2.7 Million? If the reports of them only selling under 200,000 units are true, this may be like 80% of their profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyb0731
That's not 80% of their profits, that's more than the revenue they took in period
Hmmm let's see. $2,700,000 divided by 200,000 is $13.5 revenue per computer sold... on average. Hell, how did they ever expect to be profitable selling them so cheap?
Basic arithmetic tells me Sheffs comment is more likely the accurate assessment... closer to reality. DOH!
Hmmm let's see. $2,700,000 divided by 200,000 is $13.5 revenue per computer sold... on average. Hell, how did they ever expect to be profitable selling them so cheap?
Basic arithmetic tells me Sheffs comment is more likely the truth. DOH!
Read the other replies about how many they have actually sold and then do the math.
Hmmm let's see. $2,700,000 divided by 200,000 is $13.5 revenue per computer sold... on average. Hell, how did they ever expect to be profitable selling them so cheap?
Basic arithmetic tells me Sheffs comment is more likely the accurate assessment... closer to reality. DOH!
Well now I'm reading a post that says they sold 768 units. WTF?!?! I guess that will teach me for believing something I read on the internet....
Well now I'm reading a post that says they sold 768 units. WTF?!?! I guess that will teach me for believing something I read on the internet....
Even at 200k units if we figure out net profit per actual unit sold, minus legal fees and operation costs, for a start up trying to make a name and trying to convince potential investors that they can move a lot of product, there really is no way they have this kind of money from sales.
17 months, millions of dollars in damages and attorney fees - all just to figure out what any grade schooler with common sense could tell you? Putting someone else's lunch in your own lunchbox doesn't change the fact that you stole someone's lunch.
haha this is a great comment.
Its so true to.. what could they have possibly expected to happen? Their business is literally based around pirating and hacking.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't this set a bad precedent about the enforceability of EULAs. So, if I buy a copy of OSX and violate some term in it (e.g. put it on a non-Apple branded PC), they can go after me. I don't know if I like the sound of that, not just with Apple but all software companies with these EULA you have to "agree to".
Not that I'm condoning Psystar or anything. Just worried this is a step in the wrong direction even if it is in favor of our beloved Apple this time.
I dunno.. If I had a company, I wouldn't mind people agreeing to something saying they couldn't steal my work..
Here's a thought: What if the mystery backer is actually Apple? Then all the weird gyrations Psystar did in the courts makes a bit more sense. Now Apple has legal backing for its EULA.
...and maybe I need to put my tin-foil hat back on.
Here's a thought: What if the mystery backer is actually Apple? Then all the weird gyrations Psystar did in the courts makes a bit more sense. Now Apple has legal backing for its EULA.
...and maybe I need to put my tin-foil hat back on.
It?s more likely than it being Microsoft, as some of have theorized since Apple licensing OS X would be the worst thing for MS? Windows profits.
Dear Mr. Gates. I am the CEO of Psystar and have been in need of some assistance. I am currently going to be unemployed . Since you dislike Apple (Steve ) so much I was wondering if you could hire a couple hundred attorneys to help me with the current legal issues with Apple (steve). I know that as a team we can beat apple and I can continue my pathetic attemp at thinking I can sell a product that I stole from some one else that was giving it away. In addition I also promise to start selling your windows at an outrageous price and make my machines cheaper to sell more of my product. I would also ask if you would be willing to fund my cause as I venture over to China to set up my Company there so I can sell my Rebel EFI to stupid people. We can make a killing. Thank you for your time and hope to talk to you soon. Have a great day. Really I mean it. OK?
Ruling in favor of Apple. Psystar "thank you sir may I have another" Pay up Psystar. "Thank you sir I cannot give another. I noticed that my companies name is a mispel. Missppell, mississippi spel. Potatoe, Potatto, Pottatoe, Potato.
It shows that there isn't that much of a market for PCs running MacOS without Apple's consent.
I think the problem is that people aren't willing to buy a whole new computer from a relatively unknown and untrusted distributor solely for the purpose of running OS X unreliably. Psystar seems to have discovered this and it's why they are now pushing their Rebel EFI, which doesn't require people to buy whole new computers.
Consumers just want the best value for money and typically that means the newest, fastest, most features for the least amount of money. The latest hardware is Core i7 and you can buy a PC with it for around $1100 whereas a Core i7 iMac is $2200.
Now the iMac has a 27" LED backlit IPS screen, which is worth the money but then it comes down to choice. The consumer may not need/want a glossy 27" IPS but is happy with a 22" IPS from Dell for $300. Still an $800 saving over an iMac. But, their film course at university may require Final Cut Studio. Rebel EFI will give them the best value if it's $50-100 or so.
The fine Psystar has rightly been landed with could wipe them out entirely but it might be pocket change to their backers and at the same time, it's given them a lot of publicity. EFI-X already lets you boot OS X but few people know about it or where to get it. If Psystar had only ever had the EFI chip, they'd be the same. I don't see how Apple can prevent the sale of Rebel EFI so Psystar might live on and with a huge amount of people using netbooks, they might turn a decent profit.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't this set a bad precedent about the enforceability of EULAs. So, if I buy a copy of OSX and violate some term in it (e.g. put it on a non-Apple branded PC), they can go after me. I don't know if I like the sound of that, not just with Apple but all software companies with these EULA you have to "agree to".
Not that I'm condoning Psystar or anything. Just worried this is a step in the wrong direction even if it is in favor of our beloved Apple this time.
Newflash: the precedent regarding the enforceability of EULAs backed by DMCA code was set by Blizzard vs MDY Industries well over a year ago.
Furthermore this is not what either case dictated. Both cases involved people trying to profit from their violations of the EULA and violating the DMCA to do it.
Neither case said that a company had the right to "go after you" if you violate the EULA under First sale doctrine but they have the right to cut off or refuse to provide any service they would provide to someone who didn't violated the EULA.
Hurry up - go bankrupt, stiff apple & attorneys on the money, then release your bootloader open source so the hackers can continue with even more hackintoshes for free
I think the problem is that people aren't willing to buy a whole new computer from a relatively unknown and untrusted distributor solely for the purpose of running OS X unreliably. Psystar seems to have discovered this and it's why they are now pushing their Rebel EFI, which doesn't require people to buy whole new computers.
Consumers just want the best value for money and typically that means the newest, fastest, most features for the least amount of money. The latest hardware is Core i7 and you can buy a PC with it for around $1100 whereas a Core i7 iMac is $2200.
Now the iMac has a 27" LED backlit IPS screen, which is worth the money but then it comes down to choice. The consumer may not need/want a glossy 27" IPS but is happy with a 22" IPS from Dell for $300.
So they get a Macmini at $600 sheesh. I would hardly trust anything important to something that might as well been put together by the computer equivalent of Dr. Victor Frankenstein. (Hackintosh boots up) "It's Alive." (Rolling beach ball of death) "Ok, it needs work."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Still an $800 saving over an iMac. But, their film course at university may require Final Cut Studio. Rebel EFI will give them the best value if it's $50-100 or so.
Assuming they have a configuration that Rebel EFI supports. Also there are claims that Rebel EFI is an outright copy of software that is free. Wonderful. Why support these clowns in any manner?
If so this is great news for developers (like me), and fairly awful for the public. What other industry is there where you can basically force people to tick a box to say they agree that if the product doesn't work, destroys there system etc you cant get your money back or claim compensation.
Back on topic, you could always tell it was going to end this way. Shame though as in the end its Apples customers that loose out. No competition for Apple means they can continue to overcharge for RAM, build machines lacking in USB ports and generally just do whatever they want to save money.
Comments
2.7 Million? If the reports of them only selling under 200,000 units are true, this may be like 80% of their profits.
That's not 80% of their profits, that's more than the revenue they took in period
Hmmm let's see. $2,700,000 divided by 200,000 is $13.5 revenue per computer sold... on average. Hell, how did they ever expect to be profitable selling them so cheap?
Basic arithmetic tells me Sheffs comment is more likely the accurate assessment... closer to reality. DOH!
Hmmm let's see. $2,700,000 divided by 200,000 is $13.5 revenue per computer sold... on average. Hell, how did they ever expect to be profitable selling them so cheap?
Basic arithmetic tells me Sheffs comment is more likely the truth. DOH!
Read the other replies about how many they have actually sold and then do the math.
Hmmm let's see. $2,700,000 divided by 200,000 is $13.5 revenue per computer sold... on average. Hell, how did they ever expect to be profitable selling them so cheap?
Basic arithmetic tells me Sheffs comment is more likely the accurate assessment... closer to reality. DOH!
Well now I'm reading a post that says they sold 768 units. WTF?!?! I guess that will teach me for believing something I read on the internet....
Well now I'm reading a post that says they sold 768 units. WTF?!?! I guess that will teach me for believing something I read on the internet....
Even at 200k units if we figure out net profit per actual unit sold, minus legal fees and operation costs, for a start up trying to make a name and trying to convince potential investors that they can move a lot of product, there really is no way they have this kind of money from sales.
For one thing, how would it ever come to Apple's attention?
Steve is having his RDF retuned for just this purpose.
17 months, millions of dollars in damages and attorney fees - all just to figure out what any grade schooler with common sense could tell you? Putting someone else's lunch in your own lunchbox doesn't change the fact that you stole someone's lunch.
haha this is a great comment.
Its so true to.. what could they have possibly expected to happen? Their business is literally based around pirating and hacking.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't this set a bad precedent about the enforceability of EULAs. So, if I buy a copy of OSX and violate some term in it (e.g. put it on a non-Apple branded PC), they can go after me. I don't know if I like the sound of that, not just with Apple but all software companies with these EULA you have to "agree to".
Not that I'm condoning Psystar or anything. Just worried this is a step in the wrong direction even if it is in favor of our beloved Apple this time.
I dunno.. If I had a company, I wouldn't mind people agreeing to something saying they couldn't steal my work..
haha this is a great comment.
Its so true to.. what could they have possibly expected to happen? Their business is literally based around pirating and hacking.
Steve is having his RDF retuned for just this purpose.
Interesting. Sort of like echolocation?
Holy shit, Steve's a dolphin.
...and maybe I need to put my tin-foil hat back on.
Here's a thought: What if the mystery backer is actually Apple? Then all the weird gyrations Psystar did in the courts makes a bit more sense. Now Apple has legal backing for its EULA.
...and maybe I need to put my tin-foil hat back on.
It?s more likely than it being Microsoft, as some of have theorized since Apple licensing OS X would be the worst thing for MS? Windows profits.
Ruling in favor of Apple. Psystar "thank you sir may I have another" Pay up Psystar. "Thank you sir I cannot give another. I noticed that my companies name is a mispel. Missppell, mississippi spel. Potatoe, Potatto, Pottatoe, Potato.
Interesting. Sort of like echolocation?
Holy shit, Steve's a dolphin.
Even better. A neutrino blast projected directly from Steve's mind to your desktop will cause your Hackintosh to implode.
That's the real reason why he spent all that time in the hospital. Now it can be told!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-03vYYAjA
It shows that there isn't that much of a market for PCs running MacOS without Apple's consent.
I think the problem is that people aren't willing to buy a whole new computer from a relatively unknown and untrusted distributor solely for the purpose of running OS X unreliably. Psystar seems to have discovered this and it's why they are now pushing their Rebel EFI, which doesn't require people to buy whole new computers.
Consumers just want the best value for money and typically that means the newest, fastest, most features for the least amount of money. The latest hardware is Core i7 and you can buy a PC with it for around $1100 whereas a Core i7 iMac is $2200.
Now the iMac has a 27" LED backlit IPS screen, which is worth the money but then it comes down to choice. The consumer may not need/want a glossy 27" IPS but is happy with a 22" IPS from Dell for $300. Still an $800 saving over an iMac. But, their film course at university may require Final Cut Studio. Rebel EFI will give them the best value if it's $50-100 or so.
The fine Psystar has rightly been landed with could wipe them out entirely but it might be pocket change to their backers and at the same time, it's given them a lot of publicity. EFI-X already lets you boot OS X but few people know about it or where to get it. If Psystar had only ever had the EFI chip, they'd be the same. I don't see how Apple can prevent the sale of Rebel EFI so Psystar might live on and with a huge amount of people using netbooks, they might turn a decent profit.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't this set a bad precedent about the enforceability of EULAs. So, if I buy a copy of OSX and violate some term in it (e.g. put it on a non-Apple branded PC), they can go after me. I don't know if I like the sound of that, not just with Apple but all software companies with these EULA you have to "agree to".
Not that I'm condoning Psystar or anything. Just worried this is a step in the wrong direction even if it is in favor of our beloved Apple this time.
Newflash: the precedent regarding the enforceability of EULAs backed by DMCA code was set by Blizzard vs MDY Industries well over a year ago.
Furthermore this is not what either case dictated. Both cases involved people trying to profit from their violations of the EULA and violating the DMCA to do it.
Neither case said that a company had the right to "go after you" if you violate the EULA under First sale doctrine but they have the right to cut off or refuse to provide any service they would provide to someone who didn't violated the EULA.
I think the problem is that people aren't willing to buy a whole new computer from a relatively unknown and untrusted distributor solely for the purpose of running OS X unreliably. Psystar seems to have discovered this and it's why they are now pushing their Rebel EFI, which doesn't require people to buy whole new computers.
Consumers just want the best value for money and typically that means the newest, fastest, most features for the least amount of money. The latest hardware is Core i7 and you can buy a PC with it for around $1100 whereas a Core i7 iMac is $2200.
Now the iMac has a 27" LED backlit IPS screen, which is worth the money but then it comes down to choice. The consumer may not need/want a glossy 27" IPS but is happy with a 22" IPS from Dell for $300.
So they get a Macmini at $600 sheesh. I would hardly trust anything important to something that might as well been put together by the computer equivalent of Dr. Victor Frankenstein. (Hackintosh boots up) "It's Alive." (Rolling beach ball of death) "Ok, it needs work."
Still an $800 saving over an iMac. But, their film course at university may require Final Cut Studio. Rebel EFI will give them the best value if it's $50-100 or so.
Assuming they have a configuration that Rebel EFI supports. Also there are claims that Rebel EFI is an outright copy of software that is free. Wonderful. Why support these clowns in any manner?
If so this is great news for developers (like me), and fairly awful for the public. What other industry is there where you can basically force people to tick a box to say they agree that if the product doesn't work, destroys there system etc you cant get your money back or claim compensation.
Back on topic, you could always tell it was going to end this way. Shame though as in the end its Apples customers that loose out. No competition for Apple means they can continue to overcharge for RAM, build machines lacking in USB ports and generally just do whatever they want to save money.