You don't read the fine print, do you? The retail copy of Leopard they give you is a worthless disc. You cannot re-install Leopard on the Psystar computer. So just because they bought a copy, doesn't allow them to steal the intellectual rights from Apple, hack it, and install it on their own PC. If you need to reinstall Leopard, you have to fill out a form with Psystar in order to get their specially-hacked CD that will allow you to reinstall Leopard.
Here is the best part...this is the release you must sign to get the restore CD:
"By completing and returning this form via Fax or Postal Mail I state that I am satisfied with my product, my 7-day return period is over, I would like any restore media related to my product delivered to me immediately, and I do not intend to dispute the purchase of my Open Computing product."
You have to declare your purchase date, purchase price, credit card number, shipping tracking number, and computer serial number in order to get the disc. Now I wonder why Psystar would require the customer to release all their rights in order to restore the software? Hmmm, maybe it is because what they are doing is ILLEGAL?
Now with that restriction, who the hell would want to buy one of their piece of shit computers? Except for maybe the bonehead that thinks Apple is price gouging their customers.
well I think that Pystar's point is that the code Apple puts in to force kernel panic is illegal in its' own right and if it wasn't there then they wouldn't have to 'hack' it in the first place. Installing OSX then would only depend legally on the EULA which is pretty dodgy everywhere but especially over here in EU land.
it would be better for society, for the industry and for every consumer out there if OSX could be used as an alternative for Windows..in general. Thats why I and thousands of others are rooting for the clone makers.
I can assure you that the Intel Xeon 2.66GHz Quad-Core that Apple is using in the $2499 Mac Pro IS the Intel Xeon W3520 processor - since there are only 3 clock speed options for the SP Nehelem variants (a 2.66, 2.93, and a 3.20GHZ ) . There is no "secret", or "special" (more expensive) Mac only W3500 series processor available. Just the same three SP processor options that everyone else will be using. And yes, they are going for $278 each (maybe even less for Apple). I know that this is hard to accept this pricing reality at face value - because how could Apple pay so little for what is usually THE most valuable part of any high-end "Workstation" and not pass some of the reduced hardware cost on to their consumers (remembering the SP option in the 2008 Mac Pro's that went for just a little over $2300) - especially in this very difficult economy?
And even worse value of hardware is offered at the 2nd, $3299 level, with Apple only springing for 2x 2.66 Quad-Cores that are priced at $373 per processor - for a grand total of $756 - right about what it cost them for just a single 2.8GHz Harpertown processor (2 of which were included in the 2008 "entry-level" Mac Pro's).
These have to be some of the highest profit margins (mark-ups) that the Mac Pro line has ever seen. Maybe Apple figures that they can bleed more $$$ from the well-healed "Pro", and "Prosumer" market, before they too finally feel the financial squeeze and cry uncle! Whatever their reasoning, quite a few of have caught on to this new "Apple tax", and are beginning to question the real "value" of these new Mac Pro's - soon to be directly juxtaposed (price and performance wise) to their PC counterpart.
I'm not against anyone making a profit, but lately Apple has been going in the absolutely wrong direction regarding their hardware and how they are pricing it - like dropping the low end Macbook for a $1399 entry-level model (selling off older Macbook stocks @ $1099 notwithstanding). All this "extreme" pricing will end up doing is increasing the chances of more Psystar like companies (new ones will most likely take a different, non-direct approach like EFI-X) to challenge Apple in OSX compatible hardware. Psystar is just the "canary in the coal mine" for Apple here. Apple will not be able to continue to have OSX consumers invest thousands $$$ in the Mac software platform, and then take advantage of that investment by increasing their profit margins on the "closed loop" hardware that is necessary to run that software. I, like many, many others I know, would willingly pay 2,3 even 4 times the current price for a truly liberated, Retail OSX that can run on any machine with an Intel processor. I will naturally assume all the risks and associated problems that may come from this and not expect Apple to provide any kind of follow-up support for using OSX on non-apple hardware. Just let us pay the full retail cost for a stand-alone copy OSX (say $499, which should more than cover the R&D cost to developers). And if Apple ends up selling the best hardware to run it on, then people will buy it willingly - without being artificially forced to. If not, then we could still have the hardware op-out option by buying a full Retail version of OSX and installing it on a non-Apple machine.
And yes, you are correct that I should refrain from personal attacks, or name calling. It doesn't do anything to further my position - other than making me feel a little better striking back. Humor would go a much longer way I think...
Apples' marketshare of computers sold in 2009 is forecast to be 10-11m out of 260m units sold.
Clueless??
try a mirror..
It sound clueless on your part when post after post you boost how many more Macs Apple could sell and how much marketshare OS X could have if they choose to do business the way you want them to instead of the way they want to. Then you jump into a comment trying to paint how Apple's ptofitable, high-end percentage is somehow not enough because they can't possibly sell anymore Macs than they already do. Which is it? Are they trying to corner all parts of the PC market (which would mesn that they offering the machkne you want) whilst still having only a select percentage --or-- are they only making select machines targeted at the profitable oortions of the PC market, thus making you praise copyright infringement and poohpooh the free market? You can't have it both ways.
Do you really think that Apple can continue with it's "premium" price structure, and still maintain it's current market share in these gloomy economic times? Apple's stock may be doing better than most at the moment, closing at just above $85 today, but it is still less than half of what it was six months ago and Apple's overall long term situation isn't as strong as you might think. Their sales figures are beginning to soften already (as is everyone else's), and as the recession deepens, diminishing demand for high-end anything will not bode well for Apple's $2000+ laptops (a good percentage of them sold to businesses), as well as their Mac Pro line, and Pro App software. They will still probably do well on the low end of things for a time- with the iPod, the iPhone, the Mac Mini, and entry-level iMacs, but spending is getting mighty tight lately, and many of my clients have cancelled, or postponed major computer and electronics (1K+) purchases until further notice. And that includes Apple hardware.
Apple may be riding this out without any major damage yet, but in this new economic reality, no one is safe or immune from it's ravages. Not even Apple.
I have a feeling that in the coming months - the big A will have to be a little more "humble" in the "premium" pricing of their products. They might even have to bring back the sub-1K laptop later this year, or in early 2010, in a belated attempt to compete with the rising popularity of NetBooks.
The whole Psystar thing may eventually become moot if, or when Apple itself has increasing problems selling their own "premium" hardware to struggling, cost conscious consumers.
Maybe it will be the economy, and not upstarts like Psystar, that finally forces Apple's closed loop hand...
Apple's last two quarters have been the most profitable in its history and that's in the midst of a recession. While I don't think Apple's impenetrable, I do think people who are buying computers are now buying for quality, not price because everyone else, as you said, is simply holding out in general. Since Apple owns almost 80% of the $1,000+ market, the users who actually still have money in this economy are buying them.
I honestly think netbooks are going to self-destruct within the next year. They're slow and underwhelming and make almost no profit for either the hardware or software providers. I can't see them being supported much longer when they're literally tying a noose around what's left of PC sales.
It sound clueless on your part when post after post you boost how many more Macs Apple could sell and how much marketshare OS X could have if they choose to do business the way you want them to instead of the way they want to. Then you jump into a comment trying to paint how Apple's ptofitable, high-end percentage is somehow not enough because they can't possibly sell anymore Macs than they already do. Which is it? Are they trying to corner all parts of the PC market (which would mesn that they offering the machkne you want) whilst still having only a select percentage --or-- are they only making select machines targeted at the profitable oortions of the PC market, thus making you praise copyright infringement and poohpooh the free market? You can't have it both ways.
no I was just trying to point out how relevant Apple are and how many computers they actually sell worldwide in comparison to the market overall. The reality seems different to the 'spin' on it peddled by sites such as this one.
I don't believe there is any copyright infringement to be honest...but the courts will decide.
well I think that Pystar's point is that the code Apple puts in to force kernel panic is illegal in its' own right and if it wasn't there then they wouldn't have to 'hack' it in the first place. Installing OSX then would only depend legally on the EULA which is pretty dodgy everywhere but especially over here in EU land.
it would be better for society, for the industry and for every consumer out there if OSX could be used as an alternative for Windows..in general. Thats why I and thousands of others are rooting for the clone makers.
Apple's code does not cause a kernel panic. There is a boot up string that has to be verified upon start up which, if un-passed, causes an infinite loop. There's no explicit code in the system that causes it to do that. My oldest MacBook has a messed up super drive and sometimes has an issue with software updates because that chain can't be verified (though, there is an easy work around).
And let's talk about EU land, shall we. Several members of the European Union apply free speech in a manner that black lists words. For instance, while I think that German cardinal that denies the Holocaust is vile, I don't think he should spend three years in prison simply for denying it happened.
Copyright law in Europe is a complete joke. The idea that Microsoft can't ship with Windows Media Center or Internet Explorer because people are too dumb or lazy to download an alternative is a pretty brazen example of European law doing more to tamper with market forces than balance them out.
Again, look at the laws in countries like the U.S. and Japan where alot of these copyrighted materials come from and you'll find substantially better IP protection than you will in European nations that have no equivalent. European law in general has alot of maturing to do.
Also, rooting for the cloners is just plain dumb. Again, all things being equal, Windows & OS X would be exactly the same but with a different design. The exact same would be true of an extremely well funded Linux distro. You're gonna have an insane amount of bloatware and companies making viruses and hardware that's way too low end to support the software running on it. You're gonna have no consistency in programming any longer, which will make things harder to learn and service will become just as much of a joke as it is with most PC vendors.
European law almost always accomplishes the exact opposite of its intended effect so please stop bringing it up as if it even has any bearing on this conversation.
How so? Genuine question - how do you think no infringement has taken place?
Psystar have to hack the Mac OS to clone it for use on a PC. Then they sell it on.
Are you suggesting there is no copyright infringement because Apple doesn't own the copyright to its own OS?
He's arguing from a philosophical standpoint that Apple has an illegal copyright because European Law has to be forced to recognize End User License Agreements.
Psystar has violated so many laws to put out this clone, that it will lose one way or another, it's just as to what violation the gavel will fall hardest on. Calling it an Open Mac certainly didn't help its case, though.
How so? Genuine question - how do you think no infringement has taken place?
Psystar have to hack the Mac OS to clone it for use on a PC. Then they sell it on.
Are you suggesting there is no copyright infringement because Apple doesn't own the copyright to its own OS?
1/ They purchase a full retail copy of the OS..... no matter how much people bleat on about OSX only being an 'upgrade' its rubbish. I can go buy the full retail copy.
2/ The EULA then says it must be installed on an Apple labelled computer. I can put an Apple label on anything. So at best that part of the EULA is incomplete. At worst a sticker fulfills the need.
3/ Now as far as I'm aware (and I might be wrong) OSX will install fine on most Intel hardware if the 'boot kernel' panic thing can be avoided. Now given that I can meet the criteria in points 1 and 2, can Apple then, legally infringe my rights by using a kernel panic mode to stop it booting on any hardware that isn't theirs? That I think is the point Pystar is trying to make.
I think Apple's best defence is the 'reputational' damage.
1/ They purchase a full retail copy of the OS..... no matter how much people bleat on about OSX only being an 'upgrade' its rubbish. I can go buy the full retail copy.
2/ The EULA then says it must be installed on an Apple labelled computer. I can put an Apple label on anything. So at best that part of the EULA is incomplete. At worst a sticker fulfills the need.
3/ Now as far as I'm aware (and I might be wrong) OSX will install fine on most Intel hardware if the 'boot kernel' panic thing can be avoided. Now given that I can meet the criteria in points 1 and 2, can Apple then, legally infringe my rights by using a kernel panic mode to stop it booting on any hardware that isn't theirs? That I think is the point Pystar is trying to make.
I think Apple's best defence is the 'reputational' damage.
Thanks for replying! I really didn't understand Psystar's claims. However...
1) They are buying a retail copy, they are not buying a license to re-sell. So by selling machines to consumers they must be breaking a law, no?
2) I am sure a court will hold it true that simply sticking a label on a PC is not really good enough. But that also opens up another question. Apple surely owes it's name and it's logo - that is to say, its branding.
3) On this point I really have no idea about boot kernals, so I can't really argue against what you're saying. But I would use my examples of gaming as, err, an example of sorts. Sony games don't run on Nintendo machines. That seems fine with me. You have to buy a Sony machine to play their games. It is the same logic with Apple, as far as I can tell.
In truth, I think it is more than just 'reputational' damage. Apple spent money on developing an OS system to run on its own machines... they didn't develop it and then put it on the market in an open-source format so that anyone could play around with it and do so for free.
Ultimately, a company must be able to protect it's product. If I buy a copy of the New York Times, I have the 'retail rights' - I can read it. It doesn't mean I can reproduce the story exactly and publish it in my own newspaper free of charge and then sell my own people to readers.
Thanks for replying! I really didn't understand Psystar's claims. However...
1) They are buying a retail copy, they are not buying a license to re-sell. So by selling machines to consumers they must be breaking a law, no?
2) I am sure a court will hold it true that simply sticking a label on a PC is not really good enough. But that also opens up another question. Apple surely owes it's name and it's logo - that is to say, its branding.
3) On this point I really have no idea about boot kernals, so I can't really argue against what you're saying. But I would use my examples of gaming as, err, an example of sorts. Sony games don't run on Nintendo machines. That seems fine with me. You have to buy a Sony machine to play their games. It is the same logic with Apple, as far as I can tell.
In truth, I think it is more than just 'reputational' damage. Apple spent money on developing an OS system to run on its own machines... they didn't develop it and then put it on the market in an open-source format so that anyone could play around with it and do so for free.
Ultimately, a company must be able to protect it's product. If I buy a copy of the New York Times, I have the 'retail rights' - I can read it. It doesn't mean I can reproduce the story exactly and publish it in my own newspaper free of charge and then sell my own people to readers.
1/ I'm sure that from a semantic point of view the sale of the retail copy *can* and probably is in the name of the end user. Pystar just facilitate the purchase.
2/ Apple'S EULA says 'apple labelled'..now as this thread has proved, the EULA is open to debate at the very least. Apple stickers are available from lots of places, and you have to use their branding to meet their own EULA so APple couldn't use that defence.
3/ difference between consoles and computers is that a PS3 came couldn't play on a Wii or 360 as the architecture is so different. Intel based OSX can run on both.
4/ You have to remember that customers are paying the full price for the software, nothing is being done for free. The work to get OSX to boot is done by Pystar themselves.
Information published in a newspaper is in the public domain and under free speech doctrine you could report the same thing, maybe not word for word but pretty close.
1/ They purchase a full retail copy of the OS..... no matter how much people bleat on about OSX only being an 'upgrade' its rubbish. I can go buy the full retail copy.
2/ The EULA then says it must be installed on an Apple labelled computer. I can put an Apple label on anything. So at best that part of the EULA is incomplete. At worst a sticker fulfills the need.
3/ Now as far as I'm aware (and I might be wrong) OSX will install fine on most Intel hardware if the 'boot kernel' panic thing can be avoided. Now given that I can meet the criteria in points 1 and 2, can Apple then, legally infringe my rights by using a kernel panic mode to stop it booting on any hardware that isn't theirs? That I think is the point Pystar is trying to make.
I think Apple's best defence is the 'reputational' damage.
Don't you read the other post on these Pystar threads?
It's been explained many times already.
1. Just because you purchased a physical disk with the full copy of OSX on it doesn't mean you have the right to use OSX anyway to want. You still only pay for a license to use OSX. And that license comes with restrictions. If you don't like the restrictions, then don't pay for the license to use it.
For example, just because you bought a Beatles CD doesn't mean that you can use any of those songs (or parts there of) in a commercial promoting your product. There are restrictions on what you can do with those songs on that CD. You have some personal freedom with what you can do with those songs as given to you in the "Fair Use" law. But rarely does "fair use" cover you when you're using some else's IP for personal profit. When Apple Records sues you for using their copyrighted song in your commercial. You think owning the CD with the song on it and having the receipt that you paid for it, is going to win the case for you?
You can bleat on all you want about buying a physical copy of OSX. But you're still only paying for a license to use OSX.
2. It states a "Mac". And just because you have a layman interpretation of what an Apple "labeled" computer is, doesn't mean that the courts will have the same interpretation. In legal terms, it's means an Apple "branded" computer.
I could see you defending your case by showing up to court with a generic PC, that has a sticker of an apple on it. And then telling the judge and jury that it's an Apple "labeled" computer. Forrest Gump is smarter than that.
3. It been stated many times before, by people that know more about it than you (or me). Simply put, OSX is written to be properly installed on a few dozen different "Macs". When OSX finds hardware that don't match any of the "Macs" in it's database, it "panics" because it can't find a match. So it goes into a loop. It will do the same thing when you try to install OSX.5 on a G3 PPC "Mac". OSX.5 no longer supports the G3 PPC. (But some users have manage to "hack" it so that it would load on to the faster G3 PPC "Macs".) And OSX.6 may no longer load on to a G4 PPC "Mac".
Now MS Windows would just keep on installing and then give you an option to install any drivers it couldn't find in it's database later. But that's the way MS Windows was written. It has to be written this way because there's almost an infinite number of different computer configurations and MS want Windows to be able to work on as many of these as possible. MS wants you to use their software.
Apple on the other hand don't care about those other configurations that OSX can be made to work on. It only cares about OSX working properly on the "Macs" it was developed to run on. There is a big difference between Apple purposely preventing OSX from installing on any generic PC and Apple just not wanting to put the extra effort into developing OSX so that it can be installed on any generic PC. Apple wants you to use their hardware.
Information published in a newspaper is in the public domain and under free speech doctrine you could report the same thing, maybe not word for word but pretty close.
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.
4/ You have to remember that customers are paying the full price for the software, nothing is being done for free. The work to get OSX to boot is done by Pystar themselves.
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.
The "entry level" 2.66GHz Quad core Mac Pro has a Xeon W 3500 series Chip that is for SP motherboards only, and sells for around $375.00.
Wikipedia? Give me a break. And how accurate do you think that page is when it hasn't been updated for 6 months and admits that the prices aren't right.
You can buy the Nehalem today from a licensed vendor for just over $1 K. Do a Google search. Typically in the past, the retail price has been about 10% higher than the per-1000 price for Intel processors, so the wholesale price is probably in the $900 range.
It is, of course, irrelevant, anyway. Apple has a price for their computer. If you don't like it, that doesn't give you the right to steal Apple's property any more than you have the right to steal a BMW off the lot of you think the price is too high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevielee
Apple was the first to show it's hand in it's Xeon Nehelem pricing structure. Watch for the rest of the PC pack to take full advantage of Apple's arrogant and exclusive OSX "Tax" by seriously undercutting them by at least 30-50%.
Well, you can speculate all you wish. However, when you compare similar(*) quality hardware from name brand vendors, Apple has always been competitive with the Pro series, particularly the ones with dual CPUs. It was never possible to find a comparable dual Xeon Dell computer for 30-50% less than Apple's dual CPU Pro.
* Note that these comparisons ignore one major issue - quality. While Apple uses the same CPUs as other vendors, CPUs (and even GPUs) are not the whole of a computer. Apple's motherboards, case, power supply, and often even video cards are usually made solely for Apple. That is why Apple consistently rates #1 in reliability and customer satisfaction.
Not to mention, of course, the issue of the OS. Whether Mac bashers like it or not, some people ARE willing to pay more for Mac OS X.
[QUOTE=stevielee;1386315]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMad
"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????
Yet, for the past 5 years, Apple has been the fastest growing PC vendor by far. Did it ever occur to you that some people are happy with Apple's products and prices?
Furthermore, you seem to be confused about some major issues. You are probably right about one thing - that there is demand for lower priced Macs. I don't think anyone would dispute that. But that doesn't give Psystar the right to break the law to try to meet that demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevielee
You idiot (dumbass in my speak)! I only used eBay because it accurately reflected what the cost
of the Xeon 2.8 Quad is still going for right now.
Go Psystar! ( I really don't care if they win or lose - but I know just appearing to root them on really pisses some of you old Apple Apologist farts to no end. That's worth all of the "dumbass" insults ten fold).
Actually, it's worth noting that the Nehalem processors on eBay right now are all described as engineering samples - which means they're not particularly useful for price comparisons.
As for 'Go Psystar', i love the juvenile attitude: "I don't care about the law or intellectual property or what's right or wrong. I am just offended by Mac users who get to use a better computer than I do, so I hope they get screwed". Not much of a rational argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevielee
Not if Apple were to sell OSX as a full Retail ONLY, Standalone OS, that IS NOT licensed to, or bundled with any particular machine or company, and if they specifically put a disclaimer on this Retail OSX that if it is installed on any non-Apple computers, no follow-up support would be forthcoming. Support would only be provided (as now) to Apple machines ONLY. No legal liabilities would then apply to Apple if this was the case.
All you have to do is a little math. Let's start with a couple of assumptions:
Retail price of OS X $129. Apple's margin 70%.
Average price of Macintosh Computer $1500. Apple's margin 30%.
Apple has 7% US market share today.
Now, let's assume that Apple loses one hardware sale for every 5 licenses sold (which is probably way too low. They would probably lose a lot more than that).
We'll also assume that Apple has ZERO support costs of overhead costs (which is not the case - Apple would end up spending money to support their product under US law even if they tried to dump it on the hardware vendor).
Every software license gets them $90 in margin. Every computer sale lost costs them $450 in margin. So, AT BEST, Apple breaks even - with a great deal of risk.
There's an even bigger problem. There are two scenarios:
1. Not very many people take advantage of the arrangement. In that case, Apple doesn't even have much potential gain and there's no point.
2. Tons of people try to take advantage of it. If so, perhaps Apple's own hardware market share drops to 5% instead of 7%. Loss of 2% in Apple's share means a 10% gain in market share for clones (using the 5:1 assumption). That would put Mac OS market share at 15%. Does anyone realistically think that OS X market share is going to hit that level any time in the foreseeable future? I don't think so. It's just not plausible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevielee
Originally Posted by Halvri
"Go to Dell's website and make a BTO unit and then build that same rig yourself and it will cost you a third of what that vendor charged. Businesses are about profit and the supply and demand chain is ultimately determined by the consumer."
Actually, no on can build an 8-Core Xeon Workstation - even with last years "Harpertown" processors - for " a third" of what Dell is charging for their BTO units. Each of these processor still cost upwards of $1300 each - with the 2.8GHz Quad-Core Xeon processor going for around $750 per processor ($1500 total). It would cost nearly the same price ( within 10-20% margin) to build one of your own Xeon workstations with the Intel Penryn Quad-Core Xeons. ( see my previous posting for links to retail prices ). full retail price for any Dell computer -with their all their special discounts, coupons and such.
The last Mac Pro Apple released (2008 rev.) was actually very competitive in pricing as compared to their PC counterparts.
That's what people don't get. At the high end, Apple's high end systems are VERY competitive. I can't find a Dell dual CPU (8 core) system that beats Apple's price anywhere - and certainly not 1/3 the price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halvri
I mean building a computer in general, not specifically the Xeon based ones. But regardless, the Mac Pro has the lowest unit sales of any Mac and therefore has to have the highest profit margin. I'm not arguing with you that such is a little lame, but there's an actual reason for it to be that way. That said, I seriously doubt if other companies severely undercut the Mac Pro, that price will stand for long. The iPhone's original price was sky high and you see how long that lasted. Apple does sometimes over do it and change course.
That is seriously faulty logic. There's no reason to believe that a system with low unit sales has a high profit margin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevielee
Do you really think that Apple can continue with it's "premium" price structure, and still maintain it's current market share in these gloomy economic times? Apple's stock may be doing better than most at the moment, closing at just above $85 today, but it is still less than half of what it was six months ago and Apple's overall long term situation isn't as strong as you might think. Their sales figures are beginning to soften already (as is everyone else's), and as the recession deepens, diminishing demand for high-end anything will not bode well for Apple's $2000+ laptops (a good percentage of them sold to businesses), as well as their Mac Pro line, and Pro App software. They will still probably do well on the low end of things for a time- with the iPod, the iPhone, the Mac Mini, and entry-level iMacs, but spending is getting mighty tight lately, and many of my clients have cancelled, or postponed major computer and electronics (1K+) purchases until further notice. And that includes Apple hardware.
Apple may be riding this out without any major damage yet, but in this new economic reality, no one is safe or immune from it's ravages. Not even Apple.
I have a feeling that in the coming months - the big A will have to be a little more "humble" in the "premium" pricing of their products. They might even have to bring back the sub-1K laptop later this year, or in early 2010, in a belated attempt to compete with the rising popularity of NetBooks.
The whole Psystar thing may eventually become moot if, or when Apple itself has increasing problems selling their own "premium" hardware to struggling, cost conscious consumers.
Maybe it will be the economy, and not upstarts like Psystar, that finally forces Apple's closed loop hand...
Yet, Apple continues to do quite well. They may have to change their business model at some point, but it would be incredibly stupid to do so on the basis of a few whiners on bulletin boards when they just announced a couple quarters of record profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago
1/ They purchase a full retail copy of the OS..... no matter how much people bleat on about OSX only being an 'upgrade' its rubbish. I can go buy the full retail copy.
2/ The EULA then says it must be installed on an Apple labelled computer. I can put an Apple label on anything. So at best that part of the EULA is incomplete. At worst a sticker fulfills the need.
3/ Now as far as I'm aware (and I might be wrong) OSX will install fine on most Intel hardware if the 'boot kernel' panic thing can be avoided. Now given that I can meet the criteria in points 1 and 2, can Apple then, legally infringe my rights by using a kernel panic mode to stop it booting on any hardware that isn't theirs? That I think is the point Pystar is trying to make.
I think Apple's best defence is the 'reputational' damage.
1. You are mistaken. Since all Macs some with OS X and since the software says it can only be installed on Macs, it is NOT licensed as a full edition - no matter how much you want to distort things.
2. You might get away with this in your home. For Psystar (or another cloner) to do so, it would be incredibly illegal to make a computer and put an Apple logo on it and then sell it to consumers. Furthermore, "Apple labeled" presumably has legal meaning beyond the simple layman's language.
3. That is not correct. Furthermore, Apple doesn't legally infringe anyone's rights. They are free to design software for their own computers. If your computer has a problem running Apple's software, it's not their problem. There is no obligation for them to write software to work on your computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago
1/ I'm sure that from a semantic point of view the sale of the retail copy *can* and probably is in the name of the end user. Pystar just facilitate the purchase.
2/ Apple'S EULA says 'apple labelled'..now as this thread has proved, the EULA is open to debate at the very least. Apple stickers are available from lots of places, and you have to use their branding to meet their own EULA so APple couldn't use that defence.
3/ difference between consoles and computers is that a PS3 came couldn't play on a Wii or 360 as the architecture is so different. Intel based OSX can run on both.
4/ You have to remember that customers are paying the full price for the software, nothing is being done for free. The work to get OSX to boot is done by Pystar themselves.
Information published in a newspaper is in the public domain and under free speech doctrine you could report the same thing, maybe not word for word but pretty close.
2. See above. A reseller can not legally put an Apple label on the computer.
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.
4. Customers are NOT paying full price for the software. They are licensing the software for a given price on a given set of terms. You do not have the right to tell the vendor, "I don't like your terms, so I'll go ahead and pay the fee and then violate the terms." If Apple were to sell a version that runs on generic PC hardware, there's no reason to believe that the price would be $129 - which is clearly identified as an upgrade price by stating that you can only use it on a Mac.
they aren't taking anything..they are buying it!!!...jeez.
That is not correct. They are licensing it.
What you are advocating is the same as walking into a car rental place and signing an agreement that you will drive the car only in the US, get only 500 miles, and will return it in 4 days and then paying up front. You then drive throughout Canada and Mexico, drive 20,000 miles, and return it 20 days later - and expect that it's all covered by your initial payment.
You license software and are bound by the license terms. If you don't like the terms, don't license it.
Wikipedia? Give me a break. And how accurate do you think that page is when it hasn't been updated for 6 months and admits that the prices aren't right.
You can buy the Nehalem today from a licensed vendor for just over $1 K. Do a Google search. Typically in the past, the retail price has been about 10% higher than the per-1000 price for Intel processors, so the wholesale price is probably in the $900 range.
No sir, you CANNOT currently "buy" a Nehelem Xeon processor anywhere - let alone on eBay. Apple got an advance shipment of them from Intel - a full 3 weeks before they will be officially announced to the general public.
And if you have a problem with Wikipedia's "accuracy", then check out this Nehelem Pricing Chart from X-Bits Lab - published in early February of this year. Their pricing chart closely corresponds to Wikipedia's, and has also been republished by several other online tech sites.
The Xeon processors that Apple is using in the entry-level Mac Pro Quad-Core 2.66GHz ARE the Nehelem Xeon Quad-Core W3520's. They will be priced (upon release) at around $275 in 1K lots, or around $300-350 for single unit retail sales. There will be no "$900 wholesale prices" for these sub-$300 chips -PERIOD!
Do your own Google search for the Xeon W3520's and you'll find countless more tech sites with the exact same pricing charts.
There is no big mystery here, or "special" Apple only Nehelem W3520's that sell for 2, or 3 times what everyone else will be paying for them. The flat reality is: Apple put a sub-$300 processor in a 2.5K "Workstation".
Last years 2008 2.8GHZ 8-Core Mac Pro had 2 x $750 Xeon Processors - around $1500 in processor hardware cost to Apple. They charged $2799 for that model.
So do the math again, and you'll clearly see the major difference between laying out $300 for a processor, and $1500 for 2 processors, but still charging in the mid-2K range for the end product.
And taking into account Apple's "proprietary" motherboard design (slightly higher per unit cost than the 2008 version), custom (crippled), rebranded Nvidia GT120 (9500GT with only one Dual-Link DVI out), there is no way, no how that Apple's base hardware cost for the 2009 Mac Pro's entire machine comes to what it cost them for just for the 2008 Mac Pro's processors alone. Apple even went for the Nehelem Xeon chips (again cheaper) that support the lower speed DDR3 1066MHz DIMMS vs going with the top-of-the-line Xeon's available that support the higher DDR3 1333MHz DIMMS (more expensive at the same processor clock speeds saving even more money). Apple says that they did this to "Standardize" the Mac Pro's memory compatibility across the product line, but it is at the expense of better memory performance that would be realized from going with the Xeon's that support 1336MHz clock speeds for their higher-end DP Mac Pro's. They cut cost corners at almost every opportunity here - even in memory choices.
As a Computer Tech, I specialize in hardware options and cost analysis for my clients. I do my research thoroughly - to get the best equipment at the best prices possible. I have been closely following these new Nehelem processor from Intel's first announcement of them. I know what they will cost when they are released. I have already pre-ordered a couple of the higher end Nehalem variants for one of my PC clients who is building his own Server set-up.
I also know that Apple did in fact increase it's profit margins substantially with the New Mac Pro's. That info came to me from someone directly "Inside" Apple. He explained to me that Apple's reasoning is that since the Nehelem Xeon single Quad-Core 2.66GHz chip showed impressive speed gains (actual 15-30% vs Apple's claim of 200+%)) over last years 8-Core 2.8GHz Harpertowns in early benchmark testing - not only could Apple offer an entry-level Mac Pro for less money ($2499 vs $2799) than the 2008 model, but it could theoretically (with the turbo-boost and Hyper-threading aware applications) offer increased overall performance to boot - all in one Quad-core chip instead of having to spring for 2). It should be a win-win for both the consumer, and of course, a huge financial win for Apple.
The only fly in the ointment here is: we can all clearly and plainly see for ourselves what Apple is actually paying for these new Nehalem processors. Now, Apple can then go and charge whatever it decides for it's own equipment - that is every businesses base prerogative. But when a potential buyer sees that he/she can get very similar, or the same hardware configuration for at least 1K less - with the very same, or similar performance results, then the questions as to why Apple is charging such a "premium" will inevitably arise. It is a fair question I think - even if some of you here on this thread feel that no one has a right, or any reason to ask anything more from Apple than the probing questions "Will Snow Leopard give me better performance on the new Mac Pro's", or "Can I still connect my two, 30", Apple Cinema Displays?" ( The answer to that last question is: No! You will have to buy, ala-carte , a $100, very "flakey", Mini-Display-to-Dual Link DVI Adapter, or a second video card from Apple to to continue doing that - at a hefty Apple "premium", of course)
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB...mco=MzE2OTkzMQ (Read the reviews on this $100 "Adapter". They go directly to the very heart of the problem many customers are encountering with Apple's increasingly "proprietary", "premium" hardware).
Many of the Mac and PC forums have been buzzing with the new Mac Pro's "controversial" pricing.
So go ahead Apple and continue increasing your "Apple Tax" margins and closing off, or limiting third party hardware option - like providing only crippled, obsolete graphic cards - but no
"Workstation graphic card options for your 2.5K++++ "Workstation" with only 3 DIMM slots, and no DP option.
OSX may be the best OS option right now, but it's certainly not worth paying for
over and over and over again in current and future Apple hardware cost - just to butress Apple's bottom line.
Discuss amongst yourselves. Name calling and personal denigration of me and my post are certainly expected and understandable amongst the Apple faithful. I know, I do speak high blasphemy in the holy church of latter day Apple...
I will go away for now...until the next, new Psystar flame thread shows up.
Don't you read the other post on these Pystar threads?
It's been explained many times already.
1. Just because you purchased a physical disk with the full copy of OSX on it doesn't mean you have the right to use OSX anyway to want. You still only pay for a license to use OSX. And that license comes with restrictions. If you don't like the restrictions, then don't pay for the license to use it.
For example, just because you bought a Beatles CD doesn't mean that you can use any of those songs (or parts there of) in a commercial promoting your product. There are restrictions on what you can do with those songs on that CD. You have some personal freedom with what you can do with those songs as given to you in the "Fair Use" law. But rarely does "fair use" cover you when you're using some else's IP for personal profit. When Apple Records sues you for using their copyrighted song in your commercial. You think owning the CD with the song on it and having the receipt that you paid for it, is going to win the case for you?
You can bleat on all you want about buying a physical copy of OSX. But you're still only paying for a license to use OSX.
2. It states a "Mac". And just because you have a layman interpretation of what an Apple "labeled" computer is, doesn't mean that the courts will have the same interpretation. In legal terms, it's means an Apple "branded" computer.
I could see you defending your case by showing up to court with a generic PC, that has a sticker of an apple on it. And then telling the judge and jury that it's an Apple "labeled" computer. Forrest Gump is smarter than that.
3. It been stated many times before, by people that know more about it than you (or me). Simply put, OSX is written to be properly installed on a few dozen different "Macs". When OSX finds hardware that don't match any of the "Macs" in it's database, it "panics" because it can't find a match. So it goes into a loop. It will do the same thing when you try to install OSX.5 on a G3 PPC "Mac". OSX.5 no longer supports the G3 PPC. (But some users have manage to "hack" it so that it would load on to the faster G3 PPC "Macs".) And OSX.6 may no longer load on to a G4 PPC "Mac".
Now MS Windows would just keep on installing and then give you an option to install any drivers it couldn't find in it's database later. But that's the way MS Windows was written. It has to be written this way because there's almost an infinite number of different computer configurations and MS want Windows to be able to work on as many of these as possible. MS wants you to use their software.
Apple on the other hand don't care about those other configurations that OSX can be made to work on. It only cares about OSX working properly on the "Macs" it was developed to run on. There is a big difference between Apple purposely preventing OSX from installing on any generic PC and Apple just not wanting to put the extra effort into developing OSX so that it can be installed on any generic PC. Apple wants you to use their hardware.
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.
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? \
if you re-read my wording, you will see that we agree on this point, congratulations.
Comments
You don't read the fine print, do you? The retail copy of Leopard they give you is a worthless disc. You cannot re-install Leopard on the Psystar computer. So just because they bought a copy, doesn't allow them to steal the intellectual rights from Apple, hack it, and install it on their own PC. If you need to reinstall Leopard, you have to fill out a form with Psystar in order to get their specially-hacked CD that will allow you to reinstall Leopard.
Here is the best part...this is the release you must sign to get the restore CD:
"By completing and returning this form via Fax or Postal Mail I state that I am satisfied with my product, my 7-day return period is over, I would like any restore media related to my product delivered to me immediately, and I do not intend to dispute the purchase of my Open Computing product."
You have to declare your purchase date, purchase price, credit card number, shipping tracking number, and computer serial number in order to get the disc. Now I wonder why Psystar would require the customer to release all their rights in order to restore the software? Hmmm, maybe it is because what they are doing is ILLEGAL?
Now with that restriction, who the hell would want to buy one of their piece of shit computers? Except for maybe the bonehead that thinks Apple is price gouging their customers.
well I think that Pystar's point is that the code Apple puts in to force kernel panic is illegal in its' own right and if it wasn't there then they wouldn't have to 'hack' it in the first place. Installing OSX then would only depend legally on the EULA which is pretty dodgy everywhere but especially over here in EU land.
it would be better for society, for the industry and for every consumer out there if OSX could be used as an alternative for Windows..in general. Thats why I and thousands of others are rooting for the clone makers.
No wonder America is in the mess it is, we actually have folks supporting thieves like these Psystar dudes.
right.... in a global recession you are supporting the company that produces the worst value system ever made..??
...and thats better for America..??
I can assure you that the Intel Xeon 2.66GHz Quad-Core that Apple is using in the $2499 Mac Pro IS the Intel Xeon W3520 processor - since there are only 3 clock speed options for the SP Nehelem variants (a 2.66, 2.93, and a 3.20GHZ ) . There is no "secret", or "special" (more expensive) Mac only W3500 series processor available. Just the same three SP processor options that everyone else will be using. And yes, they are going for $278 each (maybe even less for Apple). I know that this is hard to accept this pricing reality at face value - because how could Apple pay so little for what is usually THE most valuable part of any high-end "Workstation" and not pass some of the reduced hardware cost on to their consumers (remembering the SP option in the 2008 Mac Pro's that went for just a little over $2300) - especially in this very difficult economy?
http://www.macblogz.com/2008/11/13/i...rly-next-year/
And even worse value of hardware is offered at the 2nd, $3299 level, with Apple only springing for 2x 2.66 Quad-Cores that are priced at $373 per processor - for a grand total of $756 - right about what it cost them for just a single 2.8GHz Harpertown processor (2 of which were included in the 2008 "entry-level" Mac Pro's).
These have to be some of the highest profit margins (mark-ups) that the Mac Pro line has ever seen. Maybe Apple figures that they can bleed more $$$ from the well-healed "Pro", and "Prosumer" market, before they too finally feel the financial squeeze and cry uncle! Whatever their reasoning, quite a few of have caught on to this new "Apple tax", and are beginning to question the real "value" of these new Mac Pro's - soon to be directly juxtaposed (price and performance wise) to their PC counterpart.
I'm not against anyone making a profit, but lately Apple has been going in the absolutely wrong direction regarding their hardware and how they are pricing it - like dropping the low end Macbook for a $1399 entry-level model (selling off older Macbook stocks @ $1099 notwithstanding). All this "extreme" pricing will end up doing is increasing the chances of more Psystar like companies (new ones will most likely take a different, non-direct approach like EFI-X) to challenge Apple in OSX compatible hardware. Psystar is just the "canary in the coal mine" for Apple here. Apple will not be able to continue to have OSX consumers invest thousands $$$ in the Mac software platform, and then take advantage of that investment by increasing their profit margins on the "closed loop" hardware that is necessary to run that software. I, like many, many others I know, would willingly pay 2,3 even 4 times the current price for a truly liberated, Retail OSX that can run on any machine with an Intel processor. I will naturally assume all the risks and associated problems that may come from this and not expect Apple to provide any kind of follow-up support for using OSX on non-apple hardware. Just let us pay the full retail cost for a stand-alone copy OSX (say $499, which should more than cover the R&D cost to developers). And if Apple ends up selling the best hardware to run it on, then people will buy it willingly - without being artificially forced to. If not, then we could still have the hardware op-out option by buying a full Retail version of OSX and installing it on a non-Apple machine.
And yes, you are correct that I should refrain from personal attacks, or name calling. It doesn't do anything to further my position - other than making me feel a little better striking back. Humor would go a much longer way I think...
great ideas, great articulation...great post.
Apples' marketshare of computers sold in 2009 is forecast to be 10-11m out of 260m units sold.
Clueless??
try a mirror..
It sound clueless on your part when post after post you boost how many more Macs Apple could sell and how much marketshare OS X could have if they choose to do business the way you want them to instead of the way they want to. Then you jump into a comment trying to paint how Apple's ptofitable, high-end percentage is somehow not enough because they can't possibly sell anymore Macs than they already do. Which is it? Are they trying to corner all parts of the PC market (which would mesn that they offering the machkne you want) whilst still having only a select percentage --or-- are they only making select machines targeted at the profitable oortions of the PC market, thus making you praise copyright infringement and poohpooh the free market? You can't have it both ways.
Do you really think that Apple can continue with it's "premium" price structure, and still maintain it's current market share in these gloomy economic times? Apple's stock may be doing better than most at the moment, closing at just above $85 today, but it is still less than half of what it was six months ago and Apple's overall long term situation isn't as strong as you might think. Their sales figures are beginning to soften already (as is everyone else's), and as the recession deepens, diminishing demand for high-end anything will not bode well for Apple's $2000+ laptops (a good percentage of them sold to businesses), as well as their Mac Pro line, and Pro App software. They will still probably do well on the low end of things for a time- with the iPod, the iPhone, the Mac Mini, and entry-level iMacs, but spending is getting mighty tight lately, and many of my clients have cancelled, or postponed major computer and electronics (1K+) purchases until further notice. And that includes Apple hardware.
Apple may be riding this out without any major damage yet, but in this new economic reality, no one is safe or immune from it's ravages. Not even Apple.
I have a feeling that in the coming months - the big A will have to be a little more "humble" in the "premium" pricing of their products. They might even have to bring back the sub-1K laptop later this year, or in early 2010, in a belated attempt to compete with the rising popularity of NetBooks.
The whole Psystar thing may eventually become moot if, or when Apple itself has increasing problems selling their own "premium" hardware to struggling, cost conscious consumers.
Maybe it will be the economy, and not upstarts like Psystar, that finally forces Apple's closed loop hand...
Apple's last two quarters have been the most profitable in its history and that's in the midst of a recession. While I don't think Apple's impenetrable, I do think people who are buying computers are now buying for quality, not price because everyone else, as you said, is simply holding out in general. Since Apple owns almost 80% of the $1,000+ market, the users who actually still have money in this economy are buying them.
I honestly think netbooks are going to self-destruct within the next year. They're slow and underwhelming and make almost no profit for either the hardware or software providers. I can't see them being supported much longer when they're literally tying a noose around what's left of PC sales.
It sound clueless on your part when post after post you boost how many more Macs Apple could sell and how much marketshare OS X could have if they choose to do business the way you want them to instead of the way they want to. Then you jump into a comment trying to paint how Apple's ptofitable, high-end percentage is somehow not enough because they can't possibly sell anymore Macs than they already do. Which is it? Are they trying to corner all parts of the PC market (which would mesn that they offering the machkne you want) whilst still having only a select percentage --or-- are they only making select machines targeted at the profitable oortions of the PC market, thus making you praise copyright infringement and poohpooh the free market? You can't have it both ways.
no I was just trying to point out how relevant Apple are and how many computers they actually sell worldwide in comparison to the market overall. The reality seems different to the 'spin' on it peddled by sites such as this one.
I don't believe there is any copyright infringement to be honest...but the courts will decide.
well I think that Pystar's point is that the code Apple puts in to force kernel panic is illegal in its' own right and if it wasn't there then they wouldn't have to 'hack' it in the first place. Installing OSX then would only depend legally on the EULA which is pretty dodgy everywhere but especially over here in EU land.
it would be better for society, for the industry and for every consumer out there if OSX could be used as an alternative for Windows..in general. Thats why I and thousands of others are rooting for the clone makers.
Apple's code does not cause a kernel panic. There is a boot up string that has to be verified upon start up which, if un-passed, causes an infinite loop. There's no explicit code in the system that causes it to do that. My oldest MacBook has a messed up super drive and sometimes has an issue with software updates because that chain can't be verified (though, there is an easy work around).
And let's talk about EU land, shall we. Several members of the European Union apply free speech in a manner that black lists words. For instance, while I think that German cardinal that denies the Holocaust is vile, I don't think he should spend three years in prison simply for denying it happened.
Copyright law in Europe is a complete joke. The idea that Microsoft can't ship with Windows Media Center or Internet Explorer because people are too dumb or lazy to download an alternative is a pretty brazen example of European law doing more to tamper with market forces than balance them out.
Again, look at the laws in countries like the U.S. and Japan where alot of these copyrighted materials come from and you'll find substantially better IP protection than you will in European nations that have no equivalent. European law in general has alot of maturing to do.
Also, rooting for the cloners is just plain dumb. Again, all things being equal, Windows & OS X would be exactly the same but with a different design. The exact same would be true of an extremely well funded Linux distro. You're gonna have an insane amount of bloatware and companies making viruses and hardware that's way too low end to support the software running on it. You're gonna have no consistency in programming any longer, which will make things harder to learn and service will become just as much of a joke as it is with most PC vendors.
European law almost always accomplishes the exact opposite of its intended effect so please stop bringing it up as if it even has any bearing on this conversation.
I don't believe there is any copyright infringement to be honest...but the courts will decide.
How so? Genuine question - how do you think no infringement has taken place?
Psystar have to hack the Mac OS to clone it for use on a PC. Then they sell it on.
Are you suggesting there is no copyright infringement because Apple doesn't own the copyright to its own OS?
How so? Genuine question - how do you think no infringement has taken place?
Psystar have to hack the Mac OS to clone it for use on a PC. Then they sell it on.
Are you suggesting there is no copyright infringement because Apple doesn't own the copyright to its own OS?
He's arguing from a philosophical standpoint that Apple has an illegal copyright because European Law has to be forced to recognize End User License Agreements.
Psystar has violated so many laws to put out this clone, that it will lose one way or another, it's just as to what violation the gavel will fall hardest on. Calling it an Open Mac certainly didn't help its case, though.
How so? Genuine question - how do you think no infringement has taken place?
Psystar have to hack the Mac OS to clone it for use on a PC. Then they sell it on.
Are you suggesting there is no copyright infringement because Apple doesn't own the copyright to its own OS?
1/ They purchase a full retail copy of the OS..... no matter how much people bleat on about OSX only being an 'upgrade' its rubbish. I can go buy the full retail copy.
2/ The EULA then says it must be installed on an Apple labelled computer. I can put an Apple label on anything. So at best that part of the EULA is incomplete. At worst a sticker fulfills the need.
3/ Now as far as I'm aware (and I might be wrong) OSX will install fine on most Intel hardware if the 'boot kernel' panic thing can be avoided. Now given that I can meet the criteria in points 1 and 2, can Apple then, legally infringe my rights by using a kernel panic mode to stop it booting on any hardware that isn't theirs? That I think is the point Pystar is trying to make.
I think Apple's best defence is the 'reputational' damage.
1/ They purchase a full retail copy of the OS..... no matter how much people bleat on about OSX only being an 'upgrade' its rubbish. I can go buy the full retail copy.
2/ The EULA then says it must be installed on an Apple labelled computer. I can put an Apple label on anything. So at best that part of the EULA is incomplete. At worst a sticker fulfills the need.
3/ Now as far as I'm aware (and I might be wrong) OSX will install fine on most Intel hardware if the 'boot kernel' panic thing can be avoided. Now given that I can meet the criteria in points 1 and 2, can Apple then, legally infringe my rights by using a kernel panic mode to stop it booting on any hardware that isn't theirs? That I think is the point Pystar is trying to make.
I think Apple's best defence is the 'reputational' damage.
Thanks for replying! I really didn't understand Psystar's claims. However...
1) They are buying a retail copy, they are not buying a license to re-sell. So by selling machines to consumers they must be breaking a law, no?
2) I am sure a court will hold it true that simply sticking a label on a PC is not really good enough. But that also opens up another question. Apple surely owes it's name and it's logo - that is to say, its branding.
3) On this point I really have no idea about boot kernals, so I can't really argue against what you're saying. But I would use my examples of gaming as, err, an example of sorts. Sony games don't run on Nintendo machines. That seems fine with me. You have to buy a Sony machine to play their games. It is the same logic with Apple, as far as I can tell.
In truth, I think it is more than just 'reputational' damage. Apple spent money on developing an OS system to run on its own machines... they didn't develop it and then put it on the market in an open-source format so that anyone could play around with it and do so for free.
Ultimately, a company must be able to protect it's product. If I buy a copy of the New York Times, I have the 'retail rights'
Thanks for replying! I really didn't understand Psystar's claims. However...
1) They are buying a retail copy, they are not buying a license to re-sell. So by selling machines to consumers they must be breaking a law, no?
2) I am sure a court will hold it true that simply sticking a label on a PC is not really good enough. But that also opens up another question. Apple surely owes it's name and it's logo - that is to say, its branding.
3) On this point I really have no idea about boot kernals, so I can't really argue against what you're saying. But I would use my examples of gaming as, err, an example of sorts. Sony games don't run on Nintendo machines. That seems fine with me. You have to buy a Sony machine to play their games. It is the same logic with Apple, as far as I can tell.
In truth, I think it is more than just 'reputational' damage. Apple spent money on developing an OS system to run on its own machines... they didn't develop it and then put it on the market in an open-source format so that anyone could play around with it and do so for free.
Ultimately, a company must be able to protect it's product. If I buy a copy of the New York Times, I have the 'retail rights'
1/ I'm sure that from a semantic point of view the sale of the retail copy *can* and probably is in the name of the end user. Pystar just facilitate the purchase.
2/ Apple'S EULA says 'apple labelled'..now as this thread has proved, the EULA is open to debate at the very least. Apple stickers are available from lots of places, and you have to use their branding to meet their own EULA so APple couldn't use that defence.
3/ difference between consoles and computers is that a PS3 came couldn't play on a Wii or 360 as the architecture is so different. Intel based OSX can run on both.
4/ You have to remember that customers are paying the full price for the software, nothing is being done for free. The work to get OSX to boot is done by Pystar themselves.
Information published in a newspaper is in the public domain and under free speech doctrine you could report the same thing, maybe not word for word but pretty close.
1/ They purchase a full retail copy of the OS..... no matter how much people bleat on about OSX only being an 'upgrade' its rubbish. I can go buy the full retail copy.
2/ The EULA then says it must be installed on an Apple labelled computer. I can put an Apple label on anything. So at best that part of the EULA is incomplete. At worst a sticker fulfills the need.
3/ Now as far as I'm aware (and I might be wrong) OSX will install fine on most Intel hardware if the 'boot kernel' panic thing can be avoided. Now given that I can meet the criteria in points 1 and 2, can Apple then, legally infringe my rights by using a kernel panic mode to stop it booting on any hardware that isn't theirs? That I think is the point Pystar is trying to make.
I think Apple's best defence is the 'reputational' damage.
Don't you read the other post on these Pystar threads?
It's been explained many times already.
1. Just because you purchased a physical disk with the full copy of OSX on it doesn't mean you have the right to use OSX anyway to want. You still only pay for a license to use OSX. And that license comes with restrictions. If you don't like the restrictions, then don't pay for the license to use it.
For example, just because you bought a Beatles CD doesn't mean that you can use any of those songs (or parts there of) in a commercial promoting your product. There are restrictions on what you can do with those songs on that CD. You have some personal freedom with what you can do with those songs as given to you in the "Fair Use" law. But rarely does "fair use" cover you when you're using some else's IP for personal profit. When Apple Records sues you for using their copyrighted song in your commercial. You think owning the CD with the song on it and having the receipt that you paid for it, is going to win the case for you?
You can bleat on all you want about buying a physical copy of OSX. But you're still only paying for a license to use OSX.
2. It states a "Mac". And just because you have a layman interpretation of what an Apple "labeled" computer is, doesn't mean that the courts will have the same interpretation. In legal terms, it's means an Apple "branded" computer.
I could see you defending your case by showing up to court with a generic PC, that has a sticker of an apple on it. And then telling the judge and jury that it's an Apple "labeled" computer. Forrest Gump is smarter than that.
3. It been stated many times before, by people that know more about it than you (or me). Simply put, OSX is written to be properly installed on a few dozen different "Macs". When OSX finds hardware that don't match any of the "Macs" in it's database, it "panics" because it can't find a match. So it goes into a loop. It will do the same thing when you try to install OSX.5 on a G3 PPC "Mac". OSX.5 no longer supports the G3 PPC. (But some users have manage to "hack" it so that it would load on to the faster G3 PPC "Macs".) And OSX.6 may no longer load on to a G4 PPC "Mac".
Now MS Windows would just keep on installing and then give you an option to install any drivers it couldn't find in it's database later. But that's the way MS Windows was written. It has to be written this way because there's almost an infinite number of different computer configurations and MS want Windows to be able to work on as many of these as possible. MS wants you to use their software.
Apple on the other hand don't care about those other configurations that OSX can be made to work on. It only cares about OSX working properly on the "Macs" it was developed to run on. There is a big difference between Apple purposely preventing OSX from installing on any generic PC and Apple just not wanting to put the extra effort into developing OSX so that it can be installed on any generic PC. Apple wants you to use their hardware.
Information published in a newspaper is in the public domain and under free speech doctrine you could report the same thing, maybe not word for word but pretty close.
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?
4/ You have to remember that customers are paying the full price for the software, nothing is being done for free. The work to get OSX to boot is done by Pystar themselves.
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.
Geez! can we get some proof from Intel as to what they are selling these new Xeons for per 1000 before making such claims?!
Proof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...e)&redirect=no
The "entry level" 2.66GHz Quad core Mac Pro has a Xeon W 3500 series Chip that is for SP motherboards only, and sells for around $375.00.
Wikipedia? Give me a break. And how accurate do you think that page is when it hasn't been updated for 6 months and admits that the prices aren't right.
You can buy the Nehalem today from a licensed vendor for just over $1 K. Do a Google search. Typically in the past, the retail price has been about 10% higher than the per-1000 price for Intel processors, so the wholesale price is probably in the $900 range.
It is, of course, irrelevant, anyway. Apple has a price for their computer. If you don't like it, that doesn't give you the right to steal Apple's property any more than you have the right to steal a BMW off the lot of you think the price is too high.
Apple was the first to show it's hand in it's Xeon Nehelem pricing structure. Watch for the rest of the PC pack to take full advantage of Apple's arrogant and exclusive OSX "Tax" by seriously undercutting them by at least 30-50%.
Read: "What is Apple smoking?"
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2009-03-blog.html
Well, you can speculate all you wish. However, when you compare similar(*) quality hardware from name brand vendors, Apple has always been competitive with the Pro series, particularly the ones with dual CPUs. It was never possible to find a comparable dual Xeon Dell computer for 30-50% less than Apple's dual CPU Pro.
* Note that these comparisons ignore one major issue - quality. While Apple uses the same CPUs as other vendors, CPUs (and even GPUs) are not the whole of a computer. Apple's motherboards, case, power supply, and often even video cards are usually made solely for Apple. That is why Apple consistently rates #1 in reliability and customer satisfaction.
Not to mention, of course, the issue of the OS. Whether Mac bashers like it or not, some people ARE willing to pay more for Mac OS X.
[QUOTE=stevielee;1386315]
"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????
Yet, for the past 5 years, Apple has been the fastest growing PC vendor by far. Did it ever occur to you that some people are happy with Apple's products and prices?
Furthermore, you seem to be confused about some major issues. You are probably right about one thing - that there is demand for lower priced Macs. I don't think anyone would dispute that. But that doesn't give Psystar the right to break the law to try to meet that demand.
You idiot (dumbass in my speak)! I only used eBay because it accurately reflected what the cost
of the Xeon 2.8 Quad is still going for right now.
Go Psystar! ( I really don't care if they win or lose - but I know just appearing to root them on really pisses some of you old Apple Apologist farts to no end. That's worth all of the "dumbass" insults ten fold).
Actually, it's worth noting that the Nehalem processors on eBay right now are all described as engineering samples - which means they're not particularly useful for price comparisons.
As for 'Go Psystar', i love the juvenile attitude: "I don't care about the law or intellectual property or what's right or wrong. I am just offended by Mac users who get to use a better computer than I do, so I hope they get screwed". Not much of a rational argument.
Not if Apple were to sell OSX as a full Retail ONLY, Standalone OS, that IS NOT licensed to, or bundled with any particular machine or company, and if they specifically put a disclaimer on this Retail OSX that if it is installed on any non-Apple computers, no follow-up support would be forthcoming. Support would only be provided (as now) to Apple machines ONLY. No legal liabilities would then apply to Apple if this was the case.
All you have to do is a little math. Let's start with a couple of assumptions:
Retail price of OS X $129. Apple's margin 70%.
Average price of Macintosh Computer $1500. Apple's margin 30%.
Apple has 7% US market share today.
Now, let's assume that Apple loses one hardware sale for every 5 licenses sold (which is probably way too low. They would probably lose a lot more than that).
We'll also assume that Apple has ZERO support costs of overhead costs (which is not the case - Apple would end up spending money to support their product under US law even if they tried to dump it on the hardware vendor).
Every software license gets them $90 in margin. Every computer sale lost costs them $450 in margin. So, AT BEST, Apple breaks even - with a great deal of risk.
There's an even bigger problem. There are two scenarios:
1. Not very many people take advantage of the arrangement. In that case, Apple doesn't even have much potential gain and there's no point.
2. Tons of people try to take advantage of it. If so, perhaps Apple's own hardware market share drops to 5% instead of 7%. Loss of 2% in Apple's share means a 10% gain in market share for clones (using the 5:1 assumption). That would put Mac OS market share at 15%. Does anyone realistically think that OS X market share is going to hit that level any time in the foreseeable future? I don't think so. It's just not plausible.
Originally Posted by Halvri
"Go to Dell's website and make a BTO unit and then build that same rig yourself and it will cost you a third of what that vendor charged. Businesses are about profit and the supply and demand chain is ultimately determined by the consumer."
Actually, no on can build an 8-Core Xeon Workstation - even with last years "Harpertown" processors - for " a third" of what Dell is charging for their BTO units. Each of these processor still cost upwards of $1300 each - with the 2.8GHz Quad-Core Xeon processor going for around $750 per processor ($1500 total). It would cost nearly the same price ( within 10-20% margin) to build one of your own Xeon workstations with the Intel Penryn Quad-Core Xeons. ( see my previous posting for links to retail prices ). full retail price for any Dell computer -with their all their special discounts, coupons and such.
The last Mac Pro Apple released (2008 rev.) was actually very competitive in pricing as compared to their PC counterparts.
That's what people don't get. At the high end, Apple's high end systems are VERY competitive. I can't find a Dell dual CPU (8 core) system that beats Apple's price anywhere - and certainly not 1/3 the price.
I mean building a computer in general, not specifically the Xeon based ones. But regardless, the Mac Pro has the lowest unit sales of any Mac and therefore has to have the highest profit margin. I'm not arguing with you that such is a little lame, but there's an actual reason for it to be that way. That said, I seriously doubt if other companies severely undercut the Mac Pro, that price will stand for long. The iPhone's original price was sky high and you see how long that lasted. Apple does sometimes over do it and change course.
That is seriously faulty logic. There's no reason to believe that a system with low unit sales has a high profit margin.
Do you really think that Apple can continue with it's "premium" price structure, and still maintain it's current market share in these gloomy economic times? Apple's stock may be doing better than most at the moment, closing at just above $85 today, but it is still less than half of what it was six months ago and Apple's overall long term situation isn't as strong as you might think. Their sales figures are beginning to soften already (as is everyone else's), and as the recession deepens, diminishing demand for high-end anything will not bode well for Apple's $2000+ laptops (a good percentage of them sold to businesses), as well as their Mac Pro line, and Pro App software. They will still probably do well on the low end of things for a time- with the iPod, the iPhone, the Mac Mini, and entry-level iMacs, but spending is getting mighty tight lately, and many of my clients have cancelled, or postponed major computer and electronics (1K+) purchases until further notice. And that includes Apple hardware.
Apple may be riding this out without any major damage yet, but in this new economic reality, no one is safe or immune from it's ravages. Not even Apple.
I have a feeling that in the coming months - the big A will have to be a little more "humble" in the "premium" pricing of their products. They might even have to bring back the sub-1K laptop later this year, or in early 2010, in a belated attempt to compete with the rising popularity of NetBooks.
The whole Psystar thing may eventually become moot if, or when Apple itself has increasing problems selling their own "premium" hardware to struggling, cost conscious consumers.
Maybe it will be the economy, and not upstarts like Psystar, that finally forces Apple's closed loop hand...
Yet, Apple continues to do quite well. They may have to change their business model at some point, but it would be incredibly stupid to do so on the basis of a few whiners on bulletin boards when they just announced a couple quarters of record profits.
1/ They purchase a full retail copy of the OS..... no matter how much people bleat on about OSX only being an 'upgrade' its rubbish. I can go buy the full retail copy.
2/ The EULA then says it must be installed on an Apple labelled computer. I can put an Apple label on anything. So at best that part of the EULA is incomplete. At worst a sticker fulfills the need.
3/ Now as far as I'm aware (and I might be wrong) OSX will install fine on most Intel hardware if the 'boot kernel' panic thing can be avoided. Now given that I can meet the criteria in points 1 and 2, can Apple then, legally infringe my rights by using a kernel panic mode to stop it booting on any hardware that isn't theirs? That I think is the point Pystar is trying to make.
I think Apple's best defence is the 'reputational' damage.
1. You are mistaken. Since all Macs some with OS X and since the software says it can only be installed on Macs, it is NOT licensed as a full edition - no matter how much you want to distort things.
2. You might get away with this in your home. For Psystar (or another cloner) to do so, it would be incredibly illegal to make a computer and put an Apple logo on it and then sell it to consumers. Furthermore, "Apple labeled" presumably has legal meaning beyond the simple layman's language.
3. That is not correct. Furthermore, Apple doesn't legally infringe anyone's rights. They are free to design software for their own computers. If your computer has a problem running Apple's software, it's not their problem. There is no obligation for them to write software to work on your computer.
1/ I'm sure that from a semantic point of view the sale of the retail copy *can* and probably is in the name of the end user. Pystar just facilitate the purchase.
2/ Apple'S EULA says 'apple labelled'..now as this thread has proved, the EULA is open to debate at the very least. Apple stickers are available from lots of places, and you have to use their branding to meet their own EULA so APple couldn't use that defence.
3/ difference between consoles and computers is that a PS3 came couldn't play on a Wii or 360 as the architecture is so different. Intel based OSX can run on both.
4/ You have to remember that customers are paying the full price for the software, nothing is being done for free. The work to get OSX to boot is done by Pystar themselves.
Information published in a newspaper is in the public domain and under free speech doctrine you could report the same thing, maybe not word for word but pretty close.
2. See above. A reseller can not legally put an Apple label on the computer.
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.
4. Customers are NOT paying full price for the software. They are licensing the software for a given price on a given set of terms. You do not have the right to tell the vendor, "I don't like your terms, so I'll go ahead and pay the fee and then violate the terms." If Apple were to sell a version that runs on generic PC hardware, there's no reason to believe that the price would be $129 - which is clearly identified as an upgrade price by stating that you can only use it on a Mac.
they aren't taking anything..they are buying it!!!...jeez.
That is not correct. They are licensing it.
What you are advocating is the same as walking into a car rental place and signing an agreement that you will drive the car only in the US, get only 500 miles, and will return it in 4 days and then paying up front. You then drive throughout Canada and Mexico, drive 20,000 miles, and return it 20 days later - and expect that it's all covered by your initial payment.
You license software and are bound by the license terms. If you don't like the terms, don't license it.
Wikipedia? Give me a break. And how accurate do you think that page is when it hasn't been updated for 6 months and admits that the prices aren't right.
You can buy the Nehalem today from a licensed vendor for just over $1 K. Do a Google search. Typically in the past, the retail price has been about 10% higher than the per-1000 price for Intel processors, so the wholesale price is probably in the $900 range.
No sir, you CANNOT currently "buy" a Nehelem Xeon processor anywhere - let alone on eBay. Apple got an advance shipment of them from Intel - a full 3 weeks before they will be officially announced to the general public.
And if you have a problem with Wikipedia's "accuracy", then check out this Nehelem Pricing Chart from X-Bits Lab - published in early February of this year. Their pricing chart closely corresponds to Wikipedia's, and has also been republished by several other online tech sites.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...eon_Chips.html
The Xeon processors that Apple is using in the entry-level Mac Pro Quad-Core 2.66GHz ARE the Nehelem Xeon Quad-Core W3520's. They will be priced (upon release) at around $275 in 1K lots, or around $300-350 for single unit retail sales. There will be no "$900 wholesale prices" for these sub-$300 chips -PERIOD!
Do your own Google search for the Xeon W3520's and you'll find countless more tech sites with the exact same pricing charts.
http://www.hardware.info/en-US/news/...eons_in_March/
etc, etc, etc.
There is no big mystery here, or "special" Apple only Nehelem W3520's that sell for 2, or 3 times what everyone else will be paying for them. The flat reality is: Apple put a sub-$300 processor in a 2.5K "Workstation".
Last years 2008 2.8GHZ 8-Core Mac Pro had 2 x $750 Xeon Processors - around $1500 in processor hardware cost to Apple. They charged $2799 for that model.
So do the math again, and you'll clearly see the major difference between laying out $300 for a processor, and $1500 for 2 processors, but still charging in the mid-2K range for the end product.
And taking into account Apple's "proprietary" motherboard design (slightly higher per unit cost than the 2008 version), custom (crippled), rebranded Nvidia GT120 (9500GT with only one Dual-Link DVI out), there is no way, no how that Apple's base hardware cost for the 2009 Mac Pro's entire machine comes to what it cost them for just for the 2008 Mac Pro's processors alone. Apple even went for the Nehelem Xeon chips (again cheaper) that support the lower speed DDR3 1066MHz DIMMS vs going with the top-of-the-line Xeon's available that support the higher DDR3 1333MHz DIMMS (more expensive at the same processor clock speeds saving even more money). Apple says that they did this to "Standardize" the Mac Pro's memory compatibility across the product line, but it is at the expense of better memory performance that would be realized from going with the Xeon's that support 1336MHz clock speeds for their higher-end DP Mac Pro's. They cut cost corners at almost every opportunity here - even in memory choices.
As a Computer Tech, I specialize in hardware options and cost analysis for my clients. I do my research thoroughly - to get the best equipment at the best prices possible. I have been closely following these new Nehelem processor from Intel's first announcement of them. I know what they will cost when they are released. I have already pre-ordered a couple of the higher end Nehalem variants for one of my PC clients who is building his own Server set-up.
I also know that Apple did in fact increase it's profit margins substantially with the New Mac Pro's. That info came to me from someone directly "Inside" Apple. He explained to me that Apple's reasoning is that since the Nehelem Xeon single Quad-Core 2.66GHz chip showed impressive speed gains (actual 15-30% vs Apple's claim of 200+%)) over last years 8-Core 2.8GHz Harpertowns in early benchmark testing - not only could Apple offer an entry-level Mac Pro for less money ($2499 vs $2799) than the 2008 model, but it could theoretically (with the turbo-boost and Hyper-threading aware applications) offer increased overall performance to boot - all in one Quad-core chip instead of having to spring for 2). It should be a win-win for both the consumer, and of course, a huge financial win for Apple.
The only fly in the ointment here is: we can all clearly and plainly see for ourselves what Apple is actually paying for these new Nehalem processors. Now, Apple can then go and charge whatever it decides for it's own equipment - that is every businesses base prerogative. But when a potential buyer sees that he/she can get very similar, or the same hardware configuration for at least 1K less - with the very same, or similar performance results, then the questions as to why Apple is charging such a "premium" will inevitably arise. It is a fair question I think - even if some of you here on this thread feel that no one has a right, or any reason to ask anything more from Apple than the probing questions "Will Snow Leopard give me better performance on the new Mac Pro's", or "Can I still connect my two, 30", Apple Cinema Displays?" ( The answer to that last question is: No! You will have to buy, ala-carte , a $100, very "flakey", Mini-Display-to-Dual Link DVI Adapter, or a second video card from Apple to to continue doing that - at a hefty Apple "premium", of course)
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB...mco=MzE2OTkzMQ (Read the reviews on this $100 "Adapter". They go directly to the very heart of the problem many customers are encountering with Apple's increasingly "proprietary", "premium" hardware).
Many of the Mac and PC forums have been buzzing with the new Mac Pro's "controversial" pricing.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=95870
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=660643
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/we...omments/20316/
So go ahead Apple and continue increasing your "Apple Tax" margins and closing off, or limiting third party hardware option - like providing only crippled, obsolete graphic cards - but no
"Workstation graphic card options for your 2.5K++++ "Workstation" with only 3 DIMM slots, and no DP option.
OSX may be the best OS option right now, but it's certainly not worth paying for
over and over and over again in current and future Apple hardware cost - just to butress Apple's bottom line.
Discuss amongst yourselves. Name calling and personal denigration of me and my post are certainly expected and understandable amongst the Apple faithful. I know, I do speak high blasphemy in the holy church of latter day Apple...
I will go away for now...until the next, new Psystar flame thread shows up.
Don't you read the other post on these Pystar threads?
It's been explained many times already.
1. Just because you purchased a physical disk with the full copy of OSX on it doesn't mean you have the right to use OSX anyway to want. You still only pay for a license to use OSX. And that license comes with restrictions. If you don't like the restrictions, then don't pay for the license to use it.
For example, just because you bought a Beatles CD doesn't mean that you can use any of those songs (or parts there of) in a commercial promoting your product. There are restrictions on what you can do with those songs on that CD. You have some personal freedom with what you can do with those songs as given to you in the "Fair Use" law. But rarely does "fair use" cover you when you're using some else's IP for personal profit. When Apple Records sues you for using their copyrighted song in your commercial. You think owning the CD with the song on it and having the receipt that you paid for it, is going to win the case for you?
You can bleat on all you want about buying a physical copy of OSX. But you're still only paying for a license to use OSX.
2. It states a "Mac". And just because you have a layman interpretation of what an Apple "labeled" computer is, doesn't mean that the courts will have the same interpretation. In legal terms, it's means an Apple "branded" computer.
I could see you defending your case by showing up to court with a generic PC, that has a sticker of an apple on it. And then telling the judge and jury that it's an Apple "labeled" computer. Forrest Gump is smarter than that.
3. It been stated many times before, by people that know more about it than you (or me). Simply put, OSX is written to be properly installed on a few dozen different "Macs". When OSX finds hardware that don't match any of the "Macs" in it's database, it "panics" because it can't find a match. So it goes into a loop. It will do the same thing when you try to install OSX.5 on a G3 PPC "Mac". OSX.5 no longer supports the G3 PPC. (But some users have manage to "hack" it so that it would load on to the faster G3 PPC "Macs".) And OSX.6 may no longer load on to a G4 PPC "Mac".
Now MS Windows would just keep on installing and then give you an option to install any drivers it couldn't find in it's database later. But that's the way MS Windows was written. It has to be written this way because there's almost an infinite number of different computer configurations and MS want Windows to be able to work on as many of these as possible. MS wants you to use their software.
Apple on the other hand don't care about those other configurations that OSX can be made to work on. It only cares about OSX working properly on the "Macs" it was developed to run on. There is a big difference between Apple purposely preventing OSX from installing on any generic PC and Apple just not wanting to put the extra effort into developing OSX so that it can be installed on any generic PC. Apple wants you to use their hardware.
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.
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?
if you re-read my wording, you will see that we agree on this point, congratulations.