Why would it be illegal for Dell or HP? Apple does NOT own EFI, or any unique PC hardware. I think HP's Itanium servers already boot with EFI, so they at least know how to make EFI systems.
The "vanilla install" boot loaders already exist. Dell/HP would have nothing to do with it.
What the end user installs on their own hardware is not Dell's responsibility. If the EULA is enforceable, and deemed violated, only the end user is liable. And not for copyright infrngment either, but rather a contract violation. (This assumes they actually bought a copy of Leopard, iLife, iWork, etc.)
I disagree. Regardless of how it affects Apple, if Psystar wins, the consumer wins. For the sake of consumer rights in the larger sense, it's actually pretty important that Psystar does win, IMO.
Really? If that's the case what's to stop Apple from charging, say, $5000 for a retail copy of OS X. If you buy a Mac you get OS X free. If you want to buy a copy and install it on your PC you pay $5000. And how about changing the terms of purchase to make no guarantee of performance and no technical support. You buy and use at your own risk. How would Psystar stay in business then? Hmmmm? I guess then you would be whining and crying for price controls, huh.
Why would it be illegal for Dell or HP? Apple does NOT own EFI, or any unique PC hardware. I think HP's Itanium servers already boot with EFI, so they at least know how to make EFI systems.
The "vanilla install" boot loaders already exist. Dell/HP would have nothing to do with it.
What the end user installs on their own hardware is not Dell's responsibility. If the EULA is enforceable, and deemed violated, only the end user is liable. And not for copyright infrngment either, but rather a contract violation. (This assumes they actually bought a copy of Leopard, iLife, iWork, etc.)
If Dell and HP installed Mac OS X on their HW without Apple's consent they would have made themselves an unauthorized reseller. Just what Psystar is doing and being sued for.
This is not about the EULA. This is not about EFI.
If Dell and HP installed Mac OS X on their HW without Apple's consent they would have made themselves an unauthorized reseller. Just what Psystar is doing and being sued for.
This is not about the EULA. This is not about EFI.
The way PV put it, it looked like he wasn't suggesting Dell and HP install OS X, just sell EFI compliant computers. And then the computer using community would just figure it out, where a customer would get and install OS X on their own. But for obvious reasons, they shouldn't give any suggestion that this is encouraged, because that could invite trouble. I think PV's suggestion that they leak the fact that it could support OS X could be a problem, even that might be considered inducement.
Really? If that's the case what's to stop Apple from charging, say, $5000 for a retail copy of OS X.
There are laws that could prevent the hyperbolic scenario you mention. That would be seen as an unjust price. Since they wouldn't be able to roll the cost of the upgrade into the purchase of the Mac the upgrade price of $129 would have to be raised. For instance, if they raised it to $500, in league with retail price of Windows Ultimate Vista.
The way PV put it, it looked like he wasn't suggesting Dell and HP install OS X, just sell EFI compliant computers. And then the computer using community would just figure it out, where a customer would get and install OS X on their own. But for obvious reasons, they shouldn't give any suggestion that this is encouraged, because that could invite trouble.
Ah, thanks. I can see Apple trying to stop them but I see no moral or legal issue with that plan so long as they don't advertise it. Though, the EFI is not the only hurdle for installing Mac OS X.
Although it would be more risky, moving to custom chipsets in their desktop and laptop computers could effectively stop Pystar. I'm sure that is a road they would only go down should the court side with Pystar, which is unlikely.
I doubt Dell or HP are involved, but I would bet on some kind of financial support from an overseas manufacturer of computers.
Really? If that's the case what's to stop Apple from charging, say, $5000 for a retail copy of OS X. If you buy a Mac you get OS X free. If you want to buy a copy and install it on your PC you pay $5000.
I've said it before (also going overboard), that OS X should cost $999.99. Realistically, Apple should drop all of their hardware prices, and line-item OSX and iLife on the Apple store at $499.00 on a new computer purchase.
That is not only in line with MS... but as any Apple user will tell you, is a steal in comparison. Considering there is nothing like iLife from MS, and OSX is far superior as an OS, even with Win7 on the horizon, I mean vista, or whatever.
Here's the deal: you COULD purchase an Apple computer, with only a BootCamp disc (free), and install Linux or XP, or Win7, whatever. And vice-verse, you could only purchase OSX and iLife. Naturally, when purchasing a Mac, and OSX/iLife, it would all be pre-installed as usual, and come with all of the warranties, etc.
This strategy covers two "misconceptions":
1) that there is an Apple Tax on hardware, and
2) that OS X only costs $129.00, just because UPGRADES only cost that much at retail.
And yes, if someone wants to install OSX on a "beige box", without hacking, go for it. No separate OEM pricing, no warranty, no support. You're on your own. Have fun.
BTW: Apple doesn't even have to worry about "opening up" their system, since it's built on BSD and Open Source components already. Let Dell or HP do the R&D and build in their own features (bugs!).
Also, I don't have a problem with OSX requiring a License Key/original install Disc, to install an upgrade. Where's the problem with that? They certainly don't have to go the MS-Circus routine. Just curious.
PS: Apple should immediately state on their ordering/config pages, that the RAM and the hard drives they build to order, are "enterprise server grade" components, with item numbers. This, so that when "Beige box fans" compare their $12.00/gig RAM stick, or $50,00/1 TB drive from some unknown mfgr. located somewhere in an Indo-China jungle... it might dawn on them that there just might be a wee bit of a difference from what Apple is offering.
I doubt Dell or HP are involved, but I would bet on some kind of financial support from an overseas manufacturer of computers.
Specifically Chinese box makers - they have the cash and motive (sell more cheap parts), and harming any US business is in their national interests. Then there is always the oil-rich arab who doesn't like anything made after the 7th century especially by a company whose product is gaining popularity in his region.
Either of these two entities have more to gain than any US entity.
It seems to me that there is a serious player behind this. However, I just can't shake the feeling the M$ is in fact behind this. THink this through for a second, NONE of the Manufactures out there have the capital right now to be funding this operation; not Acer, HP, Dell, or even Sony. However, M$ does have a lot of capital to be throwing around. I can think of a few reasons why this is the case:
1) This case is a major thorn in Apple's side. Apple does not want to lose its tight integration of hardware and software, so Apple is going to make sure that doesn't happen. That is a resource drain.
2) This is a distraction. Apple's legal forces are focused on Psystar right now. Who knows what things M$ may want to steal from Apple while this is going on.
3) IF Psystar somehow wins this case, M$ has another revenue stream, at the expense of Apple.
Not a chance. Microsoft's worst nightmare is the possibility of OS X being sold on generic machines. It would cost Microsoft billions in lost sales. Why do you think Dell has publicly stated that they'd like to be able to sell computers with OS X? There is no significant benefit to Microsoft if Psystar wins and HUGE losses.
You're also confused about the scale. The cost of financing this operation is tiny for a Dell or HP (or even an Acer or minor player). A couple million dollars (if it even amounts to that much) is easily within the reach of at least a dozen computer manufacturers. You're also overestimating the inconvenience to Apple. Apple writes a check to their legal team every once in a while and goes about their work.
IF it is being bankrolled by someone (which has not yet been established), it is almost certainly either a venture capitalist or a computer hardware company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka
I disagree. Regardless of how it affects Apple, if Psystar wins, the consumer wins. For the sake of consumer rights in the larger sense, it's actually pretty important that Psystar does win, IMO.
Sure - if you believe that innovation should be rewarded by having your property stolen.
Letting Psystar install OS X on their computers is extremely ANTI-consumer in the long run. Capitalism depends on the premise that if you innovate, that you should be able to get the benefit of that innovation and others shouldn't be able to steal it from under your nose. If Psystar wins, several things will happen:
1. It will be harder for companies to justify R&D - since their competitors will steal it anyway.
2. Macs will be redesigned with proprietary hardware features, serial numbers, etc which are very inconvenient to the user
and/or
3. Apple would sell a 'full' version of OS X for a very high price and an update version which might or might not remain at the $129 price. However, differentiating the two versions will cost Apple a significant amount in distribution costs (which eventually gets passed on either to the consumer or the shareholder) and would require a much more cumbersome process for upgrades.
NONE of that benefits consumers. The only benefit to consumers is the same as the 'benefit' of having cheap Chinese copies of US movies on sale for $3.99. It looks good to cheap people who don't mind stealing, but in the long run, it's a bad thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Until there's a trail to a specific entity, as far as I'm concerned, the conspiracy theories are bunk. But that's almost redundant, conspiracy theories are generally bunk.
Absolutely true. There are other plausible scenarios:
1. Their financials are such a mess they can't release them without ridicule.
2. Someone there has been engaged in criminal activity like siphoning money off the corporation
or
3. They are being bankrolled by someone else.
There's no way to tell which is true.
There is also another issue which has not been addressed. It's not entirely clear to me that Apple has the right to financial information. The issue is about copyright violation. Under US law, it's irrelevant whether the person stealing your property is poor or the illegitimate son of Howard Hughes. None of that has any bearing on the copyright issue. Psystar could be in the process of asking the court to quash discovery on those topics, although it is kind of late for that. Then again, given the performance we've seen from the Psystar legal team, this level of incompetence isn't surprising.
Well, that's what I thought at first, but the key difference here is Psystar isn't some company trying to introduce an original product while Apple stomps them. They are a shoestring operation (as someone pointed out) that's meant to disrupt Apple sales.
Look at these specs:
Psystar:
OSX 10.5 w/ iLife & iWork
2.83GHz C2Q Q9550
8GB DDR2-800
1TB HDD
20x DVD burner
9800GT 512mb
802.11n
Keyboard/Mouse
Three year warranty on parts and support
Add in a $300 monitor from newegg and the final price is 2032.98.
Comparatively from Apple:
2.66 Quad Xeon
3GB 1066DDR3
1TB HDD (same as above, 7200 rpm SATA)
nvidia Gt 120 512mb
keyboard/mouse
802.11n
iWork 09
No monitor mind you, all for 2698.00
Either Psystar isn't turning a profit, or Apple is inflating the price substantially. I think it's somewhere in the middle.
A similarly configured HP workstation with two Xeon 2.66GHz processors and the other Apple hardware costs over $5,5000 !!!!!! And MS claims that there's and Apple tax! Sheesh!
There are laws that could prevent the hyperbolic scenario you mention. That would be seen as an unjust price. Since they wouldn't be able to roll the cost of the upgrade into the purchase of the Mac the upgrade price of $129 would have to be raised. For instance, if they raised it to $500, in league with retail price of Windows Ultimate Vista.
Laws don't prohibit exorbitant pricing. Nothing prevents apple for pricing their OS at $5000.
It's pretty obvious to me who is behind this. Dell. They'd love to get into the Mac Clone biz. But they aren't going to test it head-on. M. Dell has ties to Florida technology business. Both Florida and Texas are basically third world countries when it comes to Government control and oversight, so who knows what Pystar will have to disclose when it comes to where their actual money is coming from.
Hm, I can not follow your math here. Apple uses a much more expensive CPU (retail price approx. 780 USD for the Xeon vs. 330 USD for the C2Q, both cost less in batches though), a chassis that is for sure 2-3 times more expensive, better and more expensive RAM, etc.
This comparison does not indicate any price inflation by Apple. If you consider the consumer's position when having warranty issues with a company that does not even know its own financials... it is only the Psystar product that is overpriced here (unless, of course, they offer something like more than 250 Genius Bars, free training lessons, included world-wide warranty and the guarantee that OS updates will work for at least 5-6 years).
Ugh. Ok, found the xeon for 490 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819117145. The highest priced ddr3 kit i found was 90 bucks for 3gb, while the cheapest 8gb kit above ddr2-1000 was 139. Sure the apple case is better, but no way makes up for the rest. I spent 280 on my TJ09, and can guarantee you it's one of the best cases you can get. So lets say the apple case is 300. The 300 for the case and 480 for the processor doesn't make up for the absurd price difference.
Look, this could turn into another price comparison flame war, where common sense is ignored in favor of arguing, or you could just see what I was trying to say in my post. Psystar offers too good of a price on all that hardware, and definitely can't be making much off each unit sold. I'm not gonna get into whether or not Apple artificially inflates it's pricing, but 1000 bucks difference between to the two builds definitely points to something stinky. I seriously would not be surprised if Psystar's goal was simply to take sales from Apple and nothing more.
A similarly configured HP workstation with two Xeon 2.66GHz processors and the other Apple hardware costs over $5,5000 !!!!!! And MS claims that there's and Apple tax! Sheesh!
two xeon processors? So not only do you have twice the number of processors I listed, but an expensive dual socket motherboard to support them?
I was comparing single socket systems with quad core cpu's.
Well, that's what I thought at first, but the key difference here is Psystar isn't some company trying to introduce an original product while Apple stomps them. They are a shoestring operation (as someone pointed out) that's meant to disrupt Apple sales.
Look at these specs:
Psystar:
OSX 10.5 w/ iLife & iWork
2.83GHz C2Q Q9550
8GB DDR2-800
1TB HDD
20x DVD burner
9800GT 512mb
802.11n
Keyboard/Mouse
Three year warranty on parts and support
Add in a $300 monitor from newegg and the final price is 2032.98.
Comparatively from Apple:
2.66 Quad Xeon
3GB 1066DDR3
1TB HDD (same as above, 7200 rpm SATA)
nvidia Gt 120 512mb
keyboard/mouse
802.11n
iWork 09
No monitor mind you, all for 2698.00
Either Psystar isn't turning a profit, or Apple is inflating the price substantially. I think it's somewhere in the middle.
One HUGE difference:
Apple uses Xeon processors, Pystar uses Core2 - utterly different, and priced much much different. Professional workstation vs. consumer grade desktop computer.
That's short-sighted for many reasons. Apple is defending their right to sell the products they invented in the way they decide is most profitable to them. I don't see how consumers benefit if holders of copyrights and trademarks are no longer able to decide how to market their own products.
Apple can develop and market any product they want. What they should not be able to do, is tell people what they can do with those Apple products after purchase. You want to jailbreak your iPhone? That is none of Apple's business. You buy OS X, but want to try to install it on a Super Nintendo? Dumb thing to try, but still your own right as a consumer who paid for the product to do so. None of Apple's business. That is why Psystar needs to win, so that consumers actually have the rights to things that they paid for. It's the Apple vs the clones argument that is short-sighted, the bigger picture is consumers actually owning things they paid for, instead of corporations playing this ridiculous "it's just a license" game.
... I think a legitimate copy of OS X should be able to be installed on a PC and sold. Sure ....
That legitimate copy should cost $1,129 not the subsidized price. It should have a 2 inch crawler on the bottom of the screen warning that it's not intended for the machine that's running it and not warranted. The backer of Psystar is probably an untouchable Taiwanese or Korean iPod look alike maker.
Apple can develop and market any product they want. What they should not be able to do, is tell people what they can do with those Apple products after purchase.
You're talking individual consumers, this Psystar case is about a business, which is different.
In the case of OS X, they have been very hands-off the individual hobbyists and extended that to the hobbyist community too, and I think this is a good decision. However, I think it's perfectly legit to go after businesses, they're not doing it for themselves, they were redistributing modified copyrighted code for profit.
Comments
I'd bet that they know that it's illegal.
Why would it be illegal for Dell or HP? Apple does NOT own EFI, or any unique PC hardware. I think HP's Itanium servers already boot with EFI, so they at least know how to make EFI systems.
The "vanilla install" boot loaders already exist. Dell/HP would have nothing to do with it.
What the end user installs on their own hardware is not Dell's responsibility. If the EULA is enforceable, and deemed violated, only the end user is liable. And not for copyright infrngment either, but rather a contract violation. (This assumes they actually bought a copy of Leopard, iLife, iWork, etc.)
I disagree. Regardless of how it affects Apple, if Psystar wins, the consumer wins. For the sake of consumer rights in the larger sense, it's actually pretty important that Psystar does win, IMO.
Really? If that's the case what's to stop Apple from charging, say, $5000 for a retail copy of OS X. If you buy a Mac you get OS X free. If you want to buy a copy and install it on your PC you pay $5000. And how about changing the terms of purchase to make no guarantee of performance and no technical support. You buy and use at your own risk. How would Psystar stay in business then? Hmmmm? I guess then you would be whining and crying for price controls, huh.
Why would it be illegal for Dell or HP? Apple does NOT own EFI, or any unique PC hardware. I think HP's Itanium servers already boot with EFI, so they at least know how to make EFI systems.
The "vanilla install" boot loaders already exist. Dell/HP would have nothing to do with it.
What the end user installs on their own hardware is not Dell's responsibility. If the EULA is enforceable, and deemed violated, only the end user is liable. And not for copyright infrngment either, but rather a contract violation. (This assumes they actually bought a copy of Leopard, iLife, iWork, etc.)
If Dell and HP installed Mac OS X on their HW without Apple's consent they would have made themselves an unauthorized reseller. Just what Psystar is doing and being sued for.
This is not about the EULA. This is not about EFI.
If Dell and HP installed Mac OS X on their HW without Apple's consent they would have made themselves an unauthorized reseller. Just what Psystar is doing and being sued for.
This is not about the EULA. This is not about EFI.
The way PV put it, it looked like he wasn't suggesting Dell and HP install OS X, just sell EFI compliant computers. And then the computer using community would just figure it out, where a customer would get and install OS X on their own. But for obvious reasons, they shouldn't give any suggestion that this is encouraged, because that could invite trouble. I think PV's suggestion that they leak the fact that it could support OS X could be a problem, even that might be considered inducement.
Really? If that's the case what's to stop Apple from charging, say, $5000 for a retail copy of OS X.
There are laws that could prevent the hyperbolic scenario you mention. That would be seen as an unjust price. Since they wouldn't be able to roll the cost of the upgrade into the purchase of the Mac the upgrade price of $129 would have to be raised. For instance, if they raised it to $500, in league with retail price of Windows Ultimate Vista.
The way PV put it, it looked like he wasn't suggesting Dell and HP install OS X, just sell EFI compliant computers. And then the computer using community would just figure it out, where a customer would get and install OS X on their own. But for obvious reasons, they shouldn't give any suggestion that this is encouraged, because that could invite trouble.
Ah, thanks. I can see Apple trying to stop them but I see no moral or legal issue with that plan so long as they don't advertise it. Though, the EFI is not the only hurdle for installing Mac OS X.
I think DELL or HP is aiding and abetting Pystar.
Although it would be more risky, moving to custom chipsets in their desktop and laptop computers could effectively stop Pystar. I'm sure that is a road they would only go down should the court side with Pystar, which is unlikely.
I doubt Dell or HP are involved, but I would bet on some kind of financial support from an overseas manufacturer of computers.
I was just kidding. It's really Forrest Gump
Dude, don't reply to your own posts, it's bad form.
Really? If that's the case what's to stop Apple from charging, say, $5000 for a retail copy of OS X. If you buy a Mac you get OS X free. If you want to buy a copy and install it on your PC you pay $5000.
I've said it before (also going overboard), that OS X should cost $999.99. Realistically, Apple should drop all of their hardware prices, and line-item OSX and iLife on the Apple store at $499.00 on a new computer purchase.
That is not only in line with MS... but as any Apple user will tell you, is a steal in comparison. Considering there is nothing like iLife from MS, and OSX is far superior as an OS, even with Win7 on the horizon, I mean vista, or whatever.
Here's the deal: you COULD purchase an Apple computer, with only a BootCamp disc (free), and install Linux or XP, or Win7, whatever. And vice-verse, you could only purchase OSX and iLife. Naturally, when purchasing a Mac, and OSX/iLife, it would all be pre-installed as usual, and come with all of the warranties, etc.
This strategy covers two "misconceptions":
1) that there is an Apple Tax on hardware, and
2) that OS X only costs $129.00, just because UPGRADES only cost that much at retail.
And yes, if someone wants to install OSX on a "beige box", without hacking, go for it. No separate OEM pricing, no warranty, no support. You're on your own. Have fun.
BTW: Apple doesn't even have to worry about "opening up" their system, since it's built on BSD and Open Source components already. Let Dell or HP do the R&D and build in their own features (bugs!).
Also, I don't have a problem with OSX requiring a License Key/original install Disc, to install an upgrade. Where's the problem with that? They certainly don't have to go the MS-Circus routine. Just curious.
PS: Apple should immediately state on their ordering/config pages, that the RAM and the hard drives they build to order, are "enterprise server grade" components, with item numbers. This, so that when "Beige box fans" compare their $12.00/gig RAM stick, or $50,00/1 TB drive from some unknown mfgr. located somewhere in an Indo-China jungle... it might dawn on them that there just might be a wee bit of a difference from what Apple is offering.
I doubt Dell or HP are involved, but I would bet on some kind of financial support from an overseas manufacturer of computers.
Specifically Chinese box makers - they have the cash and motive (sell more cheap parts), and harming any US business is in their national interests. Then there is always the oil-rich arab who doesn't like anything made after the 7th century especially by a company whose product is gaining popularity in his region.
Either of these two entities have more to gain than any US entity.
It seems to me that there is a serious player behind this. However, I just can't shake the feeling the M$ is in fact behind this. THink this through for a second, NONE of the Manufactures out there have the capital right now to be funding this operation; not Acer, HP, Dell, or even Sony. However, M$ does have a lot of capital to be throwing around. I can think of a few reasons why this is the case:
1) This case is a major thorn in Apple's side. Apple does not want to lose its tight integration of hardware and software, so Apple is going to make sure that doesn't happen. That is a resource drain.
2) This is a distraction. Apple's legal forces are focused on Psystar right now. Who knows what things M$ may want to steal from Apple while this is going on.
3) IF Psystar somehow wins this case, M$ has another revenue stream, at the expense of Apple.
Not a chance. Microsoft's worst nightmare is the possibility of OS X being sold on generic machines. It would cost Microsoft billions in lost sales. Why do you think Dell has publicly stated that they'd like to be able to sell computers with OS X? There is no significant benefit to Microsoft if Psystar wins and HUGE losses.
You're also confused about the scale. The cost of financing this operation is tiny for a Dell or HP (or even an Acer or minor player). A couple million dollars (if it even amounts to that much) is easily within the reach of at least a dozen computer manufacturers. You're also overestimating the inconvenience to Apple. Apple writes a check to their legal team every once in a while and goes about their work.
IF it is being bankrolled by someone (which has not yet been established), it is almost certainly either a venture capitalist or a computer hardware company.
I disagree. Regardless of how it affects Apple, if Psystar wins, the consumer wins. For the sake of consumer rights in the larger sense, it's actually pretty important that Psystar does win, IMO.
Sure - if you believe that innovation should be rewarded by having your property stolen.
Letting Psystar install OS X on their computers is extremely ANTI-consumer in the long run. Capitalism depends on the premise that if you innovate, that you should be able to get the benefit of that innovation and others shouldn't be able to steal it from under your nose. If Psystar wins, several things will happen:
1. It will be harder for companies to justify R&D - since their competitors will steal it anyway.
2. Macs will be redesigned with proprietary hardware features, serial numbers, etc which are very inconvenient to the user
and/or
3. Apple would sell a 'full' version of OS X for a very high price and an update version which might or might not remain at the $129 price. However, differentiating the two versions will cost Apple a significant amount in distribution costs (which eventually gets passed on either to the consumer or the shareholder) and would require a much more cumbersome process for upgrades.
NONE of that benefits consumers. The only benefit to consumers is the same as the 'benefit' of having cheap Chinese copies of US movies on sale for $3.99. It looks good to cheap people who don't mind stealing, but in the long run, it's a bad thing.
Until there's a trail to a specific entity, as far as I'm concerned, the conspiracy theories are bunk. But that's almost redundant, conspiracy theories are generally bunk.
Absolutely true. There are other plausible scenarios:
1. Their financials are such a mess they can't release them without ridicule.
2. Someone there has been engaged in criminal activity like siphoning money off the corporation
or
3. They are being bankrolled by someone else.
There's no way to tell which is true.
There is also another issue which has not been addressed. It's not entirely clear to me that Apple has the right to financial information. The issue is about copyright violation. Under US law, it's irrelevant whether the person stealing your property is poor or the illegitimate son of Howard Hughes. None of that has any bearing on the copyright issue. Psystar could be in the process of asking the court to quash discovery on those topics, although it is kind of late for that. Then again, given the performance we've seen from the Psystar legal team, this level of incompetence isn't surprising.
Well, that's what I thought at first, but the key difference here is Psystar isn't some company trying to introduce an original product while Apple stomps them. They are a shoestring operation (as someone pointed out) that's meant to disrupt Apple sales.
Look at these specs:
Psystar:
OSX 10.5 w/ iLife & iWork
2.83GHz C2Q Q9550
8GB DDR2-800
1TB HDD
20x DVD burner
9800GT 512mb
802.11n
Keyboard/Mouse
Three year warranty on parts and support
Add in a $300 monitor from newegg and the final price is 2032.98.
Comparatively from Apple:
2.66 Quad Xeon
3GB 1066DDR3
1TB HDD (same as above, 7200 rpm SATA)
nvidia Gt 120 512mb
keyboard/mouse
802.11n
iWork 09
No monitor mind you, all for 2698.00
Either Psystar isn't turning a profit, or Apple is inflating the price substantially. I think it's somewhere in the middle.
A similarly configured HP workstation with two Xeon 2.66GHz processors and the other Apple hardware costs over $5,5000 !!!!!! And MS claims that there's and Apple tax! Sheesh!
There are laws that could prevent the hyperbolic scenario you mention. That would be seen as an unjust price. Since they wouldn't be able to roll the cost of the upgrade into the purchase of the Mac the upgrade price of $129 would have to be raised. For instance, if they raised it to $500, in league with retail price of Windows Ultimate Vista.
Laws don't prohibit exorbitant pricing. Nothing prevents apple for pricing their OS at $5000.
It's pretty obvious to me who is behind this. Dell. They'd love to get into the Mac Clone biz. But they aren't going to test it head-on. M. Dell has ties to Florida technology business. Both Florida and Texas are basically third world countries when it comes to Government control and oversight, so who knows what Pystar will have to disclose when it comes to where their actual money is coming from.
It's Got to be Dell man!
-M
Where have I heard that before???
This thread maybe?
No, Microsoft couldn't give a rats ass other than chuckle if Apple loses.
DELL has a lot to gain if suddenly they can sell OS X capable boxes as the Vista ship sinks.
Hm, I can not follow your math here. Apple uses a much more expensive CPU (retail price approx. 780 USD for the Xeon vs. 330 USD for the C2Q, both cost less in batches though), a chassis that is for sure 2-3 times more expensive, better and more expensive RAM, etc.
This comparison does not indicate any price inflation by Apple. If you consider the consumer's position when having warranty issues with a company that does not even know its own financials... it is only the Psystar product that is overpriced here (unless, of course, they offer something like more than 250 Genius Bars, free training lessons, included world-wide warranty and the guarantee that OS updates will work for at least 5-6 years).
Ugh. Ok, found the xeon for 490 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819117145. The highest priced ddr3 kit i found was 90 bucks for 3gb, while the cheapest 8gb kit above ddr2-1000 was 139. Sure the apple case is better, but no way makes up for the rest. I spent 280 on my TJ09, and can guarantee you it's one of the best cases you can get. So lets say the apple case is 300. The 300 for the case and 480 for the processor doesn't make up for the absurd price difference.
Look, this could turn into another price comparison flame war, where common sense is ignored in favor of arguing, or you could just see what I was trying to say in my post. Psystar offers too good of a price on all that hardware, and definitely can't be making much off each unit sold. I'm not gonna get into whether or not Apple artificially inflates it's pricing, but 1000 bucks difference between to the two builds definitely points to something stinky. I seriously would not be surprised if Psystar's goal was simply to take sales from Apple and nothing more.
A similarly configured HP workstation with two Xeon 2.66GHz processors and the other Apple hardware costs over $5,5000 !!!!!! And MS claims that there's and Apple tax! Sheesh!
two xeon processors? So not only do you have twice the number of processors I listed, but an expensive dual socket motherboard to support them?
I was comparing single socket systems with quad core cpu's.
Well, that's what I thought at first, but the key difference here is Psystar isn't some company trying to introduce an original product while Apple stomps them. They are a shoestring operation (as someone pointed out) that's meant to disrupt Apple sales.
Look at these specs:
Psystar:
OSX 10.5 w/ iLife & iWork
2.83GHz C2Q Q9550
8GB DDR2-800
1TB HDD
20x DVD burner
9800GT 512mb
802.11n
Keyboard/Mouse
Three year warranty on parts and support
Add in a $300 monitor from newegg and the final price is 2032.98.
Comparatively from Apple:
2.66 Quad Xeon
3GB 1066DDR3
1TB HDD (same as above, 7200 rpm SATA)
nvidia Gt 120 512mb
keyboard/mouse
802.11n
iWork 09
No monitor mind you, all for 2698.00
Either Psystar isn't turning a profit, or Apple is inflating the price substantially. I think it's somewhere in the middle.
One HUGE difference:
Apple uses Xeon processors, Pystar uses Core2 - utterly different, and priced much much different. Professional workstation vs. consumer grade desktop computer.
That's short-sighted for many reasons. Apple is defending their right to sell the products they invented in the way they decide is most profitable to them. I don't see how consumers benefit if holders of copyrights and trademarks are no longer able to decide how to market their own products.
Apple can develop and market any product they want. What they should not be able to do, is tell people what they can do with those Apple products after purchase. You want to jailbreak your iPhone? That is none of Apple's business. You buy OS X, but want to try to install it on a Super Nintendo? Dumb thing to try, but still your own right as a consumer who paid for the product to do so. None of Apple's business. That is why Psystar needs to win, so that consumers actually have the rights to things that they paid for. It's the Apple vs the clones argument that is short-sighted, the bigger picture is consumers actually owning things they paid for, instead of corporations playing this ridiculous "it's just a license" game.
... I think a legitimate copy of OS X should be able to be installed on a PC and sold. Sure ....
That legitimate copy should cost $1,129 not the subsidized price. It should have a 2 inch crawler on the bottom of the screen warning that it's not intended for the machine that's running it and not warranted. The backer of Psystar is probably an untouchable Taiwanese or Korean iPod look alike maker.
Apple can develop and market any product they want. What they should not be able to do, is tell people what they can do with those Apple products after purchase.
You're talking individual consumers, this Psystar case is about a business, which is different.
In the case of OS X, they have been very hands-off the individual hobbyists and extended that to the hobbyist community too, and I think this is a good decision. However, I think it's perfectly legit to go after businesses, they're not doing it for themselves, they were redistributing modified copyrighted code for profit.