Apple picks at Psystar counterclaim as court info goes secret

1235789

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 172
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


    Apple is being compensated for the retail copy of OSX that Psystar paid for. But how is Apple being compensated for that copy of OSX that is loaded in the PC that Psystar sells? A copy that Psystar is obviously profiting from.





    as has been said before...



    Pystar can buy the copy of OSX on behalf of the customer and then charge a fee to install it to get round any reseller/profiting issue. It really isn't difficult.
  • Reply 82 of 172
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,205member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacMad View Post


    I really don't understand how Psystar can even have a case



    no joke.



    They have already had the End User Agreement argument tossed out with the courts saying that such things are valid and enforceable



    They have already had the courts toss out the claim of a "Mac Market" and that tying of software and hardware is not abusive since Apple has nothing close to a majority of the market.



    As I recall the DMCA prohibits tampering with software to circumvent protections so they lose on that one and any claim of protection for reverse engineering is out because they didn't hack the software to make an app work (ie for informational purposes)



    at this point Psystar is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic
  • Reply 83 of 172
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,205member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jenkman91 View Post


    True... But what if one purchases OS X legally, then it should be okay.



    oops, I think I just said what Psystar said in their claim




    you did. but there's a huge difference between my buying a copy of Leopard and for fun hacking it for me alone to use on my old PC with full knowledge that if it breaks I'm stuck if I can't fix it myself.



    and a company buying the copy, hacking it, selling the machines they have now created AND forcing folks to use their service department that is apparently only if you ship them the machine so the two guys living and working in Mom's basement can fix it.



    [QUOTE=stevielee;1386315]
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacMad View Post




    "Just because they price high doesn't mean another company should be allowed to break copyright laws. "



    Well...what in the hell do you think is driving folks to seek an "alternative" machine to run OSX on in the first place? Could it be Apple's price-gouging perhaps????



    totally moot. saying that Apple's prices, which some folks think are too high justify actions such as Psystar is undergoing is like saying it is illegal for you to sell bootleg DVDs because the studio isn't printing any more copies of a movie.



    if YOU for your own purpose goes and quietly builds your perfect and cheap machine, buys Leopard and hacks it and keeps it to yourself, whatever. that's your business. Apple isn't likely to bother coming after you. but if you try to turn a profit, expect to be dragged in the mud just like Psystar and these Germans
  • Reply 84 of 172
    davidwdavidw Posts: 945member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DavidW

    Newspaper do not copyright the "information" they report. They copyright the articles that reports the "information".



    Articles in newspapers are not in "public domain". If they were, you would be legally free to use it "word for word". "Public domain" has a legal meaning in copyright law. And it's doesn't just mean "out in the public". If you use an article just for "reference" then you can just state where you got your "information" from. But if you cite enough of the article "word for word" then you must ask for permission from the article author (or the copyright holder). It's the same as getting a license to use some else's copyrighted work.



    You are not protected by free speech if you change the heading from "The Wall Street Journal" to "The Archipellago Times" and then go out market it as such. Not even if you paid for every copy of "The Wall Street Journal" that you changed to "The Archipellago Times".



    You are not protected by free speech if you cut out an article from "The Wall Street Journal" and replace it with your own and then go out and sell it as though it's "The Wall Street Journal". Not even if you paid for all the copies of "The Wall Street Journal" that you changed.



    You are not protected by free speech if you photocopy an original copy of "The Wall Street Journal", change a few articles on the photocopy and then sell the photocopy. Not even if you include a paid copy of "The Wall Street Journal" with every photocopy that you sell.



    Is any of this getting through to you yet?



    Quote:

    Archipellago;1386625if you re-read my wording, you will see that we agree on this point, congratulations.



    So you agree that when you buy a copy of "The Wall Street Journal", there are restrictions. Even though you paid for that original copy, you can not do anything you want with that copy. You do not "own" any of part of that "The Wall Street Journal" except the paper it's printed on. All you did was pay for a "license" to read it.



    Were you informed of these restrictions BEFORE you paid for that copy?



    Were these restrictions spelled out to you BEFORE you opened up the newspaper and began reading it?



    Are these restrictions even printed some where in the newspaper itself?



    And it sure seems like it was a sale and not just a license to read it. Doesn't it?



    So how is it that you know about these restrictions and how are the people at "The Wall Street Journal" going to defend their case against you if you decide to do something that is restricted by them?



    Well it's simple. On every copy of "The Wall Street Journal" is a little "c" in a circle, followed by "Copyrighted" and a date. (and some wording pertaining to Copyright protection) That's all "The Wall Street Journal" needs to put on their newspaper to be able to bring you to court for violating any of these restrictions. They don't even have to inform you of what those restrictions are, BEFORE you paid for it. You are expected to know that because it's part of the Copyright law that protects all copyrighted material. It doesn't matter if it's a book, newspaper, photograph, artwork, speech, music or software.



    OSX is copyrighted. The little "c" in a circle is on the bottom of the retail box of OSX. You can see this BEFORE you buy it. And BEFORE you open it. You are expected to know what the Copyright law restricts you from doing and what it allows you to do with that copyrighted material. It does not have to be spelled out for you.



    If you violate any of the restrictions and play dumb by saying you didn't know. You must stop what it is you're doing once you're informed by the copyright holder that you are violating their copyright. If you persist, the copyright holder can sue you for damages in a court of law.



    Never mind the EULA. Psystar will lose just because they are violating basic Copyright laws. Why do you think Psystar defense is that OSX is not protected by Copyright laws by claiming that Apple failed to properly copyright it?



    Psystar is not challenging any EULA (at least no longer challenging the EULA). They know that they will lose on those grounds because the judge already toss that out of their defense. Only small minds think that Psystar will win base on some notion that an EULA can not be enforced. What's going to bring down Psystar is violation of Copyright laws. Those same laws that restrict you from doing anything you want with your paid copy of "The Wall Street Journal". Those same copyright law restrictions that you seem to know about but have never seen written down on any copyrighted material that you paid for.



    So explain to me (or us here) the difference between paying for the license to read the copyrighted words written in "The Wall Street Journal", to hear the music encoded on a Beatles CD and to use the codes written for OSX. Many of us here want to know just what part of the Copyright law you don't understand.
  • Reply 85 of 172
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post


    1a/ I can walk into an Apple store and buy an off the shelf copy of OSX. It does not say upgrade on the box and I have no chance to view and/or accept the license before I pay and form a contract with the retailer. It has the 'characteristics of a sale' not a license. I'd love to see it challenged in court...



    1b/ I am going to install it on an Apple labelled computer...what part of the licence am I violating. Is a sticker on a PC tower not really Apple labelled?? If so what is it...decoration??



    2/ The law will not take into account what a 'techie' believes or thinks just what is reasonable. The EULA states Apple Labelled...not Mac (thats on the outside box, which isn't binding)



    3/ blah,blah,blah...point??



    4/ Yes APple wants me to use their hardware..I don't and if I can legally use OSX without having to I will. Thats why I applaud Pystar... they could win or lose...but at least we will know for sure.



    1a. Perhaps you need to look at the box. It says: "Requires Macintosh computer....". Furthermore, the judge has already ruled that Psystar can not ignore the EULA.



    1b. Under the law, it is a decoration. If Psystar sells a computer with an Apple sticker on it, they'd be in even more hot water. That violates all sorts of trade laws. You could put your own sticker on, but that would still not be Apple-labeled as far as copyright law is concerned. But, of course, that's not the issue. Apple has never made any effort to go after end users-just companies like Psystar who can not legally put Apple stickers on the box.



    2. Sorry, try telling the judge that you don't care about the law because you're a techie and you have your own interpretation. It won't work.



    3. Your lack of a response is noted.



    4. Go ahead and root for criminals all you want. Some of us happen to believe that Apple has the right to sell the product however they wish - they've invested billions of dollars in its development. Psystar is simply stealing.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post


    as has been said before...



    Pystar can buy the copy of OSX on behalf of the customer and then charge a fee to install it to get round any reseller/profiting issue. It really isn't difficult.



    Look up 'Contributory Infringement'. That one would be even easier to prove.
  • Reply 86 of 172
    davidwdavidw Posts: 945member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post


    as has been said before...



    Pystar can buy the copy of OSX on behalf of the customer and then charge a fee to install it to get round any reseller/profiting issue. It really isn't difficult.



    Here's the difference.



    When a person buys a copy of OSX and install it on his non-Mac PC, he is still violating copyright law. But...



    1. He doesn't take an add out on the internet with his name, address and phone number on it, proclaiming that he will do this for others.



    2. He's doing it on his own PC and may be protected by "for personal use" and "fair use".



    3. He's not making any money by performing this illegal act.



    When Psystar buys a copy of OSX and install it on a non-Mac PC, they're violating copyright law. But...



    1. They take an ad out on the internet with their name address and phone number, proclaiming that they will do this for anyone.



    2. They're not not doing it on their own computer and thus are not protected by "for personal use" or "fair use".



    3. They are profiting by performing this illegal act.
  • Reply 87 of 172
    cathulcathul Posts: 18member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    3. Mac OS X does NOT run on generic hardware. You need to hack it to make it work. That brings DMCA into the equation.



    Mac OSX does run on generic hardware and you don't need to hack any part of it to make it work since mid of last year.

    Actually it's possible to install Mac OSX and never touch any part of it (by hacking) and still have it run perfectly stable on any PC matching the hardware of current Macs.

    If your quote was true EFI-X wouldn't even remotely be possible.
  • Reply 88 of 172
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cathul View Post


    Mac OSX does run on generic hardware and you don't need to hack any part of it to make it work since mid of last year.

    Actually it's possible to install Mac OSX and never touch any part of it (by hacking) and still have it run perfectly stable on any PC matching the hardware of current Macs.

    If your quote was true EFI-X wouldn't even remotely be possible.



    You are sadly mistaken.



    Take a Mac OS X install disk. Insert it into a Dell computer. Try to install from the install disk. It just doesn't work.



    Yes, it will run on "any PC matching the hardware of current Macs", but there are few, if any, commercially available PCs out there that meet this requirement, so it is not running on 'generic hardware'.
  • Reply 89 of 172
    There appears to be two sides to this argument. One side feels that Apple is charging too much and should reduce the price of their products to make Psystar irrelevant. The other side thinks that the price you pay for an Apple computer is justified to the experience and support you get. Both arguments are valid with some exceptions.



    Apple in it's history has always been a premium brand and their products and service are usually top notch. In the past, so were many of the PC manufacturers; Dell, HP, Compaq etc. So why is there a difference now between Apple and the others in price? Well, it's partly due to Dell. They went on the offensive in the late 90's and undercut the competition which killed IBM, and Packard Bell, made Compaq merge with HP and Gateway with Emachines. In the end all it did was make the market worse for support and customer satisfaction.

    Just look at the surveys and you'll see. Dell who had the BEST is usually 4th now with all their support outsourced to India, why? well, because they can't make enough money to pay for an American support center.



    You may argue that now that Apple is on Intel, their pricing is out of touch with reality. That's not true. They still spend millions in development for the rest of the machine. Sure the parts might be similar to what the other guys sell, but you can argue that with cars too. It's the way it's made and till only recently the quality was superb. Now they suffer the same problems everything else that's made in China does, quality in the build. This may change due to the economy, we might see factories in other countries like we did in the 80s and 90s. The other part of the cost is the OS. Since the competition doesn't make the operating system like Apple, the cost comparison is skewed. They don't have to make sure that 3 years down the road you can upgrade the OS and it will still work on it.



    Now, for the other side, Apple is charging more than the market will bear at this time. That is a fact. Apple isn't moving to change the price on their products quickly due to that they want to wait until the number of customers buying new product drops substantially. It's a gamble, and by summer you should see price reductions. How much? Who knows, but Apple isn't going to shoot itself in the foot and end up "beleaguered" like they were labeled in the 90's.



    You have to remember that if you want the TOTAL Apple experience, then you have to pay for it.

    Support costs money, good support. I've had issues in the past with Apple, but it's nothing compared to the competition, who in some cases outright refused to support a defective product. With any issue with any product, don't be afraid to stand up for yourself if you think that something is wrong with it. Apple has replaced several computers for me, in some cases, given me a brand new next generation MBP and all I had to do is buy Applecare for it.



    So you can argue that Apple charges too much, but that's only if you want just a machine and nothing else, no service, no support, nada. That's pretty much what you get with a VIsta machine. Call the manufacturer and they blame Microsoft, call Microsoft and they blame the manufacturer and you're in the middle. So you saved some money but now you are so pissed off that you have a stroke.



    You can argue that Apple is correct in their pricing, well, not this year and probably not for a few years, due to our economy. Prices will come down, but Apple who's no stranger to the roller coaster isn't going to panic and start having fire sales tomorrow. They will however start selling machines at lower prices. They will probably come out with a new iPhone which will take the attention away from Macs again for a good quarter. They know how to survive in tough times.



    In the end Psystar will go away, even if they win. Apple who controls the OS will prevent anybody making a profit off of them without their permission. Ask all the old clone manufacturers, and if you think that they are helping "Joe six pack" get his own Mac for less money, then you also believe that the looters who came after hurricane Katrina were only trying to find food.
  • Reply 90 of 172
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cathul View Post


    If your quote was true EFI-X wouldn't even remotely be possible.



    EFI-X only works with specific MoBos. It has the appropriate drivers on the chip and makes the default BIOS run as EFI. If Mac OS X was standard, then there would be no need for additional HW to make the system EFI, from the BIOS it is set at from the manufacturer. But that is besides the point when dealing with illegal distribution of copyrighted materials.



    The previous example about the newspaper is apt. If Apple was selling HDDs with the OS installed on it, so you could just pop it in a Mac, but Psystar was buying these from Apple and then installing them into their machines without touching the code, then Apple would not have a case, but Psystar is copying and moving the OS from the original media to another form and then selling it as their own without distribution rights of the copyrighted code. The same way you can't copy a newspaper and then sell it as your own even if you paid for the original and then bought your own paper, ink and printing press. But the offense maybe deeper if Psystar is not also altering the copyrighted material in order to get the OS to install.
  • Reply 91 of 172
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by HammerofTruth View Post


    In the end Psystar will go away, even if they win.



    Beyond the head scratching desire of wanting Psystar to win and the free market to fail, I don't understand how the Psystards don't see that if Psystar won that they would lose along with the consumer. It does seem like they realize that Apple can still raise the price to make it pointless for clones to exist, pull the upgrade boxes from the shelves altogether requiring some rigmarole to verify you have a Mac, or make the upgrades require the a previous installation of OS X before allowing the upgrade, the way the cheap version of Windows work). None of that helps the customer, all of it hurts would-be cloners, yet Apple will come out with barely a scratch.
  • Reply 92 of 172
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Beyond the head scratching desire of wanting Psystar to win and the free market to fail, I don't understand how the Psystards don't see that if Psystar won that they would lose along with the consumer. It does seem like they realize that Apple can still raise the price to make it pointless for clones to exist, pull the upgrade boxes from the shelves altogether requiring some rigmarole to verify you have a Mac, or make the upgrades require the a previous installation of OS X before allowing the upgrade, the way the cheap version of Windows work). None of that helps the customer, all of it hurts would-be cloners, yet Apple will come out with barely a scratch.



    That's because they want a cheap experience. They don't realize that the reason PCs are so popular is that IBM didn't patent the right hardware, just the bios, so the clone manufacturers just stole money from IBM by copying everything else, then reverse engineering the bios. They don't realize that WIndows was stolen from both Apple and IBM (OS2). All they know is now they want a Mac. They want a Mac to do all the cool things they couldn't do with their PCs. Plus they want service when they have a problem and be able to go to see a genius to fix their Mac when they have problems, and they only want to pay 1/3 the price since that's what they paid for the PC and all that stuff I mentioned shouldn't cost them more then the PC did because to them it's all the same even though they want a better experience.
  • Reply 93 of 172
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by HammerofTruth View Post


    Now, for the other side, Apple is charging more than the market will bear at this time. That is a fact.



    No, it's not a fact. It's an absurd fabrication.



    Apple has been the fastest growing computer manufacturer in the world - both in sales and profits - for the past 5 years. Clearly, there is a huge number of people who don't think they're overcharging.



    Sure, Apple could sell more computers if they priced the iMac at $29.99 and the Mac Pro at $99.99. But they're not in the business of selling computers. They're in the business of making a profit and they seem to be doing quite well.



    As pointed out earlier in this thread, if they cut their price by 15%, they'd have to double sales just to break even. I don't think that's at all likely.



    Consumers have no right to demand lower prices. They have a right to not buy if they think the price is too high, but not to say "if you don't lower prices, we'll steal your technology and buy a cheaper product to use it". And, as of the last 5 years, more than enough consumers are choosing to buy Apple products.
  • Reply 94 of 172
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Beyond the head scratching desire of wanting Psystar to win and the free market to fail, I don't understand how the Psystards don't see that if Psystar won that they would lose along with the consumer. It does seem like they realize that Apple can still raise the price to make it pointless for clones to exist, pull the upgrade boxes from the shelves altogether requiring some rigmarole to verify you have a Mac, or make the upgrades require the a previous installation of OS X before allowing the upgrade, the way the cheap version of Windows work). None of that helps the customer, all of it hurts would-be cloners, yet Apple will come out with barely a scratch.



    solipsism - Shouldn't you have worded you question above: " Beyond the head scratching desire of wanting Psystar to win and the free market to continue to fail"? I don't know if anybody has actually broke it to you, but what you and the other 'supply-side' economics stragglers hanging around this thread term as "The Free Market" has been dead and buried for quite some time now.



    It was buried in very deep and dark deficit grave by the very same "Free Marketers", whose celebrated visage smirked, sneered and gloated down on us 'peons' from the glossy front pages of countless, syncophantic business magazine in the last 2 or three decades. These "highly respected" Corporate Ponzi-ist, habitually lied, cheated, or outright stole anything and everything that wasn't nailed down, all the while telling the rest of us 'common folk' (i.e.-marks), that we had to play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Also, in the same time, they 'outsouced' a good deal of our jobs over to India and China (where most Macs are made today). Even his Royal Hinny himself: Monsieur Jobs, got away with his lil' "back-dated" stock sale scam. Mr. Steve's extensive pack of voracious legal jackals ( the very same one that is now baring their fangs at Psystar) got his regal posterior off the hook on a close one. Playing by the rules my a***....

    Psystar's alleged "illegal Misappropriation" of Apple's OSX and it's sacrosanct EULA, is but a teeny tiny, itsy bitsy, wee dram , technical 'infraction' by any comparative measure, in relation to the overall effect and magnitude of what was/is your everyday, common place business practices of straight-up scamming ...Aka: "the Free Market"



    Also, do you remember your previous lecture to me that I shouldn't be calling other posters - naughty, or bad names and such....well what does the term "Psystards" constitute... your average Apple civil discourse per chance? Seems that you Apple "Tards" can dish it out, but you're not especially good on the receiving end. No surprises there.

    Again, sorry about any perceived name calling, but I really can't help exploiting the knowledge that even a simple utterance of the name "Psystar" sends most of you Apple "tards" into spasms of apoplexy.



    Maybe if you say it three times in succession (like with Beetlejuice), all the angry, attorney'ed Apple gremlins will crawl out of their Palo Alto Estates, or their Martha's Vineyard summer "cottages" to wreak holy havoc on all of us "free OSX" apostates?



    Psystar, Psystar, Psy.......
  • Reply 95 of 172
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    No, it's not a fact. It's an absurd fabrication.



    Apple has been the fastest growing computer manufacturer in the world - both in sales and profits - for the past 5 years. Clearly, there is a huge number of people who don't think they're overcharging.



    Sure, Apple could sell more computers if they priced the iMac at $29.99 and the Mac Pro at $99.99. But they're not in the business of selling computers. They're in the business of making a profit and they seem to be doing quite well.



    As pointed out earlier in this thread, if they cut their price by 15%, they'd have to double sales just to break even. I don't think that's at all likely.



    Consumers have no right to demand lower prices. They have a right to not buy if they think the price is too high, but not to say "if you don't lower prices, we'll steal your technology and buy a cheaper product to use it". And, as of the last 5 years, more than enough consumers are choosing to buy Apple products.



    I think you want to check the figures behind 'fastest growing...'



    In real market terms by volume of units sold, Apple are still just one notch above 'statistically irrelevant'.



    Coming from a position of virtually no units it is relatively easy to be the fastest growing.



    Just for reference, Apple are scheduled to sell approx. 11m Macs worldwide this year in a market containing 260m total unit sales. You do the math.



    Recent profits are still being driven by iPhones and iPods which have ridiculous mark ups of 50-60% plus.



    no one is asking to steal anything. At the end of the day, unless Apple do something different with the OS install the hackintosh community will continue to thrive and grow.



    Dell Mini 9 can now run and boot with EFI emulation...



    http://gizmodo.com/5156903/how-to-ha...e-os-x-netbook
  • Reply 96 of 172
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stevielee View Post


    solipsism - Shouldn't you have worded you question above: " Beyond the head scratching desire of wanting Psystar to win and the free market to continue to fail"? I don't know if anybody has actually broke it to you, but what you and the other 'supply-side' economics stragglers hanging around this thread term as "The Free Market" has been dead and buried for quite some time now.



    It was buried in very deep and dark deficit grave by the very same "Free Marketers", whose celebrated visage smirked, sneered and gloated down on us 'peons' from the glossy front pages of countless, syncophantic business magazine in the last 2 or three decades. These "highly respected" Corporate Ponzi-ist, habitually lied, cheated, or outright stole anything and everything that wasn't nailed down, all the while telling the rest of us 'common folk' (i.e.-marks), that we had to play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Also, in the same time, they 'outsouced' a good deal of our jobs over to India and China (where most Macs are made today). Even his Royal Hinny himself: Monsieur Jobs, got away with his lil' "back-dated" stock sale scam. Mr. Steve's extensive pack of voracious legal jackals ( the very same one that is now baring their fangs at Psystar) got his regal posterior off the hook on a close one. Playing by the rules my a***....

    Psystar's alleged "illegal Misappropriation" of Apple's OSX and it's sacrosanct EULA, is but a teeny tiny, itsy bitsy, wee dram , technical 'infraction' by any comparative measure, in relation to the overall effect and magnitude of what was/is your everyday, common place business practices of straight-up scamming ...Aka: "the Free Market"



    Also, do you remember your previous lecture to me that I shouldn't be calling other posters - naughty, or bad names and such....well what does the term "Psystards" constitute... your average Apple civil discourse per chance? Seems that you Apple "Tards" can dish it out, but you're not especially good on the receiving end. No surprises there.

    Again, sorry about any perceived name calling, but I really can't help exploiting the knowledge that even a simple utterance of the name "Psystar" sends most of you Apple "tards" into spasms of apoplexy.



    Maybe if you say it three times in succession (like with Beetlejuice), all the angry, attorney'ed Apple gremlins will crawl out of their Palo Alto Estates, or their Martha's Vineyard summer "cottages" to wreak holy havoc on all of us "free OSX" apostates?



    Psystar, Psystar, Psy.......







    funny...
  • Reply 97 of 172
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stevielee View Post


    solipsism - Shouldn't you have worded you question above: " Beyond the head scratching desire of wanting Psystar to win and the free market to continue to fail"? I don't know if anybody has actually broke it to you, but what you and the other 'supply-side' economics stragglers hanging around this thread term as "The Free Market" has been dead and buried for quite some time now.



    Really? When did that happen? I can no longer walk into a store and exchange my labor for a product I wish to buy (using currency as the exchange)? I must have missed the press release.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post


    I think you want to check the figures behind 'fastest growing...'



    In real market terms by volume of units sold, Apple are still just one notch above 'statistically irrelevant'.



    Coming from a position of virtually no units it is relatively easy to be the fastest growing.



    Just for reference, Apple are scheduled to sell approx. 11m Macs worldwide this year in a market containing 260m total unit sales. You do the math.



    I'm quite capable of doing the math. Furthermore, I'm quite capable of understanding what it means - unlike you, apparently.



    Apple was not at zero. They have been in the top 10 computer vendors since the dawn of the personal computer. They are currently in the top 5, I believe. That hardly makes them statistically insignificant.



    They're selling millions of units per year. They make a billion dollars per year. The rest of the industry spends an enormous amount of effort copying them. That's not insignificant by ANY standard.



    The point (which you are apparently incapable of admitting) is that Apple is a major player in the industry and is doing quite well by any standard - except for the strawman position that they have to be #1 to succeed. The argument that Apple MUST do this or that in order to survive is absurd.
  • Reply 98 of 172
    davidwdavidw Posts: 945member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post


    I think you want to check the figures behind 'fastest growing...'



    In real market terms by volume of units sold, Apple are still just one notch above 'statistically irrelevant'.



    Coming from a position of virtually no units it is relatively easy to be the fastest growing.



    Just for reference, Apple are scheduled to sell approx. 11m Macs worldwide this year in a market containing 260m total unit sales. You do the math.



    And in real market volume, Compaq, Gateway and E-Machine each sold way more computers than Apple did in any given year. But guess whose statistically irrelevant now.



    Can we agree that it's much better to go from "virtually no units" to about 4% of the World market share. Than it is to go from over 30% (combined market share) of the World market share to zero. At one time Compaq was the largest PC maker in the World.



    And I'm not even going to bring up GM and Ford vs BMW and Porsche. I'll let you try to figure it out who's becoming irrelevant. Regardless of "real market terms by volume of units sold".



    Quote:

    Recent profits are still being driven by iPhones and iPods which have ridiculous mark ups of 50-60% plus.



    More like 40% to 50%. Those people that tear apart an iPod and iPhone to determine their cost are predicting about 50% margin WITHOUT labor, packaging, advertising, R&D recovery cost, etc. That's just parts alone. What's ridiculous is the 80% plus margin that all companies (not just Apple) get on those extended warranties.



    But think about this for a second. If Apple was getting close to 60% margin on iPods and iPhones and over 30% margin on their Macs. Wouldn't Apple's gross margin be over 40%. Since iPods, iPhones and Macs account for about 80% of their revenue? Just the fact that Apples gross margin is historically in the low 30% reveals that iPods and iPhones must average around 40% margin. While Macs have around a 25% margin.



    Quote:

    no one is asking to steal anything. At the end of the day, unless Apple do something different with the OS install the hackintosh community will continue to thrive and grow.



    And at the end of the day Apple don't really have a problem with the Hackintosh community. They have been around, in one form or another, since the beginning of Apple Computer. Like Jobs said about the hackers that "jailbreak" the iPhone. "It's a game of cat and mouse." The hackers finds a weakest and Apple fixes it on their next update. They find another weakest and Apple fixes that. An so on. In a way the Hackintosh community is performing a service for Apple. The effort they put into hacking OSX (and iPhones) reveals weaknesses in OSX. Apple can then use this knowledge to make OSX better the next time around.



    It's people like the ones that started Psystar that Apple has a problem with. These people haven't returned any knowledge back to Apple or the Hackintosh community. Psystar is actually making money by stealing from both Apple and the Hackintosh community.





    Quote:

    Dell Mini 9 can now run and boot with EFI emulation...



    http://gizmodo.com/5156903/how-to-ha...e-os-x-netbook



    Do you want to know what's really funny. I'm willing to bet that Apple makes more money selling that copy of OSX for $129 than Dell makes by selling that netbook at around $299. That's providing of course that they paid for their copy of OSX.
  • Reply 99 of 172
    cathulcathul Posts: 18member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    You are sadly mistaken.



    Take a Mac OS X install disk. Insert it into a Dell computer. Try to install from the install disk. It just doesn't work.



    Yes, it will run on "any PC matching the hardware of current Macs", but there are few, if any, commercially available PCs out there that meet this requirement, so it is not running on 'generic hardware'.



    I did exactly that. I booted from an boot-132 disk and changed the disks when the boot-prompt of cameleon appeared. from that moment on i only used the retail leopard disk i bought at amazon for the full retail price (beside the Mac Mini that i bought for real work). I didn't change any piece of software on that retail disk or on the installed system and therefor i didn't violate any copyright restrictions. I didn't change the software, i only used a bootloader that is capable of booting the retail disk of OSX without touching any files on the dvd or harddisk. I do that just for the fun of it, just to see what's possible.



    Do i support Psystar? Hell no, but i cannot stand anyone saying you need to hack OSX to install it on a PC while in fact you only need an appropriate bootloader.



    So, copyright violations may not apply if Psystar doesn't need to "hack" OSX to run on their machines, but uses an appropriate (and perfectly legal) bootloader.



    Over here in germany Apple would've lost the case if it was this way, just because you don't need a reseller contract with Apple to resell their software over here, so i don't really care what the courts decision on this case will be as it doesn't apply to germany at all. Apple would've to sue them in germany, too to settle down the case for germany as well.

    Btw., there is a germany company selling PCs together with OSX, too and they didn't get sued until now.
  • Reply 100 of 172
    cathulcathul Posts: 18member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    EFI-X only works with specific MoBos. It has the appropriate drivers on the chip and makes the default BIOS run as EFI. If Mac OS X was standard, then there would be no need for additional HW to make the system EFI, from the BIOS it is set at from the manufacturer. But that is besides the point when dealing with illegal distribution of copyrighted materials.



    The previous example about the newspaper is apt. If Apple was selling HDDs with the OS installed on it, so you could just pop it in a Mac, but Psystar was buying these from Apple and then installing them into their machines without touching the code, then Apple would not have a case, but Psystar is copying and moving the OS from the original media to another form and then selling it as their own without distribution rights of the copyrighted code. The same way you can't copy a newspaper and then sell it as your own even if you paid for the original and then bought your own paper, ink and printing press. But the offense maybe deeper if Psystar is not also altering the copyrighted material in order to get the OS to install.



    I cannot tell for the US, but in germany and i think in whole europe you can go to the store (or Amazon), buy OSX and resell it immediately afterwards without any trouble. Apple isn't able to sue you for this redistribution of OSX, even if you're a commercial reseller.

    So to me it seems that there are some fundamentally different rules about reselling stuff you legally aquired at a store or wholesaler.

    In germany it would be perfectly legal to buy OSX and resell it together with a PC, even if you install OSX onto the PC as long as you sell the installed copy together with the original package you installed that copy from as long as you don't alter the software to make this possible. And as it's totally possible to install and run OSX on a PC either by using EFI-X (only for some specific mainboards) or f.e. boot-132/chameleon (for almost any mainboard based on intel chipsets) without any alteration to any part of OSX this point is moot.
Sign In or Register to comment.