Clone Mac maker Psystar loses to Apple in attempted court appeal

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 39
    2oh12oh1 Posts: 503member
    It's hard to seriously discuss the clones of that era (mid/late 90s) because there was no reason for the Mac to increase market share. The Mac lineup was a disaster. Performas? Please. OS8? Get outa' town. What a mess. I'm a Mac guy going all the way back to the Quadra and then the 7100. But Apple in the 90s was a disaster. There was no way clones could do anything other than eat up the sales of Macs back then. It wasn't like it is today, where people are switching to the Mac. Back then, people were leaving.



    The iMac was the beginning of turning it around. OSX, even more so. iPods? Even more so.



    The fact that Apple killed off clones has a lot to do with the success of the walled garden approach today. It's why Apple is probably close to releasing the iPad 3, meanwhile nobody else has even matched the iPad 2.
  • Reply 22 of 39
    kolchakkolchak Posts: 1,398member
    Even if Psystar had won, they would be irrelevant. Installing Snow Leopard or Lion on properly selected non-Apple hardware has become much easier in the last couple of years. It still isn't easy enough for the general public, but it's easier than installing Linux and in some cases, almost as easy as installing on a genuine Mac.
  • Reply 23 of 39
    Still waiting to hear who is really paying the legal bills for this farce--which of Apple's enemies is the man behind the curtain?
  • Reply 24 of 39
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    So by the time Apple made a high end machine, a lot of customers already bought one from a clone maker.



    I don't think it qualified as "a lot" by even the most generous description.



    Power Computing certainly sold a fair but very small amount back in the day, but no other clone maker could ever lay claim to literally have cut into any Apple product's share. That would be a hypothetical and theoretical claim for legal purposes, and I support its position, but it didn't actually occur by any stretch since they pulled the liscense from Power Computing. (I actually bought my mom a Motorola Mac clone during the "sneeze and you'll miss it" timeframe they were sold. Don't remember ever seeing another in civilization then or since.)
  • Reply 25 of 39
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    Still waiting to hear who is really paying the legal bills for this farce--which of Apple's enemies is the man behind the curtain?



    Imagine how hilarious it would be if it was revealed to be Samsung.
  • Reply 26 of 39
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,114member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    I really doubt that. As a matter of fact, I'd bet money against it happening, especially with Apple's position today. Steve Jobs was really pissed at those clone makers and he even used a curse word during that keynote, something that you normally don't see during an Apple keynote.



    Shoulda had George Carlin as a consultant. The presentation would have been a lot more colorful.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL3bRyFrrG8
  • Reply 27 of 39
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post


    It's hard to seriously discuss the clones of that era (mid/late 90s) because there was no reason for the Mac to increase market share. The Mac lineup was a disaster. Performas? Please. OS8? Get outa' town. What a mess. I'm a Mac guy going all the way back to the Quadra and then the 7100. But Apple in the 90s was a disaster. There was no way clones could do anything other than eat up the sales of Macs back then. It wasn't like it is today, where people are switching to the Mac. Back then, people were leaving.



    The iMac was the beginning of turning it around. OSX, even more so. iPods? Even more so.



    The fact that Apple killed off clones has a lot to do with the success of the walled garden approach today. It's why Apple is probably close to releasing the iPad 3, meanwhile nobody else has even matched the iPad 2.



    I remember buying a Power Computing Mac clone. The machine specs were much better than Apple's but Apple software just wouldn't work on the clones. It crashed so much I was determine to switch to Windows (It was a moment of desperation). I thought it was Apple's software until I got a good deal on a real Mac and it never crashed. It was the clones fault all the time.



    That was 1999-2001 and I've never fell off the wagon again. I love my Macs because they work as long as you stick to Apple's software or dedicated Mac developers. Windows ports and Adobe crapware will make any MacOS unstable.
  • Reply 28 of 39
    Samsung is next!
  • Reply 29 of 39
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    No it doesn't. It just takes deep pockets.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post


    It takes a fearless frame of mind to even start a company like Psystar so it does not surprise me that they fearlessly battled (and lost) in court.



  • Reply 30 of 39
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Of course Apple can continue to restrict it's own software to it's own hardware. Just because Microsoft has a certain business model doesn't mean everyone else has to too. Thanks Judge.
  • Reply 31 of 39
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    Of course Apple can continue to restrict it's own software to it's own hardware...



    And IMO this is Apple's biggest strength. It makes it easier to innovate and stabilize integration when your customers are all using the same gear, and the customer trust it.
  • Reply 32 of 39
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 33 of 39
    Surely, the opposite of this scenario is VMWare Fusion/Parallels/Boot Camp.



    So why is it OK to run Windows on a Mac but not run OSX on a PC? If you or a company buys OSX they should be allowed to use it on a system of their choice as they have paid the licence.
  • Reply 34 of 39
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 35 of 39
    diddydiddy Posts: 282member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Evilution View Post


    Surely, the opposite of this scenario is VMWare Fusion/Parallels/Boot Camp.



    So why is it OK to run Windows on a Mac but not run OSX on a PC? I



    Microsoft's Licenses explicitly allows you to do this - Apple's license explicitly does not.
  • Reply 36 of 39
    When Jobs returned, he realized that the unique strength/opportunity for Apple lie in controlling the user experience end-to-end, OS AND hardware. There was much quality and ease of use to be realized there as opposed to the rest of the PC market. That's why the clones were killed, imho. It's called "vertical integration", and they've been wildly successful with it. Normally that would also get the attention of the Anti-Trust lawyers, but since Apple was such an underdog compared to WinTel, they had cover. Wonder if that might eventually change?
  • Reply 37 of 39
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Naboozle View Post


    When Jobs returned, he realized that the unique strength/opportunity for Apple lie in controlling the user experience end-to-end, OS AND hardware. There was much quality and ease of use to be realized there as opposed to the rest of the PC market.



    I am more willing to bet that Jobs realized that it was stupid to compete with a convicted monopolist using the same sales tactics without the illegal tactics that MS employed. The fact that it was vertical integration wasn?t really unique - Apple did that (along with most computer companies) for a long time



    Quote:

    That's why the clones were killed, imho. It's called "vertical integration", and they've been wildly successful with it. Normally that would also get the attention of the Anti-Trust lawyers, but since Apple was such an underdog compared to WinTel, they had cover. Wonder if that might eventually change?



    Not really likely. It takes some very specific things to prompt an anti-trust. One of the easiest ways is to to use one uniquely specific market monopoly (like the PC computer market) to gain another monopoly in another unrelated market. Apple has lots of popular products, but non of them illegal serve to gain a monopoly or to prop up another. Monopolies alone aren?t a problem. Apple can even have several monopolies (arguably they don?t and the courts have never ruled any of Apple?s products that way either). It?s how you get those monopolies and what you do with them. Right now, Apple just has several popular products, but they are in no way preventing a company from legally competing with them - in fact pretty much every product that Apple has a market product in, their are several competitors and the markets have been shown to be quite active - the opposite environment of an anti-trust situation. You have to basically be a Microsoft or have Google search marketshare numbers before the government looks at you.



    And all that implies that the government is interested in enforcing the Sherman Anti-trust laws - something that I haven?t seen the government judicial bodies interested in per suing as of late. It?s possible, but so are lots of other things.
  • Reply 38 of 39
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,121member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post


    I don't think it qualified as "a lot" by even the most generous description.



    Power Computing certainly sold a fair but very small amount back in the day, but no other clone maker could ever lay claim to literally have cut into any Apple product's share. That would be a hypothetical and theoretical claim for legal purposes, and I support its position, but it didn't actually occur by any stretch since they pulled the liscense from Power Computing. (I actually bought my mom a Motorola Mac clone during the "sneeze and you'll miss it" timeframe they were sold. Don't remember ever seeing another in civilization then or since.)



    It was a lot. I'm not saying it was a majority. But Apple's sales had dropped to 3.3 million machines, and clones were several hundred thousand a year, mostly, mid and high end machines. That qualifies as a lot. I even bought a SuperMac to try out in my place. It was pretty good. But there were still some odd things about the clones that were hard to understand. For example, you couldn't use the "c" key to start from a CD. You needed some multiple key combo to do that, which I've now forgotten.



    I had also purchased a Sony 900 24" widescreen monitor, the first of it's kind, as a relabeled Power Computing model for $1,000 less than Sony's model, which came with a calibration unit which I already had.
  • Reply 39 of 39
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,121member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Evilution View Post


    Surely, the opposite of this scenario is VMWare Fusion/Parallels/Boot Camp.



    So why is it OK to run Windows on a Mac but not run OSX on a PC? If you or a company buys OSX they should be allowed to use it on a system of their choice as they have paid the licence.



    You get a license to run it on Apple branded hardware. I don't see the problem. Apple isn't in the business of selling OS's to everyone as is Microsoft. Apple has their OS to make their hardware desirable. They sell it at a price that's well below what MS sells theirs for. If Apple sold OS X to everyone, it might sell for $299, like MS's Ultimate. But it never sold for more than $129, and for two upgrades running has sold for only $29.99. That's a giveaway.



    What people should be asking is why MS sells their software for so much. People complain publicly about Apple's pricing and profits, but not about MS's, which is much more.



    If someone really wants a Mac, they should buy one, and stop complaining. If they don't want to pay the price, they can get a refurb from Apple.
Sign In or Register to comment.