Psystar accuses Apple of anti-competitive tactics in countersuit

1568101113

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 254
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    There's no point arguing with you when you simply fail to read what I write. All the questions you "challenge" me to answer I ALREADY HAVE. Your "arguments" are devoid of logic and packed with opinion. Until you learn how to have a civilized discussion, consider your blabbing ignored.



    You're not going to respond to my comments? Finally, something you say that I can support!



    And thanks for clarifying that you think I'm an idiot, it was pretty comical when you denied that.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    I have not heard of any such rule. Please provide court cases of this.



    Or you could provide an example of a company with small market share getting busted for "tying" or other "anti-competitive" or "monopolistic" (not to be confused with "monopoly"! ) business practices?



    I'll save you some time: you can't. Such cases don't exist.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Zune software doesn't exist for the Mac. The infrastructure doesn't exist for Zune operability on a Mac.



    It doesn't exist because MS hasn't created it. You think that's because MS can't do it, not because they chose not to do it?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    The infrastructure is there, OS X can run on generic hardware, the only thing preventing it is Apple's EULA.



    WRONG. It is prevented because you can't just stick an OSX install disk into a PC and install it without a hack.



    And Psystar has to use the hacks, meaning they are distributing a hacked version of OSX, meaning they are violating copyright law.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Halo 3 is compiled to work with XBox hardware/software. OS X is compiled to work on the x86 instruction set and, subsequently, any Intel-compatible hardware.



    Again, buy a dell and pop in an OSX install disk. Does it install? No. You need a hack of some sort. Maybe some would consider it a minor or simple hack, but a hack nonetheless. A mac might be REALLY REALLY close to generic PC hardware, but strictly speaking, it's different enough that an unmodified OSX disk won't install.



    To install OSX, you either need to hack the OS (copyright violation) or hack the hardware (I suspect a patent violation).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Copyright infringement? Yes, Psystar is guilty.



    So if we agree they're guilty of that, meaning they can't sell the machines any more, WHO CARES about the other aspect of the case.



    If they lose both, they can't sell machines.

    If they lose the copyright side but win the EULA side, THEY STILL CAN'T SELL MACHINES.



    So why all the ranting about TWO SEPARATE ISSUES!!!!?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    The only thing "legally" preventing me from using one with the other is Apple's EULA.



    Nope, wrong again. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that using OSX on a generic PC, you have to hack the OS, violating Apple's copyright?
  • Reply 142 of 254
    matt_smatt_s Posts: 299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    And yet, you can't install OSX on a generic box without a hack.



    There are very few things that must be changed to allow OS X to run on x86 hardware. Starting with the EFI layer so that the kernel can make EFI calls to a system that otherwise only responds to BIOS calls is one of them, and that's not hacking in any way.



    Second, a kext must be loaded to decrypt protected binaries (that would be an Apple-provided arbitrary restriction). Protected binaries include the Finder, and Dock and some others.



    The only reason for encrypted binaries is to prevent the OS from running on non-Mac hardware. Only Macs have the SMC chip (system management controller), and only Macs have a specific encryption key in that chip. A kernel extension reads out that key and uses it to decrypt specific binaries.



    I'm not convinced that a court of law would consider this "hacking."



    Some would consider this Apple system exclusionary and illegal. It may be viewed as meeting the definition of tying in anti-trust, and it'll definitely be interesting to see what the court has to say!
  • Reply 143 of 254
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by matt_s View Post


    I'm not convinced that a court of law would consider this "hacking."



    OSX is copyrighted material. You think that a copyright law that forbids distribution of altered versions of copyrighted material would allow it if those changes are arguably small? I don't buy that.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by matt_s View Post


    Some would consider this Apple system exclusionary and illegal.



    I suspect those "some" are mainly people who know zilch about copyright law but wish they could get a mac cheaper. Honestly, you think ANYONE in the legal profession would consider a company creating their own hardware product and their own software product such that they only work together to be illegal? Wow.
  • Reply 144 of 254
    wobegonwobegon Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by webhead View Post


    I wasn't saying Apple had to sell OSX to the competition, only that Apple may not have as clear cut right to specify that OSX can only be installed on Apple hardware as has been thought before. Yes we pay for a liscence when we purchase OSX, but is it legal that the liscence specifies what harware we can install OSX on? Your analogy of the Xbox and playstation is flawed as those devices do not sell their operating systems separately as does Apple with OSX. If you could only get OSX by buying a brand new Mac then I would agree with you. But OSX is sold separately. If the Xbox and Platsyation and all the others did sell thier OS publically to any consumer then I bet there would be similar arguments about what hardware that OS could run on. Because Apple sells OSX separately from the mac computer, even as a liscence, does that preclude them from telling me what hardware I can use once I pay my money? I'm not so sure, this is a grey area the courts will have to sort out. If I buy a DVD player from JVC does JVC have the right make me enter into a liscencing agreement that states what TV I can use or what DVD I can watch?



    Apple provides Mac OS X licenses to Mac users who want to upgrade their Macs to the most current version of Mac OS X. It isn't sold everywhere, only in Apple stores and certified Mac resellers. How else is Apple supposed to provide their users with major reference releases of OS X? Software Update? Millions of little USB flash drives? Magic?



    If you wanna run OS X on non-Apple hardware, it is possible, but obviously Apple doesn't officially condone it because Apple has legal, exclusive rights to the operating system and the hardware OS X runs on (because they are the creators of said hardware and software).



    When people try to profit off Apple's operating system by bundling it with clone hardware, that is intellectual property theft.



    Psystar is, in effect, copying what Macs are.
  • Reply 145 of 254
    matt_smatt_s Posts: 299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    OSX is copyrighted material.



    What of the copyright are they supposedly violating?



    Apple does not own EFI, and loading a kext certainly isn't violating anyone's copyrights.
  • Reply 146 of 254
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    {more blah blah blah}



    This response embodies the reason I won't dignify your sputtering with an answer. Your "response" conveniently neglected to quote the portions of my post that answer questions you ask me to address!



    It's also clear you don't understand the underpinnings of software or hardware so your definition of "hacking" is probably as hyperbolistic as a paranoid senior citizen's.



    Unless you know, don't comment.



    -Clive
  • Reply 147 of 254
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post




    The infrastructure is there, OS X can run on generic hardware, the only thing preventing it is Apple's EULA.



    WRONG. OS X can only run on generic hardware if it is modified or a specialized bootloader is run first in order to trick the OS X installer into believing that it is running on genuine Apple hardware. this is in direct violation of US law (DMCA). See my previous post.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Halo 3 is compiled to work with XBox hardware/software. OS X is compiled to work on the x86 instruction set and, subsequently, any Intel-compatible hardware.



    Again, read my previous comment.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    I bought my copy of OS X in an Apple Store. I bought my hardware from aBit, Hitachi, ASUS, OCZ, etc. My hardware is as similar to Apple's as any x86 machine is to another. The only thing "legally" preventing me from using one with the other is Apple's EULA.



    That and the fact that you are breaking the law by violating the DMCA by modding OS X or using other mechanisms to circumvent copyright protection systems. Please familiarize yourself with the law.





    Also, to you and others arguing that it is OK to use OS X on whatever hardware you choose because you bought your own copy of OS X at an Apple Store, keep in mind that Apple is required by law to charge for new versions of OS X. This is due to the way that Apple does accounting for the Mac. It is the same reason that upgrades which add new functionality to the iPhone are free, while they incur a fee when obtained for the iPod Touch. Since the law requires them to sell OS X rather than give it away, it can't be used as an argument that "because it is for sale, I can run it on whatever hardware I want." To learn more, familiarize yourself with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SarBox).







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    First, you WOULD need the Wii OS because the game is compiled for it. You can use an emulator to trick a game into seeing the appropriate sw/hw, which I'm pretty sure is what you're talking about with the PlayStation. Emulators are allowed under fair use if and only if you own the console and you own the game.



    WRONG AGAIN. This has nothing to do with "fair use". The DMCA only allows you circumvention to make emulators under the exemptions issued in November 2006
    "Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. "
  • Reply 148 of 254
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by matt_s View Post


    There are very few things that must be changed to allow OS X to run on x86 hardware. Starting with the EFI layer so that the kernel can make EFI calls to a system that otherwise only responds to BIOS calls is one of them, and that's not hacking in any way.



    Second, a kext must be loaded to decrypt protected binaries (that would be an Apple-provided arbitrary restriction). Protected binaries include the Finder, and Dock and some others.



    The only reason for encrypted binaries is to prevent the OS from running on non-Mac hardware. Only Macs have the SMC chip (system management controller), and only Macs have a specific encryption key in that chip. A kernel extension reads out that key and uses it to decrypt specific binaries.



    I'm not convinced that a court of law would consider this "hacking."



    And it is exactly these "very few things that must be changed to allow OS X to run on x86 hardware" that make it illegal. It is called "circumvention of copyright protection systems" and is discussed in detail in chapters 12 and 13 of the DMCA which is a US Law. Case closed.
  • Reply 149 of 254
    matt_smatt_s Posts: 299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by karlfranz View Post


    Case closed.



    Whew! Thanks, Karl... now Apple & Pystar won't have to go to court at all! What a time saver you turned out to be!



    Apple doesn't own EFI, and again, loading a kext into the system can hardly be described as violating copyrights. If so, loading Pref files - something virtually all apps do - would have to be considered as such. I can't find the logic here.



    But fortunately, that's what we have courts for - to iron out these questions, and to sometimes create even more!
  • Reply 150 of 254
    As much fun as arguing this is, the Hackintosh users have a vested interest. They want it to be accepted as a standard that Mac OSX is a separate entity to the hardware on which it is designed to run (and it is clearly not designed to run on a generic computer otherwise you wouldn't need to trick it to do otherwise), just like Linux and Windows. For them it is about getting the mac experience on the cheap.



    Those of us who use macs know that it is more than the OS, which is ultimately just a GUI and some programming frameworks (some very good ones mind you) over a Unix core. The experience of a Mac is a computer system where hardware and software a designed to work together, not forced to work together with some proprietary drivers.



    And while Mac OSX is significant cheaper than Windows, that cheaper price is because we have already ponied up the cash for a Mac and so it is somewhat subsidised. So be glad all you Mac users that you are subsidising the Hackintosh users out there with your hardware purchases.



    I'm sure Apple has an answer to this up their sleeves. If Apple wanted clones there would be clones, they have tried it and like I said they almost died off in the process.
  • Reply 151 of 254
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by matt_s View Post


    Whew! Thanks, Karl... now Apple & Pystar won't have to go to court at all! What a time saver you turned out to be!



    Apple doesn't own EFI, and again, loading a kext into the system can hardly be described as violating copyrights. If so, loading Pref files - something virtually all apps do - would have to be considered as such. I can't find the logic here.



    But fortunately, that's what we have courts for - to iron out these questions, and to sometimes create even more!



    Wow, thanks for the subtle sarcasm, Matt! However, if you fail to see how the little matter of using the Mac's encryption keys to decrypt specific binaries in OS X is a violation of law, you my want to lay off the Kool Aid. I like how you trivialize this bit of information:
    "Well, your honor, "borrowing" the encryption keys from the plaintiff's systems and using them in a kernel extension in order to run their copyright protected and encrypted software on our hardware without their consent is hardly a violation of copyright."
    Kind of sounds similar to:
    "Well, your honor, taking my boss' keys and making copies at Ace Hardware so that I could go into his house while he's at work, grab his jewelry and sell it at a pawn shop is hardly considered theft."
  • Reply 152 of 254
    davidwdavidw Posts: 975member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    I have not heard of any such rule. Please provide court cases of this.



    It's the lack of court cases that proves my point. MS has been selling the Xbox at a loss since day one. For what. To gain market share in the gaming console market. Yet, no lawsuits. Why not? Because MS does not hold a controlling share of the gaming console market. If they had over 70 % of the market they would not be allowed to do this.







    Quote:

    Zune software doesn't exist for the Mac. The infrastructure doesn't exist for Zune operability on a Mac. The same can't be said about OS X and hardware. The infrastructure is there, OS X can run on generic hardware, the only thing preventing it is Apple's EULA.



    This has nothing to do with the tying of products. Which I was replying to. MS is tying the Zune to Windows. Other lesser companies can make their MP3 players availble for both OSX and Windows. MS should be able to do the same.







    Quote:

    Halo 3 is compiled to work with XBox hardware/software. OS X is compiled to work on the x86 instruction set and, subsequently, any Intel-compatible hardware.



    You mean you can make it work on any generic Intel-compatible hardware. OSX doesn't do that out of the box. A good hacker also make Halo3 work on a PC. Even if it's only software emulation. That doesn't make it legal to do.





    Quote:

    There are two separate issues here! How many times to do I need to explain that? Copyright infringement? Yes, Psystar is guilty. There's also the conviction of EULA violation, which Psystar is fighting with the anti-competition claim. So, yes, Apple IS forcing the user of OS "A" to use hardware "C" via their anti-competitive EULA, even if the user would rather be using hardware "B." How is this so hard to understand?



    What so hard to understand is how you reach the conclusion that Apple is some how engaged in an anti-competitive practice. Even without the EULA, you can not load OSX into a generic PC without you modifying the software before it installs. This is an infringement of Apple copyright.



    Quote:

    I get your Psystar correlation and their lack of a Licensing agreement, but it's only one example of where Apple is preventing hardware sales from other manufacturers by tying OS X to their own HW. I bought my copy of OS X in an Apple Store. I bought my hardware from aBit, Hitachi, ASUS, OCZ, etc. My hardware is as similar to Apple's as any x86 machine is to another. The only thing "legally" preventing me from using one with the other is Apple's EULA.



    THAT'S anti-competitive.



    Wrong, what's legally preventing you from loading OSX into your generic PC is the infringment of Apple copyright on OSX. Even if you think you're not modifying it because the OSX DVD is still intact. You are modifying OSX in your PC before it installs.







    Quote:

    First, you WOULD need the Wii OS because the game is compiled for it. You can use an emulator to trick a game into seeing the appropriate sw/hw, which I'm pretty sure is what you're talking about with the PlayStation. Emulators are allowed under fair use if and only if you own the console and you own the game.



    There use to be a eprom chip that you could buy for around $10, that when soldered onto the PlayStation MB, would allow you to play burned games and other region code games. Gamers use to say that if they bought a Japanese game, they should be able to play it on their US Playstation. Or that they should be able to play back up game disc that they burned on a computer. Sony sued the makers/sellers of these mod chips. Sony won. How is this any different than you having to put in a CD, with a hack on it, before OSX will load into a generic PC?









    Quote:

    Once again, let's stick to just the EULA portion of the argument. We all know that Psystar is guilty of the copyright portion of the suit.



    Besides, owning a copyright on something does not permit you to use it anti-competitively.



    -Clive



    So you would think that George Lucus is being anti-competitive if he doesn't allow you to use his Star Wars characters in a comic book your writing?



    The whole point of getting something of value copyrighted is so that you can get a competitive edge on your rivals by owning something they can't have. And you shouldn't have to give it (the copyrighted material) up to level the playing field because your competitors crys foul.
  • Reply 153 of 254
    macarenamacarena Posts: 364member
    Might seem a bit far-fetched to think of now -- but me thinks, losing this case could be the BEST possible eventuality for Apple.



    Why? Apple can then say, well, the court forces us to sell Mac OS X for any one to use on any computer, so you can buy Mac OS X for $500 - and use it on any computer you want - However, there is absolutely no guarantee, implicit or explicit that the product will work - whether future upgrades will break your system or not, etc. We are only doing this, because the court offered us no alternative.



    This is the sort of thing which would give them some additional sales, wont impact on their dev costs or effort, wont force them to support tons of additional hardware, and at the same time increase the penetration of Mac OS X. Also - if they get $500 from the OS, it should more than make up for some of the cannibalization they would face in their hardware sales.



    However, despite the fact that this strategy works effectively for Apple, they CANNOT implement this on their own. It is too "customer unfriendly", and would attract a lot of negative publicity. However, if they painted this, as if they are doing this against their wishes, just because a court has ordered them to do it, they can come out the winners.



    I actually pray and hope Apple loses this lawsuit - this is the exact sort of impetus that can HELP Apple grow even faster, without getting bogged down.



    Officially sanctioned clones will end up hurting Apple - because they would cannibalize hardware sales, they would force Apple to support tons of new hardware, etc. This is the best case alternative for Apple.



    Apple wins if they win the case, and win even bigger if they lose the case!



    Nice place to be! Thanks, Psystar!
  • Reply 154 of 254
    macarenamacarena Posts: 364member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macarena View Post


    Apple wins if they win the case, and win even bigger if they lose the case!



    Actually, let me change that...



    Apple actually LOSES if it WINS the case.... because there is a segment of the Non-Mac community that actually might be interested in using non-Apple hardware with MacOS - for whatever reasons.



    If Apple wins this case, this entire community will actually be pissed off. Would ultimately be a PR loss for Apple. The people who have a Mac today, have already converted - this crowd is unlikely to ever use a clone to save a few hundred USD. But the yet-to-convert crowd might actually not convert, if Apple loses this case.



    I know it is kind of convoluted - but I think from a PR perspective, it is better for Apple to lose this case.
  • Reply 155 of 254
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Itself attacked for allegedly violating Apple's licenses, Psystar made offense its best defense on Tuesday when it filed a countering lawsuit in federal court, accusing the Mac maker of unfairly squeezing out possible rivals.



    rivals in what market. the computer hardware market. doubt they will win that. not with Dell etc out there.



    the computer operating system market. Apple ain't shut down Linux or Windows and has never said that Psystar can't make their own dang OS.



    I hope psystar goes bankrupt with this game.
  • Reply 156 of 254
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clement View Post


    I know, people will say, one more conspiracy theory but read me until the end and I am sure you will agree with me:



    I personally think that Psytar is just a front...



    Let's face it, most people would still buy Apple computers, even if Psytar was a legitimate business. So the financial interest of such a company is VERY limited.



    The point I made above is to show that I don't see a start-up of so little commercial interest having enough cash to sustain a lawsuit that might last quite a long time and be extremely costly. And all this for what ? just to get the right to become a "legal software hacker" ??? I don't believe any court would grant this but I can see how companies like Microsoft could be behind such a scam.



    Microsoft is essentially a software company (Zune and X-Box are just very small players in their business) so it would be natural for them to try to present Apple as a software company also because even if Apple is an integrated computing solutions company (combo hardware + software), Apple is stilling more and more their consumer section of the market and already started to dent into the business section too (without mentioning the education sector that is Apple's niche)



    My point here is that the main beneficiary of presenting Apple as a purely software company is not individual clone makers but Microsoft. Apple can't compete on the software only, we saw it during the era of the legal clones that had to come to an end or would have sunk Apple.



    If becoming a software company and allowing clones, Apple would not be able to compete with cheap computer makers and therefore would not be able to develop new hardware, this means, no new innovation (specialty of Microsoft by the way: do nothing new, consumers should be happy with what they have already and are anyway already demanding too much )



    When you buy a mac, that might be true that you pay a little more than the same hardware from a generic manufacturer but, you pay also for design, and mostly for the development of the NEXT mac !! When you buy software, you pay MUCH more than the media on which it is sold, or the packaging in which it is wrapped, you pay for the development of the next update and new software too.





    Microsoft wants to assert its monopoly on Operating Systems and sadly for them, they are loosing ground to Apple but HEY that's called competition !!!! (and OSX is better and CHEAPER than Windows). This is why I strongly suspect that the main beneficiary of Psytar is not Psytar but MICROSOFT !!!







    so conspiracy theory or logical reasoning ?




    No, Microsoft couldn't give a rats ass other than chuckle if Apple loses.



    DELL has a lot to gain if suddenly they can sell OS X capable boxes as the Vista ship sinks.
  • Reply 157 of 254
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Steve's son View Post


    Even if they were successful with the lawsuit, I would imagine the Mac community coming together and not purchasing there products. I also think this is more possible than most people think it is. I would presume they have figured the cost's out also, they probably have a large investor backing them of some sort. Who knows it could be a large computer manufacturing company.



    I am anxious to see how this turn's out.\





    very true. the higher cost of Apple's products comes from the rest of what is included in the package. I don't see Psystar having stores that can do 90% of the warranty service in house for customers. I don't see them running free workshops and having one of the cheapest costing training programs ever in their stores. I don't see them doing services like personal shopping or even free data migrations (a lifesaver for me when I switched computers).



    no, they are going to punch out a cheap machine, dump it in stores and be done with it.
  • Reply 158 of 254
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    It's the lack of court cases that proves my point. MS has been selling the Xbox at a loss since day one. For what. To gain market share in the gaming console market. Yet, no lawsuits. Why not? Because MS does not hold a controlling share of the gaming console market. If they had over 70 % of the market they would not be allowed to do this.



    The problem with that logic is the only ones that could sue are the other console makers since they are the only ones "harmed" by illegal loss leader sales. Since they all play that game tacitly, except for Nintendo who isn't strong enough to rock that boat, there aren't any lawsuits. They just collectively continue to beat each other with their consoles and pricing.





    Quote:

    There use to be a eprom chip that you could buy for around $10, that when soldered onto the PlayStation MB, would allow you to play burned games and other region code games. Gamers use to say that if they bought a Japanese game, they should be able to play it on their US Playstation. Or that they should be able to play back up game disc that they burned on a computer. Sony sued the makers/sellers of these mod chips. Sony won. How is this any different than you having to put in a CD, with a hack on it, before OSX will load into a generic PC?



    Good example!
  • Reply 159 of 254
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macarena View Post


    Actually, let me change that...



    Apple actually LOSES if it WINS the case.... because there is a segment of the Non-Mac community that actually might be interested in using non-Apple hardware with MacOS - for whatever reasons.



    If Apple wins this case, this entire community will actually be pissed off. Would ultimately be a PR loss for Apple. The people who have a Mac today, have already converted - this crowd is unlikely to ever use a clone to save a few hundred USD. But the yet-to-convert crowd might actually not convert, if Apple loses this case.



    I know it is kind of convoluted - but I think from a PR perspective, it is better for Apple to lose this case.



    That market has already decided they don't want to buy Apple hardware and it is quite small. Sure Apple looses a tiny amount, but it's like the mite bite on the back of the mosquito that still hasn't found a way to pierce the buffalo hide.



    Those that are willing to convert aren't hung up on particular hardware or software restrictions as long as the price is right. Those that can't convert because of hardware or software will eventually see their physical reason become utterly obsolete within a few years and then they join the previous group of having no show-stoppers.
  • Reply 160 of 254
    I don't know what Psystar is smoking (or their lawyers), but it has to be potent stuff. What good are EULA's if Psystar thinks they can do whatever they want with it. Think of the repercussions this would have for other hardware manufacturers and software writers if a EULA is so easily disregarded and absconded. In essence, I want this and that and to heck with your user agreement.



    Maybe I missed something, but no one is forcing them to use OS X or to buy a Mac to install it on, are they? If Apple is forced to let OS X run on any piece of poop, I see few positive things emerging from it. You instantly and irreparably damage Apple's good image. You create a customer service nightmare from all the poop hardware and driver issues that plagues Microsoft Windows (see Vista, for example). Oh, it's cheap hardware! Yeah, and that's how people will think of Apple and its OS if Psystar gets its way.



    I don't understand the fascination with running OS X on a generic PC. Mac is more than the OS. It's more than the hardware. It's the complete user experience. People aren't going to see a stellar and stable OS, they are going to see a cheap PC with questionable hardware, driver issues and conflicts, and connect the sum of their negative experiences directly to Apple and blame them for it. How in the world is that good for Apple or the user of OS X? People need to get over their dirt cheap is quality illusion.



    Apple should kick Psystar's behind and make short work of it, both to protect their hard-earned brand image and discourage others foolish enough to do what Psystar is trying to do.
Sign In or Register to comment.