that I'd like to see open licensing for the OS, at a premium maybe even to Windows.
Let's say Apple opened up their licensing and dropped the Macs altogether. Would they make more money? I think they would, given some time and penetration into the business world. You trying to argue your side is what my friends belly-ached about when they moved from PPC to Intel. Oh, the troubles begin, they said. I bought AAPL at $22 and didn't look back. Market share increasing without development costs, R+D expansion or anything else going up is good for the bottom line, no matter what your friends tell you.
So now we have duplicate trials in two different states. What a wonderful use of tax dollars, brilliant.
yes and no.
this move is conceivably advantageous for Psystar because if the first judge isn't sympathetic the second one might be (assuming they can pull off an argument that the two versions are really different products)
but in the end, this could backfire. How?
well first Apple goes to the second court and requests that all discovery etc for this second trial be put on hold until after the first one is completed to allow both parties to focus their attention on one matter at a time. a reasonable request that could be granted.
then Psystar loses their case. Apple's previous wins of 'there is no Macintosh Market' and "Apple's tying of hardware and software is not abusive' stand. and so on.
Apple goes to the second court and immediately files a notion for summary judgement against Psystar citing that in fact for all material purposes Leopard and Snow Leopard being merely versions of the Macintosh Operating System Software makes this an identical issue as the just decided other case. Even though what happens in one district doesn't carry the weight of commandment in all other districts, they do look to each other for guidance and suggestion, particularly in matters of Federal law. so there is a very good chance that the second judge would buy the 'identical' argument and agree with the decision of the first judge and find against Psystar.
This has been covered a bazillion times, but Apple doesn't stop anyone from using the products as they see fit. They have no interest at all in "stopping people" from doing these kinds of things.
actually that isn't a 100% true statement. Apple probably would stop folks if they could. But it isn't plausible for them to be able to go after every Tom, Dick and Harry that is quietly building a hackintosh in his garage when he keeps his mouth shut about what and how he is doing it. In the case of Psystar, they pulled out a giant bullhorn and a blinking skyscraper sized billboard and yelled "yo apple, yeah we did it. F U"
It is not like Psystar is not paying Apple the full retail price for the copies of OS X, they are. They are paying what Apple has established OS X to be worth.
you know this for a fact. so you are the keeper of the receipts that Psystar claims they don't have that show how they got all those retail disks. good to know. I'm sure the IRS will be very happy to know this info
So you are an elitist Apple fanboy then? You are speculating that it would render OS Ten into a Windows clone, while I think it would just cripple their hardware sales. I find it hard to believe Unix would have trouble surviving on mixed hardware. We just disagree on that issue. I'm not cheap, but I'm not rich. Denying people licensing also keeps the market share smaller due to they cannot afford the hardware. Does this make poor people bad? Middle class? Am I less intelligent because I feel different about spending so much on a computer?
I already own a MacBook Pro, a Mac Mini, an TV, and I used to have the 2006 MBP, and a 2.0GHz G5 tower. Before that I had a blue and white G3. I have an iPhone 3G. I don't think you will ever understand my side of the argument simply because you don't want to. That doesn't change the fact that I'd like to see open licensing for the OS, at a premium maybe even to Windows.
Let's say Apple opened up their licensing and dropped the Macs altogether. Would they make more money? I think they would, given some time and penetration into the business world. You trying to argue your side is what my friends belly-ached about when they moved from PPC to Intel. Oh, the troubles begin, they said. I bought AAPL at $22 and didn't look back. Market share increasing without development costs, R+D expansion or anything else going up is good for the bottom line, no matter what your friends tell you.
The last time Apple licensed out OS X, it was disastrous for the company.
There is no way you can compete against Windows on price, unless you differentiate yourself substantially. OS/2 falied (despite being a nice OS), as well as others, for precisely this reason. There's a good reason OS X is tied to Apple hardware, and it isn't just to command a higher price. And there is also a good reason why, in 2009, there currently is no consumer-level mass-marketed operating system in existence that runs on generic hardware besides Windows. There is no OS/2. Windows has no real competition other than OS X, but OS X is a closed system that plays at the Premium end of the market.
Frankly, the last thing anyone in their right mind would want is for Apple to let go of their Macs/OS X business model. Apple succeeds spectacularly with Macs and OS X precisely because it's a closed, controlled ecosystem. Anything else (or anything less), and OS X becomes a Windows clone. And who the hell would want that?? The whole reason behind Apple's business model when it comes to Macs (and their resulting success) is that OS X is tied to Apple's hardware. This is the reason customer satisfaction rates are so high, year after year. This is the reason the also-rans of the industry aspire to render their products more "Mac-like" in every way possible.
This "freely use computing hardware the way they want" notion lives and dies in small corners of the internet, and in the even smaller corners in which Apple fan sites live, fuelled mainly by the geek/tech-enthusiast minority that (wrongly) thinks it knows whats best for everyone else. In fact, Apple seems to know best. Period. Hackintoshes and mucking around with the OS and wailing about "freeing" it is alright for that small segment of Apple's user base (a segment which in the grand scheme of things is inconsequential anyway), but it would be a monumental disservice to the average user.
Apple succeeds because of these specific differentiations. It's a coveted business model that others only wish they could emulate successfully. We're at the point now, where if the average user has $1000+ to spend (and apparently, plenty of them do!) a Mac will be near or at the very top of their list. That's quite an accomplishment. It's the reason Ballmer ends up looking stupid, flustered, and tongue-tied at press conferences, especially when he's in a room-full of Macs.
And by the way, the last thing Apple's numbers, record Mac sales, and dominance of consumer mindshare and opinion would suggest is for Apple to free its OS. There's simply no demand for that and no reason to do so.
Now, Macs ARE PCs, every last bit of them, same things HP and Dell and Acer and such are selling. Because the OS is written for the same processors and chipsets as a standard PC, that is why people are doing this.
This is only because IBM left the market for processors for personal computers, leaving Intel type processors the only game in town. (in sufficient quantities/competing price)
Intel was going down the road of multi-core/cooler processors for laptops and nobody else was following.
Apple has it's options open buying that processor maker PA Semi (I think it was), and Apple has switched processor families before and they reserve the right to do it again.
Processor advantages sell a LOT of hardware, like the G5 processor did ("Big Mac" and other supercomputers), and Apple is a HARDWARE company first, software second.
Sure OS X got the jump on Microsoft's crappy Windows, but M$ is closing that hole (they say Windows 7 is pretty good) and has the advantage of cheap ass PC makers on it's side. M$ could be back up to over 90% market share again (M$ just copies anything Apple does in software anyway). Apple has to innovate and their own processors advantages would do that nicely.
It's that or sell Apple to Intel and game over just like Pixar.
IMMO the reason Apple is preventing supported use of OS X on other PC type hardware is because they might and possibly plan another processor switch later down the road as they GROW BIGGER.
Customers of Apple's Mac's have the comfort of knowing their software and familiar OS will still be fine, even if the hardware changes under the hood, again.
Obviously any hackintosh customer base created by the cloners will be left out and Apple can't be tied to one processor just because a bunch of short sighted small time operators want to poach Apple's hardware sales. They are not part of Apple's future, most big timers know this, so I suspect something ELSE is going on here.
Obviously Pystar has gotten some secret money, either from Intel or Microsoft, to try to flush out what Apple has in it's future, by what they reveal or not reveal in court.
That's my opinion anyway.
The last time Apple licensed out OS X, it was disastrous for the company.
There is no way you can compete against Windows on price, unless you differentiate yourself substantially. OS/2 falied (despite being a nice OS), as well as others, for precisely this reason. There's a good reason OS X is tied to Apple hardware, and it isn't just to command a higher price.
Frankly, the last thing anyone in their right mind would want is for Apple to let go of their Macs/OS X business model. Apple succeeds spectacularly with Macs and OS X precisely because it's a closed, controlled ecosystem. Anything else (or anything less), and OS X becomes a Windows clone. And who the hell would want that?? The whole reason behind Apple's business model when it comes to Macs (and their resulting success) is that OS X is tied to Apple's hardware. This is the reason customer satisfaction rates are so high, year after year. This is the reason the also-rans of the industry aspire to render their products more "Mac-like" in every way possible.
This "freely use computing hardware the way they want" notion lives and dies in small corners of the internet, and in the even smaller corners in which Apple fan sites live, fuelled mainly by the geek/tech-enthusiast minority that (wrongly) thinks it knows whats best for everyone else. In fact, Apple seems to know best. Period. Hackintoshes and mucking around with the OS and wailing about "freeing" it is alright for that small segment of Apple's user base (a segment which in the grand scheme of things is inconsequential anyway), but it would be a monumental disservice to the average user.
Apple succeeds because of these specific differentiations. It's a coveted business model that others only wish they could emulate successfully. We're at the point now, where if the average user has $1000+ to spend (and apparently, plenty of them do!) a Mac will be near or at the very top of their list. That's quite an accomplishment. It's the reason Ballmer ends up looking stupid, flustered, and tongue-tied at press conferences, especially when he's in a room-full of Macs.
And by the way, the last thing Apple's numbers, record Mac sales, and dominance of consumer mindshare and opinion would suggest is for Apple to free its OS. There's simply no demand for that and no reason to do so.
When did they license OS X?
If you are referring to 8 and 9, those Systems ran on completely different hardware than x86, if I remember correctly. That is not the same situation, and Steve wasn't around.
What I envision for OS X and what you are mentally stumbling on is that the hardware does not make any difference now. They are the same thing, and this is proven by Windows running on Macs. The game has changed since the mid-90's when Apple thought their sh*t didn't stink, and they didn't have the reputation to carry them through a Motorola to IBM transition. Exactly the way Ballmer acts now is how Apple acted then. Too much crap for sale, literally, and no innovation.
Microsoft then was run by the best business man on the planet, Bill Gates. He might not know sh*t about coding, but he knew how to sell.
I think that this Unix based OS would thrive on anything you put it on, that's my opinion. And I also happen to think that it would outsell Windows given the opportunity. Microsoft fails because they are spread too thin, with all their different things going on they don't know where to stop nor what to focus on.
"And who the hell would want that?? " I wouldn't mind since you asked. You see, the innovation is only in the actual case designs now. Where I want to see Apple head, and I think they are going there (shrinkin profit margins on hardware have already begun, mind you), is to move away from "ground-breaking battery design" and into some thing like this:
1) OS x.7 utilizes as many cores as you can throw at it.
Scientists and governments buy OS X and no need to change your hardware, yippie!
2) Upgrade you existing Windows Servers guys, it's time for server X.7 and cut your resource needs by 1000%.
It's an IT revolution, yay!
3) Outsource the hardware, and make Lenovo build it, or Asus.
The hardware is going to become moot, it's simply too expensive to keep it up.
4) Whatever else, really, I don't know, don't really care. There are some things better than drilled out aluminum prettyness, one of those is called cash money.
The point of the above bullets is that these things are only possible if OS X is licensed to something outside of a consumer line, free from Apple's teenager minded hardware. Like the mini, was just bring your monitor keyboard etc. This could be: here's your business class, NASA approved server, faster than any other, for $999.
It's not just about you mom and dad liking Apple's OS. It's about business, and enterprises buy more PC's than anyone. But they won't spend that kind of money on a cool looking toy. Apple could penetrate, although this is not their current model. Doesn't mean they cannot change, just look at the revolution they started circa 1999. Maybe they will get out of hardware, maybe not.
This is only because IBM left the market for processors for personal computers, leaving Intel type processors the only game in town. (in sufficient quantities/competing price)
Intel was going down the road of multi-core/cooler processors for laptops and nobody else was following.
Apple has it's options open buying that processor maker PA Semi (I think it was), and Apple has switched processor families before and they reserve the right to do it again.
Processor advantages sell a LOT of hardware, like the G5 processor did ("Big Mac" and other supercomputers), and Apple is a HARDWARE company first, software second.
Sure OS X got the jump on Microsoft's crappy Windows, but M$ is closing that hole (they say Windows 7 is pretty good) and has the advantage of cheap ass PC makers on it's side. M$ could be back up to over 90% market share again (M$ just copies anything Apple does in software anyway). Apple has to innovate and their own processors advantages would do that nicely.
It's that or sell Apple to Intel and game over just like Pixar.
IMMO the reason Apple is preventing supported use of OS X on other PC type hardware is because they might and possibly plan another processor switch later down the road as they GROW BIGGER.
Customers of Apple's Mac's have the comfort of knowing their software and familiar OS will still be fine, even if the hardware changes under the hood, again.
Obviously any hackintosh customer base created by the cloners will be left out and Apple can't be tied to one processor just because a bunch of short sighted small time operators want to poach Apple's hardware sales. They are not part of Apple's future, most big timers know this, so I suspect something ELSE is going on here.
Obviously Pystar has gotten some secret money, either from Intel or Microsoft, to try to flush out what Apple has in it's future, by what they reveal in court or not reveal.
That's my opinion anyway.
Apple can move to AMD tomorrow and put the systems on the shelves the same day.
The last time Apple licensed out OS X, it was disastrous for the company.
When did that happen? Unless you mean OS 7 or 8 on the various PPC clones. Personally when I hear your arguments defending Apple's right to squash Psystar *and* osx86 I have to remember Woz's blue boxes and how you would have probably howled about Ma Bell's right to protect her property. I want Apple to crush Psystar because they are the ultimate business-scum middlemen, profiting primarily through the hard work of the uncompensated hacker/enthusiast community. They're like guys at the swapmeet who sell DVD-ROMs. On the other hand I want people to be able to continue to be able to build hackintoshes personally. There will be kids who are good at it and will build up little stables of people to support then a system upgrade will come along and break things and a lot of those people will get tired of maintaining things and they'll just go buy a real mac. I've watched it happen with a young friend of mine. Not the end of the world.
This is only because IBM left the market for processors for personal computers, leaving Intel type processors the only game in town. (in sufficient quantities/competing price)
Intel was going down the road of multi-core/cooler processors for laptops and nobody else was following.
Apple has it's options open buying that processor maker PA Semi (I think it was), and Apple has switched processor families before and they reserve the right to do it again.
Processor advantages sell a LOT of hardware, like the G5 processor did ("Big Mac" and other supercomputers), and Apple is a HARDWARE company first, software second.
Sure OS X got the jump on Microsoft's crappy Windows, but M$ is closing that hole (they say Windows 7 is pretty good) and has the advantage of cheap ass PC makers on it's side. M$ could be back up to over 90% market share again (M$ just copies anything Apple does in software anyway). Apple has to innovate and their own processors advantages would do that nicely.
It's that or sell Apple to Intel and game over just like Pixar.
IMMO the reason Apple is preventing supported use of OS X on other PC type hardware is because they might and possibly plan another processor switch later down the road as they GROW BIGGER.
Customers of Apple's Mac's have the comfort of knowing their software and familiar OS will still be fine, even if the hardware changes under the hood, again.
Obviously any hackintosh customer base created by the cloners will be left out and Apple can't be tied to one processor just because a bunch of short sighted small time operators want to poach Apple's hardware sales. They are not part of Apple's future, most big timers know this, so I suspect something ELSE is going on here.
Obviously Pystar has gotten some secret money, either from Intel or Microsoft, to try to flush out what Apple has in it's future, by what they reveal or not reveal in court.
That's my opinion anyway.
Here's intel at a very latest (and cool I may add) demo running what appears to be a Hackintosh...
http://www.insanelymac.com/intel-with-a-hackintosh/
So, even the processor company can do it in the media too. And just like the other poster said, Apple can switch to AMD at any time.
Sure enough psystar will die, cause nobody will buy its products, there are even cheaper x86 models then psystar offers.
Anyway Apple will loose a big part of support by doing this. We all know that the money apple gets, are from selling hardware not software. The software apple sells is the key to hardware selling (no software, no hardware).
I agree that Apple has the right to its own opinion and point of view. But do they possess regulatory powers over how customers use their products... for example the standalone OS, which at least notionally, is a "product" and not an "upgrade"...
Apple could have avoided this whole THING by calling every copy of OSX an "upgrade" that is only valid with preexisting OSX, which all Macs were born with. But.... TMK..... they neglected to do that. Psystar noticed and pounced before Apple wised up. At this point Apple would love to make OSX "upgrade only" as I just mentioned but AAPL is evidently horrified that Psystar would howl and maybe even win an antitrust settlement against Apple, in that scenario. Still, it may be the best option to make OSX upgrade-only. That would shut down Psystar. It would be obvious they had no source of OSX licenses for their machines.
As it stands now, the murky issue is that Psystar claims they ARE buying legit OSX licenses... and in my view they're right...
Apple could have sealed this up tight... but they screwed up. At the very least this is serious bother... at worst, it's going to turn into a nightmare.
This case has nothing to do with the copy of OSX that Psystar claimed to have purchased. It makes no difference whether it's considered or labeled as an "upgrade".
What's in question is that copy of OSX that comes installed in a Psystar PC. Copyright Laws, not their EULA, gives Apple all the rights to that installed copy. Psystar must have Apple's authorization if they want to sell or transfer that copy along with the sale of their PC's. It makes no difference if Psystar includes an original retail disc of OSX with each PC they sell. Psystar has no right to sell or give away any copies made from that disc without Apples authorization. Regardless of whether it was installed using a full or upgrade version of OSX.
So what about all those people selling Macs, on eBay, with OSX installed? You might ask next. Apple can authorize all Macs to be sold with OSX installed. It's within Apple's rights to allow this. While still not allow any generic PC to be sold with OSX installed. Those rights are granted to Apple as registered owner of the copyright to OSX. Not because of anything they stated in their EULA.
Secondly you can't just compare Apple to Microsoft. Just because licensing software works for Microsoft it doesn't mean it would work for Apple. The reason why Microsoft is making money are OEM vendors. The profits from retail are far far behind.
Apple will never license OS X. What good is marketshare when you profits go to hell? Just look at Apple and Dell turnaround and then compare the profits. Apple has much bigger margins. They can afford it because they sell premium products (whether you like them or not). They provide additional value (OS X) that differentiates them from other manufacturers. Why on earth would Apple want to get rid of this huge advantage?
Never mind having to support wide range of (mostly low quality) hardware.
Wow, talk about a leap in logic
You should try some logic sometime. You might find it refreshing.
It is not like Psystar is not paying Apple the full retail price for the copies of OS X, they are. They are paying what Apple has established OS X to be worth.
So if Audi offers free scheduled maintenance, the value of that maintenance is zero, because Audi is giving it away? And you should be able to drive your Saturn in there and get free maintenance? Because that's the crux of your argument: If a company offers subsidized goods or services to owners of their expensive, premium product, then some third party company should be able to buy at those artificially low prices and then bundle what they buy with their competing, low-end product.
Um no, actually it would be Ferrari suing you because you disregarded your contract, and you telling Ferrari the contract doesn't say what Ferrari thinks it says.
Um, no, actually I am completely correct and you are just displaying your ignorance of this case. Psystar has sued Apple -- at least twice now:
We'll wait for your lips to stop moving so we know when you're finished.
Then let the court decide. That's what we're talking about here.
What an incredibly stupid idea: Let everyone violate terms of software licenses, tie the rightful owners of the software up in court, and hope the they get a judge to make a bad decision.
What I envision for OS X...
In another post, you claimed that the value of something was determined by the price at which it was offered. We will keep that in mind while reading your free advice to Apple.
and what you are mentally stumbling on is that the hardware does not make any difference now. They are the same thing, and this is proven by Windows running on Macs
In the sense that Ferraris and Kias are the same thing; this is proven by a Kia driver successfully driving a Ferrari.
You see, the innovation is only in the actual case designs now.
So all manufacturers use a System Management Controller (microcontroller) to tell their systems when to turn on, turn off, sleep, wake, idle, and so forth, handle system resets from various commands, and control the fans based on readings from multiple temperature sensors?
So why the hell is my 8 core, 16GB RAM, 4TB hard drive Mac Pro almost silent while the Celeron-based Dell I've got on the other side of the room sounds like a jet spooling up for take-off? Why isn't there a SATA backplane in the Dell so that I can slide my SATA drives in and have them dock with connectors? Instead, I have to disassemble the entire case and deal with the rat's nest of wires inside. I can literally swap a drive in my Mac Pro in under 30 seconds while it takes about 15 minutes to do the same thing on my Dell (which is, admittedly, one of the worst designs).
If Apple hardware isn't innovative, then explain why they beat every other major manufacturer out the door the Nehalem Xeon CPUs. Explain why the 2008 Mac Pro used a specialized heatsink on the RAM to allow slower fan speeds while still cooling the RAM. Explain why my Mac Pro has error correcting RAM when almost no other desktop system does. Explain why Apple introduced a 30" display when other manufacturers have topped out at 24" (and much lower resolution). Explain the Magsafe connector that has prevented countless laptops from hitting the floor when people tripped on the cords. Explain the Mini Displayport connector that Apple invented and that now will be part of the VESA Displayport 1.2 specification. Explain why the RAM in my Mac Pro is on riser cards that I can remove and load with RAM rather than having to poke around in the guts of the machine, pushing SATA cables, motherboard power cables, drive power cables, USB ribbon cables, etc. out of the way.
If you think that the MacBook Air is nothing but an exercise in case design, then lets see you build a computer that fits into that case.
Frankly, you sound like one of those disgruntled guys who can't afford a Mac and wants to make himself believe that they are no different than Dell, HP, Acer, etc.
There are some things better than drilled out aluminum prettyness, one of those is called cash money.
I would rather have less money and a computer built as well as my Mac Pro than to have yet another cheesy Antec/Chieftec/Dell/HP/Vantec/etc. POS plastic case enclosing some generic motherboard.
The point of the above bullets is that these things are only possible if OS X is licensed to something outside of a consumer line, free from Apple's teenager minded hardware.
What kind of stupid insult is that? "Teenager minded hardware"? Oh, you mean hardware that has been praised by the computer and consumer press as being the best available and worth the money? You mean the hardware that nabbed Apple top spot in every class of laptop rated by Consumer Reports (top 3 in the 13" category?
Grow up.
So all manufacturers use a System Management Controller (microcontroller) to tell their systems when to turn on, turn off, sleep, wake, idle, and so forth, handle system resets from various commands, and control the fans based on readings from multiple temperature sensors?
So why the hell is my 8 core, 16GB RAM, 4TB hard drive Mac Pro almost silent while the Celeron-based Dell I've got on the other side of the room sounds like a jet spooling up for take-off? Why isn't there a SATA backplane in the Dell so that I can slide my SATA drives in and have them dock with connectors? Instead, I have to disassemble the entire case and deal with the rat's nest of wires inside. I can literally swap a drive in my Mac Pro in under 30 seconds while it takes about 15 minutes to do the same thing on my Dell (which is, admittedly, one of the worst designs).
If Apple hardware isn't innovative, then explain why they beat every other major manufacturer out the door the Nehalem Xeon CPUs. Explain why the 2008 Mac Pro used a specialized heatsink on the RAM to allow slower fan speeds while still cooling the RAM. Explain why my Mac Pro has error correcting RAM when almost no other desktop system does. Explain why Apple introduced a 30" display when other manufacturers have topped out at 24" (and much lower resolution). Explain the Magsafe connector that has prevented countless laptops from hitting the floor when people tripped on the cords. Explain the Mini Displayport connector that Apple invented and that now will be part of the VESA Displayport 1.2 specification. Explain why the RAM in my Mac Pro is on riser cards that I can remove and load with RAM rather than having to poke around in the guts of the machine, pushing SATA cables, motherboard power cables, drive power cables, USB ribbon cables, etc. out of the way.
If you think that the MacBook Air is nothing but an exercise in case design, then lets see you build a computer that fits into that case.
Frankly, you sound like one of those disgruntled guys who can't afford a Mac and wants to make himself believe that they are no different than Dell, HP, Acer, etc.
I would rather have less money and a computer built as well as my Mac Pro than to have yet another cheesy Antec/Chieftec/Dell/HP/Vantec/etc. POS plastic case enclosing some generic motherboard.
What kind of stupid insult is that? "Teenager minded hardware"? Oh, you mean hardware that has been praised by the computer and consumer press as being the best available and worth the money? You mean the hardware that nabbed Apple top spot in every class of laptop rated by Consumer Reports (top 3 in the 13" category?
Grow up.
This should be a sticky. Well put.
However...
Someone did say that Apple will never allow Mac OS X to be available for clones because it would hurt Mac hardware sales and that Mac sales is where they make their money.
Actually, the profit margin for Mac hardware sales is probably one of their smallest streams of income.
The REAL money makers are the iPhone App Store and the iTunes Store. (It truly is "found money" in every sense of the phrase.) Also, the iPod line brings in a hefty sum of profits.
The Mac computer line is why Apple is here initially, and the Mac computer provides a hub that ties everything else together in an elegantly Apple-branded way..
While the Mac hardware sales are profitable... Apple will never open Mac OS X because it would hurt the hardware sales (not because of money, but because of principle)
Even if the computer line started to lose money, as long as Apple continued to make money overall, they would sell computers to support all other businesses.
Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit
What I envision for OS X...
In another post, you claimed that the value of something was determined by the price at which it was offered. We will keep that in mind while reading your free advice to Apple
.
One of the most intelligent burns I have read in quite some time... Excellent post fmaxwell
In your opinion. That's nice, for what it is.
They should have thought of that before selling (selling!) new client licenses of OS X. Why do it?... They could give every machine a Mac OS ID number. If it's not on the list then OSX should not install.
As it is now, there are still some copies of OS X floating about. Those... in my opinion... make any machine a legitimate, fully paid-for OS X client. Which can be sold, if you wish, as a used computer.
In your opinion. That's nice, for what it is.
What evidence do you have to support your contention that Apple has ever sold (sold!) any full license copies of OS X?
They have always stated that every copy of OS X ever sold was only ever licensed for installation on an Apple computer. They have also always stated that the software covered by the license was a combination of the software actually contained on the distribution DVD or CD, together with the low-level firmware (OpenFirmware, BIOS, EFI, whatever you call it) contained in the ROM of the Mac itself. Coupled with the fact that every Mac ever sold has come with an initial copy of OS X, it is easy to reach the conclusion that all separate copies that they have ever sold (sold!) have been upgrades to the initial full-version licenses originally included with the initial hardware purpose.
The technological means they use to (or don't use) to enforce their license is totally irrelevant to the validity of the license in the first place: Violating the license is just as much an infringement of your contract with Apple, whether they use technological measures to make it difficult to commit the violation, or not. By analogy, you are committing the same felony by stealing something from my house if you just walk in through the open front door, as if you were to break in through five deadbolts and set off an alarm.
What's in question is that copy of OSX that comes installed in a Psystar PC. Copyright Laws, not their EULA, gives Apple all the rights to that installed copy. Psystar must have Apple's authorization if they want to sell or transfer that copy along with the sale of their PC's. It makes no difference if Psystar includes an original retail disc of OSX with each PC they sell.
Wrong. US Copyright law actually takes that away from the copyright holder, and assigns it to the owner of the physical medium on which their copy was conveyed. They specifically have permission to transfer ownership of the physical medium over to somebody else, provided they also either destroy, or else include as part of the transfer, every other copy that has been made.
First EULA doesn't matter. Psystar is not end user, Psystar was granted no license to distribute OS X.
They don't need permission to distribute OS X. The doctrine of first sale gives permission of the legitimate owner of any physical medium on which a copyrighted work is contained, to transfer ownership of that physical medium over to any other person without seeking the copyright holder's permission.
Normally this doctrine only applies in cases where no additional copies of that copyrighted work were made. But in the case of computer software, additional copies may also be made for the purpose of running the software on a computer or for emergency backup purposes. But such copies must also be either destroyed, or else included along with the transfer of ownership of the original physical medium.