Why doesn't Apple just sanction use of OSX on non-Mac computers, and charge $999/copy for it.
THEN, these rip-off artists will be forced to pay Apple $999 for every computer they ship, and Apple will make a TON of money, avoid the lawsuits, and everybody is happy. Done.
Because that would more than likely be seen as an unfair trade practice and actually help Psystar and others who wish to litigate.
Why doesn't Apple just sanction use of OSX on non-Mac computers, and charge $999/copy for it.
THEN, these rip-off artists will be forced to pay Apple $999 for every computer they ship, and Apple will make a TON of money, avoid the lawsuits, and everybody is happy. Done.
Trouble is $999 might only be worth $99 in a few months....
It's better, but it still implies a connection between the two companies. ...
This is just wrong.
I don't know what the first phrasing Kasper used was, but "emboldens" in no way shape or form implies a connection between the companies. You are just wrong to think so.
Why doesn't Apple just sanction use of OSX on non-Mac computers, and charge $999/copy for it.
THEN, these rip-off artists will be forced to pay Apple $999 for every computer they ship, and Apple will make a TON of money, avoid the lawsuits, and everybody is happy. Done.
Except that Apple wouldn't make a ton of money... because no one would buy an OS for $999 when they can buy a computer AND OS for $599... or less on eBay. There's a way for Apple to make money on a "system-builder's" OS X and neither $999 nor $599 is a reasonable price. $299 would eliminate the competition of clones, yet still let prosumer hobbyist nerds like me build their ideal Mac without legal infringement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floccus
Because that would more than likely be seen as an unfair trade practice and actually help Psystar and others who wish to litigate.
I don't know what the first phrasing Kasper used was, but "emboldens" in no way shape or form implies a connection between the companies. You are just wrong to think so.
We used "spawns" initially, but it's not a big deal. People like to nitpick and that is fine. It's true the feedback helps make us a better publication. The fact remains that there were zero clone makers pushing Mac systems before Psystar hit the scene. Some may call it speculation to say the recent influx of clone makers (there are more coming that we haven't reported on yet) is a result of Psystar's efforts, while some will argue that the connection is pretty sound. Either way, lets just stick to discussing the topic at hand from here
Why doesn't Apple just sanction use of OSX on non-Mac computers, and charge $999/copy for it.
THEN, these rip-off artists will be forced to pay Apple $999 for every computer they ship, and Apple will make a TON of money, avoid the lawsuits, and everybody is happy. Done.
Apple should just remove the ability to purchase retail copies of OSX. They should develop some type of authentication system (horror!!) that would validate the authenticity of the hardware upon installation.
This really sucks but it would pretty much do away with all these knock-off makers once and for all. The binaries could be locked to a specific serial# or an unlock code could be given to unlock the binaries which uses the system serial# as part of the encryption key.
Dunno. But it is getting pretty ridiculous that Apple is having to defend its property and spending all the time and effort fighting these lowlifes when it could be put to better use like improving its product line.
Show me a Mac where I can add a second internal hard drive for under 2,799.
And, yes, these computers look horrible. But I really don't care when it's hiding under my desk.
We always think that everyone else think the same way we do. In reality, we are the minority and the majority don't care about adding RAM, another HDD, or upgrading their processor. The majority stick with what they have until they need a new machines. I mean just go to Best Buy or Apple store and listen to questions asked by people buying computers.
Furthermore, most people don't want to go through the trouble of installing a new HDD and would buy an external HDD instead (more flexible and portable).
Apple should just remove the ability to purchase retail copies of OSX. They should develop some type of authentication system (horror!!) that would validate the authenticity of the hardware upon installation.
This really sucks but it would pretty much do away with all these knock-off makers once and for all. The binaries could be locked to a specific serial# or an unlock code could be given to unlock the binaries which uses the system serial# as part of the encryption key.
Dunno. But it is getting pretty ridiculous that Apple is having to defend its property and spending all the time and effort fighting these lowlifes when it could be put to better use like improving its product line.
Wouldn't make any difference. Copy protection of any form can be cracked easily. Not selling copies doesn't matter as your mac comes with a restore disc which will be posted online for download.
Hackintosh's are easy to build, as you can see other companies are forming to sell this desktops running OSX. Really the only choice for apple is to mount a pile of legal fees fighting all these or offer a midrange tower that people want and lower prices. Or make OSX available for other computers. Until they do that these companies will pop up all over and people will still build hackintosh's.
Apple should just remove the ability to purchase retail copies of OSX.
Then how do you propose that legitimate Apple owners upgrade the operating system?
Quote:
They should develop some type of authentication system (horror!!) that would validate the authenticity of the hardware upon installation.
They already do this. How do you think that a standard install is blocked from installing on non-Apple hardware? It's not just emulating EFI. They do have to hack the authentication system.
Quote:
This really sucks but it would pretty much do away with all these knock-off makers once and for all. The binaries could be locked to a specific serial# or an unlock code could be given to unlock the binaries which uses the system serial# as part of the encryption key.
And nuke one of the major reasons to switch to the Mac? To get away from the idiocy that is Windows Product Activation that DOES NOTHING to deter piracy and only serves to annoy legitimate purchasers? And besides, this would not stop the clone makers. In fact, people who purchased a clone would likely not even have to deal with the above mess while those of us who were "dumb enough to buy the real thing" get to have fun with the hassle.
Quote:
Dunno. But it is getting pretty ridiculous that Apple is having to defend its property and spending all the time and effort fighting these lowlifes when it could be put to better use like improving its product line.
The programmers and engineers designing and implementing the Macintosh system and operating systems have nothing to do with defending Apple's property. Apple has a team of lawyers doing this for them. This is diverting no resources from research and development, as far as anyone can tell.
What would take away from improving its product line is developing the above system that you propose. Then it becomes a matter of wasting resources on constantly "improving" the defenses against piracy that could be better spent improving the actual operating system.
or offer a midrange tower that people want and lower prices. Or make OSX available for other computers. Until they do that these companies will pop up all over and people will still build hackintosh's.
If you think that offering a midrange tower and lowering prices would stop others from trying this you're sorely mistaken. Litigating and making examples of these early attempts is the only thing that will keep this stuff at bay.
They already do this. How do you think that a standard install is blocked from installing on non-Apple hardware? It's not just emulating EFI. They do have to hack the authentication system.
That's not true. There is no authentication system. With EFI a retail copy of OSX will install fine, assuming the hardware is supported. Trust me.
If you think that offering a midrange tower and lowering prices would stop others from trying this you're sorely mistaken. Litigating and making examples of these early attempts is the only thing that will keep this stuff at bay.
Others could try but it would do no good. Not if you can buy direct from apple, get the product you want and for the same price. Then there would be absolutely no reason to buy from anyone else.
Apple is still in a weak position with regards to these clone makers.
If Apple does not want people using their personal freedom to deploy their Mac OS X on machines they see fit, the Apple should not sell the product. No one is forcing them to sell Mac OS X to consumers. It is a high bar for Apple to jump to actually close down another private business. This is a form of violence (say, a police shutdown) that the government is generally extremely reluctant to do.
The government only shuts you down if it has crystal clear, very good reasons. Here, those reasons are not available. Apple has to prove it is wildly different than Microsoft's ubiquitous "open hardware" model. Apple has proved nothing of the sort.
And I am a stockholder so I do hope Apple makes lots of money!
For $990, the dealer is offering a 2.53GHz "OpeniMac" with 3 MB of shared L2 cache, 2GB of DDR2 SDRAM, a 320 GB Serial ATA 7200 rpm drive, an 8X SuperDrive, and an ATI Radeon HD PRO with 256 MB of video memory GDDR3. Another $340 will get you a 19-inch LG LCD display to go along with it.
A high-end offering, conveniently called the "OpeniMac Pro," is priced at $1710 and comes with a 3.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 6 MB of shared L2 cache, 4 GB of DDR2 SDRAM, a 500 GB Serial ATA 7200 rpm drive, an 8X SuperDrive, a NVIDIA GeForce GS with 1 GB of GDDR3 video memory, and "a brilliant" 20-inch LG widescreen display
That's actually insanely overpriced. I could build either of those machines for about half of what they're charging.
Apple is still in a weak position with regards to these clone makers.
If Apple does not want people using their personal freedom to deploy their Mac OS X on machines they see fit, the Apple should not sell the product. No one is forcing them to sell Mac OS X to consumers. It is a high bar for Apple to jump to actually close down another private business. This is a form of violence (say, a police shutdown) that the government is generally extremely reluctant to do.
The government only shuts you down if it has crystal clear, very good reasons. Here, those reasons are not available. Apple has to prove it is wildly different than Microsoft's ubiquitous "open hardware" model. Apple has proved nothing of the sort.
And I am a stockholder so I do hope Apple makes lots of money!
No Apple is not in a weak position. My brothers uses to shimmy up the pole and connect their cable for free. Because they could didn't mean it was legal. Consumer do NOT have the right to deploy OS X on whatever computer they want any more than I can drive my car on whatever road I wish. No one is forcing them to sell the Mac OS but in turn no one is forcing you to buy if you don't like the limitation of the OS being tied to Apple's hardware.
Microsoft does not make hardware and they protect their IP investment with serialization and validation methods that Apple doesn't do. Microsoft and Intel are no more open than Apple. You want open go buy Linux and download the source code of the kernel and apps. Find someone who will open source their hardware.
Psystar will lose this case and the Apple legal team is just looking to make the decision so air tight future cases will be a cakewalk as they'll just refer to the demolition of Psystar as precedent.
This is exactly what Apple needs to bring to the market:
A MID SIZE TOWER FOR ABOUT $1,000
Without such a product, rip offs will continue to blossom. Mid towers are ideal for businesses, and many IT personnel are not budging to compromise with a mac mini or an imac.
Comments
Why doesn't Apple just sanction use of OSX on non-Mac computers, and charge $999/copy for it.
THEN, these rip-off artists will be forced to pay Apple $999 for every computer they ship, and Apple will make a TON of money, avoid the lawsuits, and everybody is happy. Done.
Because that would more than likely be seen as an unfair trade practice and actually help Psystar and others who wish to litigate.
Why doesn't Apple just sanction use of OSX on non-Mac computers, and charge $999/copy for it.
THEN, these rip-off artists will be forced to pay Apple $999 for every computer they ship, and Apple will make a TON of money, avoid the lawsuits, and everybody is happy. Done.
Trouble is $999 might only be worth $99 in a few months....
It's better, but it still implies a connection between the two companies. ...
This is just wrong.
I don't know what the first phrasing Kasper used was, but "emboldens" in no way shape or form implies a connection between the companies. You are just wrong to think so.
I would be ashamed to run OS X on something that looks like a piece if junk like these machines do.
That says more about you than it does about the computer.
Why doesn't Apple just sanction use of OSX on non-Mac computers, and charge $999/copy for it.
THEN, these rip-off artists will be forced to pay Apple $999 for every computer they ship, and Apple will make a TON of money, avoid the lawsuits, and everybody is happy. Done.
Except that Apple wouldn't make a ton of money... because no one would buy an OS for $999 when they can buy a computer AND OS for $599... or less on eBay. There's a way for Apple to make money on a "system-builder's" OS X and neither $999 nor $599 is a reasonable price. $299 would eliminate the competition of clones, yet still let prosumer hobbyist nerds like me build their ideal Mac without legal infringement.
Because that would more than likely be seen as an unfair trade practice and actually help Psystar and others who wish to litigate.
Hahaha, you said it.
This is just wrong.
I don't know what the first phrasing Kasper used was, but "emboldens" in no way shape or form implies a connection between the companies. You are just wrong to think so.
We used "spawns" initially, but it's not a big deal. People like to nitpick and that is fine. It's true the feedback helps make us a better publication. The fact remains that there were zero clone makers pushing Mac systems before Psystar hit the scene. Some may call it speculation to say the recent influx of clone makers (there are more coming that we haven't reported on yet) is a result of Psystar's efforts, while some will argue that the connection is pretty sound. Either way, lets just stick to discussing the topic at hand from here
Best,
Kasper
And, yes, these computers look horrible. But I really don't care when it's hiding under my desk.
Why doesn't Apple just sanction use of OSX on non-Mac computers, and charge $999/copy for it.
THEN, these rip-off artists will be forced to pay Apple $999 for every computer they ship, and Apple will make a TON of money, avoid the lawsuits, and everybody is happy. Done.
Apple should just remove the ability to purchase retail copies of OSX. They should develop some type of authentication system (horror!!) that would validate the authenticity of the hardware upon installation.
This really sucks but it would pretty much do away with all these knock-off makers once and for all. The binaries could be locked to a specific serial# or an unlock code could be given to unlock the binaries which uses the system serial# as part of the encryption key.
Dunno. But it is getting pretty ridiculous that Apple is having to defend its property and spending all the time and effort fighting these lowlifes when it could be put to better use like improving its product line.
That thing is so UGLY. I'm about to throw up just looking at it.
AGREED!
Where is the all-in-one enclosure that makes the iMac an iMac???
Apple should sue them on the basis of libel and the defamation of the word and product - iMac!
Show me a Mac where I can add a second internal hard drive for under 2,799.
And, yes, these computers look horrible. But I really don't care when it's hiding under my desk.
We always think that everyone else think the same way we do. In reality, we are the minority and the majority don't care about adding RAM, another HDD, or upgrading their processor. The majority stick with what they have until they need a new machines. I mean just go to Best Buy or Apple store and listen to questions asked by people buying computers.
Furthermore, most people don't want to go through the trouble of installing a new HDD and would buy an external HDD instead (more flexible and portable).
Apple should just remove the ability to purchase retail copies of OSX. They should develop some type of authentication system (horror!!) that would validate the authenticity of the hardware upon installation.
This really sucks but it would pretty much do away with all these knock-off makers once and for all. The binaries could be locked to a specific serial# or an unlock code could be given to unlock the binaries which uses the system serial# as part of the encryption key.
Dunno. But it is getting pretty ridiculous that Apple is having to defend its property and spending all the time and effort fighting these lowlifes when it could be put to better use like improving its product line.
Wouldn't make any difference. Copy protection of any form can be cracked easily. Not selling copies doesn't matter as your mac comes with a restore disc which will be posted online for download.
Hackintosh's are easy to build, as you can see other companies are forming to sell this desktops running OSX. Really the only choice for apple is to mount a pile of legal fees fighting all these or offer a midrange tower that people want and lower prices. Or make OSX available for other computers. Until they do that these companies will pop up all over and people will still build hackintosh's.
Apple should just remove the ability to purchase retail copies of OSX.
Then how do you propose that legitimate Apple owners upgrade the operating system?
They should develop some type of authentication system (horror!!) that would validate the authenticity of the hardware upon installation.
They already do this. How do you think that a standard install is blocked from installing on non-Apple hardware? It's not just emulating EFI. They do have to hack the authentication system.
This really sucks but it would pretty much do away with all these knock-off makers once and for all. The binaries could be locked to a specific serial# or an unlock code could be given to unlock the binaries which uses the system serial# as part of the encryption key.
And nuke one of the major reasons to switch to the Mac? To get away from the idiocy that is Windows Product Activation that DOES NOTHING to deter piracy and only serves to annoy legitimate purchasers? And besides, this would not stop the clone makers. In fact, people who purchased a clone would likely not even have to deal with the above mess while those of us who were "dumb enough to buy the real thing" get to have fun with the hassle.
Dunno. But it is getting pretty ridiculous that Apple is having to defend its property and spending all the time and effort fighting these lowlifes when it could be put to better use like improving its product line.
The programmers and engineers designing and implementing the Macintosh system and operating systems have nothing to do with defending Apple's property. Apple has a team of lawyers doing this for them. This is diverting no resources from research and development, as far as anyone can tell.
What would take away from improving its product line is developing the above system that you propose. Then it becomes a matter of wasting resources on constantly "improving" the defenses against piracy that could be better spent improving the actual operating system.
or offer a midrange tower that people want and lower prices. Or make OSX available for other computers. Until they do that these companies will pop up all over and people will still build hackintosh's.
If you think that offering a midrange tower and lowering prices would stop others from trying this you're sorely mistaken. Litigating and making examples of these early attempts is the only thing that will keep this stuff at bay.
They already do this. How do you think that a standard install is blocked from installing on non-Apple hardware? It's not just emulating EFI. They do have to hack the authentication system.
That's not true. There is no authentication system. With EFI a retail copy of OSX will install fine, assuming the hardware is supported. Trust me.
If you think that offering a midrange tower and lowering prices would stop others from trying this you're sorely mistaken. Litigating and making examples of these early attempts is the only thing that will keep this stuff at bay.
Others could try but it would do no good. Not if you can buy direct from apple, get the product you want and for the same price. Then there would be absolutely no reason to buy from anyone else.
If Apple does not want people using their personal freedom to deploy their Mac OS X on machines they see fit, the Apple should not sell the product. No one is forcing them to sell Mac OS X to consumers. It is a high bar for Apple to jump to actually close down another private business. This is a form of violence (say, a police shutdown) that the government is generally extremely reluctant to do.
The government only shuts you down if it has crystal clear, very good reasons. Here, those reasons are not available. Apple has to prove it is wildly different than Microsoft's ubiquitous "open hardware" model. Apple has proved nothing of the sort.
And I am a stockholder so I do hope Apple makes lots of money!
For $990, the dealer is offering a 2.53GHz "OpeniMac" with 3 MB of shared L2 cache, 2GB of DDR2 SDRAM, a 320 GB Serial ATA 7200 rpm drive, an 8X SuperDrive, and an ATI Radeon HD PRO with 256 MB of video memory GDDR3. Another $340 will get you a 19-inch LG LCD display to go along with it.
A high-end offering, conveniently called the "OpeniMac Pro," is priced at $1710 and comes with a 3.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 6 MB of shared L2 cache, 4 GB of DDR2 SDRAM, a 500 GB Serial ATA 7200 rpm drive, an 8X SuperDrive, a NVIDIA GeForce GS with 1 GB of GDDR3 video memory, and "a brilliant" 20-inch LG widescreen display
That's actually insanely overpriced. I could build either of those machines for about half of what they're charging.
Apple is still in a weak position with regards to these clone makers.
If Apple does not want people using their personal freedom to deploy their Mac OS X on machines they see fit, the Apple should not sell the product. No one is forcing them to sell Mac OS X to consumers. It is a high bar for Apple to jump to actually close down another private business. This is a form of violence (say, a police shutdown) that the government is generally extremely reluctant to do.
The government only shuts you down if it has crystal clear, very good reasons. Here, those reasons are not available. Apple has to prove it is wildly different than Microsoft's ubiquitous "open hardware" model. Apple has proved nothing of the sort.
And I am a stockholder so I do hope Apple makes lots of money!
No Apple is not in a weak position. My brothers uses to shimmy up the pole and connect their cable for free. Because they could didn't mean it was legal. Consumer do NOT have the right to deploy OS X on whatever computer they want any more than I can drive my car on whatever road I wish. No one is forcing them to sell the Mac OS but in turn no one is forcing you to buy if you don't like the limitation of the OS being tied to Apple's hardware.
Microsoft does not make hardware and they protect their IP investment with serialization and validation methods that Apple doesn't do. Microsoft and Intel are no more open than Apple. You want open go buy Linux and download the source code of the kernel and apps. Find someone who will open source their hardware.
Psystar will lose this case and the Apple legal team is just looking to make the decision so air tight future cases will be a cakewalk as they'll just refer to the demolition of Psystar as precedent.
A MID SIZE TOWER FOR ABOUT $1,000
Without such a product, rip offs will continue to blossom. Mid towers are ideal for businesses, and many IT personnel are not budging to compromise with a mac mini or an imac.