Right, so basically what you are saying is... that you want the legal system to step in and force companies to reduce their prices... so that you can afford them.
I personally can already afford them. I want the legal system to make the right decision, whether it's for Apple or for Psystar. We all want lower prices across any industry.
Well I completely disagree with how Pystar is selling their machines by hacking OS X and putting it on their machines. I think if Psystar wins, it creates better competition by selling OS X on machines with cheaper components. Do it the right way by legally winning this battle, and selling legit, unhacked OS X installs. As for as who is all, I am talking about the people who want to get a Mac computer, but are not able to pay $1,000 dollars for a model. I know the Mac Mini starts at $599, but most people I know want a laptop instead and Apple doesn't cut it at that price range. Also when they go into an Apple Store, the Mini isn't exactly displayed prominently like an iMac or portable solutions. For me, I think a $700 dollar MacBook type price point is a great starting price.
Really that's what you want? That's the Windows world. Where any tom, dick or harry can make PC's or their components. That leads to numerous driver stability problems and compatibility issues. That's a big reason for BSOD's on Windows. I for one much prefer having the OS and HW built by the same vendor and having them ensure reliability. I will and do pay a premium for that added quality.
Psystar... you are doing this all wrong. You can't just go in with all the gusto on your own. You have a good portion of the Hackintosh community against you, you have the Apple fans very much against you, and you don't have any good footing legally.
If you did it right, this would have been better for you. You shouldn't have sold OS X. You shouldn't have made your own version of OS X to work on your computers. You should have made computers that would have run OS X with only a bootloader. It was(is) possible. If you didn't sell OS X, then your argument would have been so much better. If you paid back the hackintosh community, that would have been a good move too.
Oh well. You are gone now. Maybe someone else will decide to do it right. Have a decent legal team go through the EULA, figure out exactly what a person can do, and what areas Apple really is infringing on personal rights. Then we'll have a good day!
One footnote in the document, referring to a redacted portion, reads: "Psystar's counsel stated that Psystar's e-mail and customer support software (SupportSuite) randomly 'deletes or loses' e-mails."
Psystar is starting to give politicians a good name... "radomly 'deletes or loses' e-mails"... RIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTTT!
Is Psystar still selling Mac computers? Just have Apple have an outside third party purchase a computer to see if Psystar slips up and send oout incriminating support help documents. That or have the purchaser call Psystar with "OS" installment problems and note what support Psystar gives... even find a purchaser in a state that allows recording of conversations as long as one party knows about it... again to see if Psystar gives up the loot!
They should make this case into a sitcom series with a "Get Smart" genre... a comical side to a serious situation.
Right, so basically what you are saying is... that you want the legal system to step in and force companies to reduce their prices... so that you can afford them.
That's not the job for our legal system... the current Administration in the White House will handle that!
I personally can already afford them. I want the legal system to make the right decision, whether it's for Apple or for Psystar. We all want lower prices across any industry.
It is not the responsibility nor the job of the courts to ensure that everyone can afford premium products and services (Apple or others). You can price and sell your product for as you with as long as you don't break the law.
Well I completely disagree with how Pystar is selling their machines by hacking OS X and putting it on their machines. I think if Psystar wins, it creates better competition by selling OS X on machines with cheaper components. Do it the right way by legally winning this battle, and selling legit, unhacked OS X installs. As for as who is all, I am talking about the people who want to get a Mac computer, but are not able to pay $1,000 dollars for a model. I know the Mac Mini starts at $599, but most people I know want a laptop instead and Apple doesn't cut it at that price range. Also when they go into an Apple Store, the Mini isn't exactly displayed prominently like an iMac or portable solutions. For me, I think a $700 dollar MacBook type price point is a great starting price.
I agree with you fully! The reason Psystar came to be was because people were sick of the extremely high prices, when they knew that they could get the same product WITH OS X for less. They just did it all wrong. Heck, the computers in terms of hardware are exactly the same...
I am pro "Apple for everyone" where price points are actually in a competitive place. Sadly, even though they can afford to do it, they are not coming down to the competitive level. Honestly, I would have been okay with paying more for their computers if their quality was better. In my personal experiance, that is very much NOT the case. Same exact hardware leads to same exact hardware failures (even more so in a mac when it comes to heat). I remember the day when you bought a mac and it would last you 4-6 years before it was "too old". These days its every two years. Same as a PC. I am okay with paying more if it will last you longer. They do not.
But the thing that bothers me most are the mentalities I've seen in replies to your "so everyone can afford" them comments are the "We don't want everyone to afford them" snippets. It feels so elitist to me. I thought Apple was about "Think Different" not "For the financially over appreciated". The mentality I see has drawn me even more away from Apple products. I do not want to be labeled as a fan, nor as a "oh, she has an Apple so she has money" or any of those negative things. I don't like the "Label". The only good thing about Apple is the creativity side of things. And that's all I use it for (though less and less as I find decent products on the PC and Linux, more so the latter)
If Apple used desktop parts, made an actual mid-tower, and brought their prices down to a more competitive level (which they could do and keep their margins if they went to desktop parts), we would be seeing MANY more macs than windows boxes out there. There would most likely be a revolution. But until then, forget it. Apple is just shooting themselves in the foot, making way for MS, Linux, and people who learn from Psystar's mistakes. We are just riding the iPod / iPhone wave... and the wave will crash again.
Psystar has valid points and we should be supporting their efforts rather than fighting them!
Deleting court-protected data is a "valid point."
Now I call troll That's the second AI article today you've responded two with a one-line anti-Apple statement that didn't address the actual article at all.
Now I call troll That's the second AI article today you've responded two with a one-line anti-Apple statement that didn't address the actual article at all.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
... the other part wants Psystar to win so there can be more competition and make Macs more affordable to all.
Why should Macs be affordable by all? All you need to do is replace "Mac" by a few other premium brand names like BMW, Rolex, Armani etc. to see how ludicrous the whole argument is. Are you saying these companies should be denied intellectual property protection just so you can afford to buy one of their products for less than you might otherwise? It's your choice - if you don't think the product is worth the price, don't buy it.
In any case, I'd argue against the assumption that Macs aren't affordable. They're not THAT expensive, and quite apart from the Mac Mini there are always plenty of offers on old stock when a new model is introduced, refurbished machines from Apple, etc. that can significantly reduce the cost. Macs tend to have a very long usable life, so you're not missing much if you can't justify paying for the latest and greatest top of the range model.
Well I completely disagree with how Pystar is selling their machines by hacking OS X and putting it on their machines. I think if Psystar wins, it creates better competition by selling OS X on machines with cheaper components. Do it the right way by legally winning this battle, and selling legit, unhacked OS X installs.
Well, first of all, there aren't, by definition, going to be any "legit, unhacked OS X installs," on 3rd party hardware, so that's just not going to happen
Secondly, this whole idea of "better competition by selling OS X on machines with cheaper components," completely ignores reality and history. Apple already went down that road once before and it almost destroyed them. Jobs did the right thing by killing the clones. Without hardware sales associated with each copy of Mac OS X (and this includes upgrades, which are associated with the original hardware), Apple can't survive and continue to develop OS X.
(Palm nearly killed themselves off by going a similar route, although, they also made other mistakes too numerous to list here.)
While we would all probably like to be able to buy 15" MacBook Pros for $800, it's just not going to happen. Microsoft had the incredible luck to get the OS contract for the IBM PC, and the even more incredible luck that IBM let them keep the rights to the OS. That coupled with IBM's power at that time in corporate markets, and the bad (for them) decision to open the PC architecture, resulted in a perfect storm for Microsoft where they were able to create a profitable business selling (what, even at the time, was a fairly primitive OS) to the flood of clone makers who entered the market to make IBM compatible PCs.
That Microsoft was able to base its business on operating system software sales was basically a dumb accident that isn't likely to be repeated. So, there are no valid comparisons of the Windows and OS X markets, and attempting to replicate Microsoft's success with DOS/Windows, or suggesting that route for Apple, without replicating the conditions that led to it -- which is impossible in today's market -- is just a recipe for corporate suicide.
Psystar is not a company trying to make a living. It is a "company" funded by other conspiring corporations to examine every possible angle of Apple's legal powers, for the purpose of discovering their strong and weak points. Once those points are discovered, Psystar or their conspiring partners can then use this data to maneuver through the legal system flawlessly and possibly dethrone Apple.
Why should Macs be affordable by all? All you need to do is replace "Mac" by a few other premium brand names like BMW, Rolex, Armani etc. to see how ludicrous the whole argument is. Are you saying these companies should be denied intellectual property protection just so you can afford to buy one of their products for less than you might otherwise? It's your choice - if you don't think the product is worth the price, don't buy it.
In any case, I'd argue against the assumption that Macs aren't affordable. They're not THAT expensive, and quite apart from the Mac Mini there are always plenty of offers on old stock when a new model is introduced, refurbished machines from Apple, etc. that can significantly reduce the cost. Macs tend to have a very long usable life, so you're not missing much if you can't justify paying for the latest and greatest top of the range model.
So true. I'm sick of people thinking that Macs have to be affordable. They aren't for everyone -- they provide a better experience because they're more expensive and therefore generally have higher quality hardware. And yes, they have higher profit margins, but they also deserve it, because their hardware and software work almost flawlessly. Not only that, they have to deal with the consumer if he/she has any problems because they're directly responsible. Try telling that to Microsoft or any of the PC makers...
If Apple decides it wants to be part of the market, NOT the whole market, so be it. Pystar shouldn't be allowed to force it to do otherwise .
Comments
"Psystar's counsel stated that Psystar's e-mail and customer support software (SupportSuite) randomly 'deletes or loses' e-mails."
Brilliant!
They probably run it under Windows......
Didn't read that link, but just because it is in writing does not mean it is legal and/or enforceable.
Good point!
Right, so basically what you are saying is... that you want the legal system to step in and force companies to reduce their prices... so that you can afford them.
I personally can already afford them. I want the legal system to make the right decision, whether it's for Apple or for Psystar. We all want lower prices across any industry.
Well I completely disagree with how Pystar is selling their machines by hacking OS X and putting it on their machines. I think if Psystar wins, it creates better competition by selling OS X on machines with cheaper components. Do it the right way by legally winning this battle, and selling legit, unhacked OS X installs. As for as who is all, I am talking about the people who want to get a Mac computer, but are not able to pay $1,000 dollars for a model. I know the Mac Mini starts at $599, but most people I know want a laptop instead and Apple doesn't cut it at that price range. Also when they go into an Apple Store, the Mini isn't exactly displayed prominently like an iMac or portable solutions. For me, I think a $700 dollar MacBook type price point is a great starting price.
Really that's what you want? That's the Windows world. Where any tom, dick or harry can make PC's or their components. That leads to numerous driver stability problems and compatibility issues. That's a big reason for BSOD's on Windows. I for one much prefer having the OS and HW built by the same vendor and having them ensure reliability. I will and do pay a premium for that added quality.
If you did it right, this would have been better for you. You shouldn't have sold OS X. You shouldn't have made your own version of OS X to work on your computers. You should have made computers that would have run OS X with only a bootloader. It was(is) possible. If you didn't sell OS X, then your argument would have been so much better. If you paid back the hackintosh community, that would have been a good move too.
Oh well. You are gone now. Maybe someone else will decide to do it right. Have a decent legal team go through the EULA, figure out exactly what a person can do, and what areas Apple really is infringing on personal rights. Then we'll have a good day!
Till then, move a long, nothing here to see.
One footnote in the document, referring to a redacted portion, reads: "Psystar's counsel stated that Psystar's e-mail and customer support software (SupportSuite) randomly 'deletes or loses' e-mails."
Psystar is starting to give politicians a good name... "radomly 'deletes or loses' e-mails"... RIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTTT!
Is Psystar still selling Mac computers? Just have Apple have an outside third party purchase a computer to see if Psystar slips up and send oout incriminating support help documents. That or have the purchaser call Psystar with "OS" installment problems and note what support Psystar gives... even find a purchaser in a state that allows recording of conversations as long as one party knows about it... again to see if Psystar gives up the loot!
They should make this case into a sitcom series with a "Get Smart" genre... a comical side to a serious situation.
Right, so basically what you are saying is... that you want the legal system to step in and force companies to reduce their prices... so that you can afford them.
That's not the job for our legal system... the current Administration in the White House will handle that!
I personally can already afford them. I want the legal system to make the right decision, whether it's for Apple or for Psystar. We all want lower prices across any industry.
It is not the responsibility nor the job of the courts to ensure that everyone can afford premium products and services (Apple or others). You can price and sell your product for as you with as long as you don't break the law.
Well I completely disagree with how Pystar is selling their machines by hacking OS X and putting it on their machines. I think if Psystar wins, it creates better competition by selling OS X on machines with cheaper components. Do it the right way by legally winning this battle, and selling legit, unhacked OS X installs. As for as who is all, I am talking about the people who want to get a Mac computer, but are not able to pay $1,000 dollars for a model. I know the Mac Mini starts at $599, but most people I know want a laptop instead and Apple doesn't cut it at that price range. Also when they go into an Apple Store, the Mini isn't exactly displayed prominently like an iMac or portable solutions. For me, I think a $700 dollar MacBook type price point is a great starting price.
I agree with you fully! The reason Psystar came to be was because people were sick of the extremely high prices, when they knew that they could get the same product WITH OS X for less. They just did it all wrong. Heck, the computers in terms of hardware are exactly the same...
I am pro "Apple for everyone" where price points are actually in a competitive place. Sadly, even though they can afford to do it, they are not coming down to the competitive level. Honestly, I would have been okay with paying more for their computers if their quality was better. In my personal experiance, that is very much NOT the case. Same exact hardware leads to same exact hardware failures (even more so in a mac when it comes to heat). I remember the day when you bought a mac and it would last you 4-6 years before it was "too old". These days its every two years. Same as a PC. I am okay with paying more if it will last you longer. They do not.
But the thing that bothers me most are the mentalities I've seen in replies to your "so everyone can afford" them comments are the "We don't want everyone to afford them" snippets. It feels so elitist to me. I thought Apple was about "Think Different" not "For the financially over appreciated". The mentality I see has drawn me even more away from Apple products. I do not want to be labeled as a fan, nor as a "oh, she has an Apple so she has money" or any of those negative things. I don't like the "Label". The only good thing about Apple is the creativity side of things. And that's all I use it for (though less and less as I find decent products on the PC and Linux, more so the latter)
If Apple used desktop parts, made an actual mid-tower, and brought their prices down to a more competitive level (which they could do and keep their margins if they went to desktop parts), we would be seeing MANY more macs than windows boxes out there. There would most likely be a revolution. But until then, forget it. Apple is just shooting themselves in the foot, making way for MS, Linux, and people who learn from Psystar's mistakes. We are just riding the iPod / iPhone wave... and the wave will crash again.
Personally, I want linux to win.
Psystar has valid points and we should be supporting their efforts rather than fighting them!
Deleting court-protected data is a "valid point."
Now I call troll
"Psystar's counsel stated that Psystar's e-mail and customer support software (SupportSuite) randomly 'deletes or loses' e-mails."
Something that dastardly should be mentioned somewhere in Kayako Infotech's (SupportSuite) support site, but I find no mention of it.
Deleting court-protected data is a "valid point."
Now I call troll
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
... the other part wants Psystar to win so there can be more competition and make Macs more affordable to all.
Why should Macs be affordable by all? All you need to do is replace "Mac" by a few other premium brand names like BMW, Rolex, Armani etc. to see how ludicrous the whole argument is. Are you saying these companies should be denied intellectual property protection just so you can afford to buy one of their products for less than you might otherwise? It's your choice - if you don't think the product is worth the price, don't buy it.
In any case, I'd argue against the assumption that Macs aren't affordable. They're not THAT expensive, and quite apart from the Mac Mini there are always plenty of offers on old stock when a new model is introduced, refurbished machines from Apple, etc. that can significantly reduce the cost. Macs tend to have a very long usable life, so you're not missing much if you can't justify paying for the latest and greatest top of the range model.
Psystar has valid points and we should be supporting their efforts rather than fighting them!
Sure. BTW, do you have any products you have written? Looking forward to starting my new company today with them.
Sure. BTW, do you have any products you have written? Looking forward to starting my new company today with them.
Well I completely disagree with how Pystar is selling their machines by hacking OS X and putting it on their machines. I think if Psystar wins, it creates better competition by selling OS X on machines with cheaper components. Do it the right way by legally winning this battle, and selling legit, unhacked OS X installs.
Well, first of all, there aren't, by definition, going to be any "legit, unhacked OS X installs," on 3rd party hardware, so that's just not going to happen
Secondly, this whole idea of "better competition by selling OS X on machines with cheaper components," completely ignores reality and history. Apple already went down that road once before and it almost destroyed them. Jobs did the right thing by killing the clones. Without hardware sales associated with each copy of Mac OS X (and this includes upgrades, which are associated with the original hardware), Apple can't survive and continue to develop OS X.
(Palm nearly killed themselves off by going a similar route, although, they also made other mistakes too numerous to list here.)
While we would all probably like to be able to buy 15" MacBook Pros for $800, it's just not going to happen. Microsoft had the incredible luck to get the OS contract for the IBM PC, and the even more incredible luck that IBM let them keep the rights to the OS. That coupled with IBM's power at that time in corporate markets, and the bad (for them) decision to open the PC architecture, resulted in a perfect storm for Microsoft where they were able to create a profitable business selling (what, even at the time, was a fairly primitive OS) to the flood of clone makers who entered the market to make IBM compatible PCs.
That Microsoft was able to base its business on operating system software sales was basically a dumb accident that isn't likely to be repeated. So, there are no valid comparisons of the Windows and OS X markets, and attempting to replicate Microsoft's success with DOS/Windows, or suggesting that route for Apple, without replicating the conditions that led to it -- which is impossible in today's market -- is just a recipe for corporate suicide.
Something that dastardly should be mentioned somewhere in Kayako Infotech's (SupportSuite) support site, but I find no mention of it.
No doubt it was randomly deleted.
I call on Microsoft or Dell.
Why should Macs be affordable by all? All you need to do is replace "Mac" by a few other premium brand names like BMW, Rolex, Armani etc. to see how ludicrous the whole argument is. Are you saying these companies should be denied intellectual property protection just so you can afford to buy one of their products for less than you might otherwise? It's your choice - if you don't think the product is worth the price, don't buy it.
In any case, I'd argue against the assumption that Macs aren't affordable. They're not THAT expensive, and quite apart from the Mac Mini there are always plenty of offers on old stock when a new model is introduced, refurbished machines from Apple, etc. that can significantly reduce the cost. Macs tend to have a very long usable life, so you're not missing much if you can't justify paying for the latest and greatest top of the range model.
So true. I'm sick of people thinking that Macs have to be affordable. They aren't for everyone -- they provide a better experience because they're more expensive and therefore generally have higher quality hardware. And yes, they have higher profit margins, but they also deserve it, because their hardware and software work almost flawlessly. Not only that, they have to deal with the consumer if he/she has any problems because they're directly responsible. Try telling that to Microsoft or any of the PC makers...
If Apple decides it wants to be part of the market, NOT the whole market, so be it. Pystar shouldn't be allowed to force it to do otherwise
http://www.kayako.com/solutions/supportsuite/
Wouldn't they have online logs?
They must be using the same e-mail vendor the White House used under Bush.