Since 2G was implemented, all cell phone communications are digital, much like the switch to digital for television, so in this case, it really is all 'data' as far as type of communication. The only difference here is that voice data will always get priority over other packet types.
Since 2G was implemented, all cell phone communications are digital, much like the switch to digital for television, so in this case, it really is all 'data' as far as type of communication. The only difference here is that voice data will always get priority over other packet types.
This was posted on Psystar's website two days ago:
"Apple has done a great job creating a stylish and functional operating system. That’s why we buy and use Apple products. We never set out to conquer Apple, what we wish is to coexist with Apple as a competitor in the industry.
It is our goal at Psystar to offer a great product (OS X) to people who are not included in Apple’s target market. Steve Jobs has even said, “There are some customers which we choose not to serve.” Some people simply cannot afford an Apple computer. Others would like to see better performance from their machines with hardware configurations that Apple does not provide. Our Psystar machines were developed to fill niches that a larger corporation like Apple doesn’t serve.
Like Apple, Psystar is an American company and provides American jobs. As such, we would like to see a market with healthy competition; competition that benefits you, the consumer. We respect Apple as a company and admire the success they have achieved.
What we offer here at Psystar is a choice as to what platform you chose to run OS X Leopard on. We screen all software updates to ensure that they all work safely on our machines before we encourage our customers to update their Psystar computer. And we will continue to support our computers through new software releases."
I don't think Psystar has a real understanding of the manner in which Apple's business structure works. Apple doesn't serve certain groups because Microsoft and the various PC OEMs do. And when you run a vertically aligned manufacturing process, it's because it benefits both your company and your customers, not because you want to eliminate competition.
Besides, and it's funny, the OSX86 community that Pedraza likes to talk about so much, literally exists to help people fill these gaps he speaks of, the difference is they realize trying to create a business out of that helps absolutely no one (which is when the head of the project has publicly cursed him on several counts). You don't make products for the extremely naggy 10% of your customers who will never be satisfied no matter what you put out, you sell to the 90% that enjoy the benefits of the ecosystem you've created.
I'm so tired of hearing this choice bullshit from them though. They've already lost that argument in court and they keep beating it into the ground. Apple existing and running its ecosystem differently from Microsoft and its 90% market domination is in and of itself choice. The idea that you have to subdivide a segment because you disagree with its business strategy is downright offensive. Apple doesn't make low-end computers for a reason and it has served it extremely well and its customers love it. The only problem here is that people like Pedraza don't know how to leave a good thing well enough alone.
I don't think Psystar has a real understanding of the manner in which Apple's business structure works. Apple doesn't serve certain groups because Microsoft and the various PC OEMs do. And when you run a vertically aligned manufacturing process, it's because it benefits both your company and your customers, not because you want to eliminate competition.
Then by your reasoning, Apple shouldn't care what Psystar does at all unless they start offering an "iStar", iMac clone, or similar model. By your own admission, the people purchasing from Psystar were never potential customers and thus in no way threatened Apple's potential profits. In fact, it actually benefits Apple since they (should) have been receiving $79 for each copy of OS X installed on a Psystar PC.
Then by your reasoning, Apple shouldn't care what Psystar does at all unless they start offering an "iStar", iMac clone, or similar model. By your own admission, the people purchasing from Psystar were never potential customers and thus in no way threatened Apple's potential profits. In fact, it actually benefits Apple since they (should) have been receiving $79 for each copy of OS X installed on a Psystar PC.
I've made no such admission. Apple doesn't make mid-range tower units because they're all extremely low margin and if you're going to base your business on the idea of profiting from your hardware, not your software, one needs to accommodate the other. Psystar doesn't have to worry about any of the overheard costs Apple incurs as a result of research & development or running a retail chain (among other things). It's a rinky dink little throw together of a company that can only even exists because it isn't paying licensing fees to anyone (Apple or the OSX86 community whose patented hacks they use without authorization).
The fact of the matter is that if people think they can get a premium experience, which is what Apple seeks to provide (I don't care to hear whether you think that's true or not), at a fraction of the cost, they will buy it every time because people are insanely cheap. There's a reason that innovation go to the Windows market to die: everyone is buying the cheap crap so there's no impetus to create anything spectacular because not enough people will buy it and you'll just lose money on it as a result. Apple running its business like Microsoft would mire into the same problem and the company would fold as a result. Apple runs its business the way it does because it is by far the best strategy for the company to take. Whoever said you fight fire with fire was a friggin inexperienced idiot.
So, to answer your question more directly, I'm sure a certain percentage of the people who buy from Psystar would never buy a Mac anyway, but these are typically the people who think Apple's stuff is overpriced no matter how competitively priced it is with its direct competition. Setting up the precedent that a non-existent market should be legally subdivided because, for instance, BMW doesn't care to make sub-$30,000 cars is the kind of reverse socialism that is going to screw the world up if its allowed to proliferate.
I mean, my g-d, when I eventually have kids, I hasten to think my son would decide that since he doesn't like my decisions he's gonna go ask the neighbor's father since I have an unfair monopoly on parenting him.
Could someone please point me to a law somewhere that states when a company writes an operating system that it has to run on any computer?
can you point me to the opposite?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halvri
I mean, my g-d, when I eventually have kids, I hasten to think my son would decide that since he doesn't like my decisions he's gonna go ask the neighbor's father since I have an unfair monopoly on parenting him.
How is that bad? If your son is intelligent enough to understand that he can get a 2nd opinion than all the power to him. Just because you're Daddy doesn't mean you're right.
How is that bad? If your son is intelligent enough to understand that he can get a 2nd opinion than all the power to him. Just because you're Daddy doesn't mean you're right.
You're missing the point, he's my child and if I decide I don't want him going to the zoo, I'll be damned if the couple across the street will take him. Just because he likes their decisions more, doesn't mean he gets to live by them. If you can't understand that, I pray you never have kids.
Apple can afford to lose the sale of the few computers that Psystar sells and with all the publicity it makes, it's good advertising. The average user thinks that OS X must be one heck desirable system for anyone to fight so hard to obtain it. So Apple may in fact be hyping up the news to their own advantage. But if they think there could be a chance that they might lose, then we'll see Apple 'Genuine Advantage' and all software will be delivered over the internet only to qualified machines.
I find it interesting how pretty much every update from Apple requires a restart and the supposed restart initiates before the product even starts downloading effectively preventing some custom program from reading the data or installer script due to the fact that no other application can run during the install process.
No, Apple is not "hyping" this up. They don't do that with pending lawsuits. And if you havent heard, Apple is one of the most recognizable and most successful companies in the world (fan or not.)
The majority of updates do not require restarts. When they do, it is because a core service is being changed and cant be overwritten while you or another program are using it. It also installs much faster and reliable when all non-essential services are closed. This is the nature of math and programming.
I don't get the animosity against psystar. So what they make hackinthoshes. A normal consumer wouldn't buy this. People who are buying this are mildy tech savvy people who already own another mac.
I'm interested in seeing how it plays out. As far as I can tell none of this is hurting apple one bit. Just take a look at their numbers. I understand apple has to defend its IP but again I don't get what all you people have against them. You act as if they killed your first born.
I don't get the animosity against psystar. So what they make hackinthoshes. A normal consumer wouldn't buy this. People who are buying this are mildy tech savvy people who already own another mac.
I'm interested in seeing how it plays out. As far as I can tell none of this is hurting apple one bit. Just take a look at their numbers. I understand apple has to defend its IP but again I don't get what all you people have against them. You act as if they killed your first born.
The problem doesn't come from Psystar in itself. In and of itself Psystar is no threat. The threat comes from if Psystar wins, that allows other OEMs like HP, Dell, Asus, Toshiba, etc to put OS X on their computers. That would destroy Apple. Just HP alone putting OS X on their computers would destroy Apple. HP is the largest computer maker worldwide
But with a twist. Sell a non-Apple hardware version of Mac OS for $999.99 Which would make Pystars computers uncompetitive if they legally acquired the software. But Still charge only $29 for apple computer users to upgrade. Apples argument would be that the OEM Apple HW buyer is subsidizing the OS cost and hence gets it cheaper. Whereas a Pystar buyer has no subsidy and has to pay fair value for the OS. Similar to a Cell phone plan where you buy with or without contract.
A $999.99 version of OSX would really put to shame those who complain that Windows is expensive All they need to do is price it the same as Windows, since Microsoft also has the model of not having any hardware to sell to subsidise the cost.
OK, lets say that psystar win (unrealistic I know). How would Apple respond?
They would create 2 versions of OS X. One for Apple owners for the purposes of upgrading and charge a nominal fee and one for the 3rd party manufacturers to license.
The third party version would be available for, lets say $2000 per license and come with no support from Apple whatsoever.
Then lets see Dell and HP create their clones.
Theres nothing to say at what price Apple needs to supply a license to third party cloners.
The problem doesn't come from Psystar in itself. In and of itself Psystar is no threat. The threat comes from if Psystar wins, that allows other OEMs like HP, Dell, Asus, Toshiba, etc to put OS X on their computers. That would destroy Apple. Just HP alone putting OS X on their computers would destroy Apple. HP is the largest computer maker worldwide
The only one who gets destroyed if Psystar wins is Psystar. Apple?s business model gets bruised but Apple doesn?t falter. The next to lose, and to lose big, would be Microsoft, depending on how Apple handles the notion that if they sell a copy of OS X on shelves that anyone can start a business of selling that OS installed on computers so long as they take responsibility for servicing.
Apple would have several directions to take. They could raise the price to compete directly with Windows Ultimate full install disc at $400, or go even higher. They could then get certain companies like HP and Dell on board to sell a particular line of machines that Apple may support in the GUI but have a contract that limits the effect of HP and Dell?s direct sales against Apple?s HW line. They could not sell any version of Mac OS X on shelves but have some sort of one free OS update voucher with each Mac sold and/or require that you now need a valid Mac serial number in order to install the OS. They could even go with a complete digital download system that could first check to see if you have purchased a Mac in the past.
Besides Psystar?s business being killed by the big box companies that are ow willing to pay a premium to get out from MS? thumb and MS losing significant marketshare because OS X is now being sold to other PC vendors (note that even if Apple had the largest worldwide PC marketshare that HP holds it would still only have 25% of the OS market), the Mac user also loses here. We now have a company that has a strong focus on pairing hardware to their OS and apps, have made things simple with no HW checks reporting to Apple?s authentication servers and a simple install process that still uses the honor system. All that would go away for a Windows-like experience at one or many of the options above.
I don't get the animosity against psystar. So what they make hackinthoshes. A normal consumer wouldn't buy this. People who are buying this are mildy tech savvy people who already own another mac.
I'm interested in seeing how it plays out. As far as I can tell none of this is hurting apple one bit. Just take a look at their numbers. I understand apple has to defend its IP but again I don't get what all you people have against them. You act as if they killed your first born.
If you find this a legal action then why are there no other companies in the US doing it. Why aren?t HP, Dell, and all the other companies that can?t stand being beat down by Windows and having only Linux as an alternative not selling their Mac OS X on their machines. Retail versions of Windows Ultimate are $400 while a full version of Mac OS X Snow Leopard is only $29.
The problem is not with the Hackintosh community. Apple has never attacked the OSx86 Project as these are just tech savvy modders who are not selling their wares. The problems comes from Psystar creating a business around Apple?s own IP without their written permission. They aren?t the end user and they aren?t just selling the disc for their customers to install on OSx86 compatible HW that they put together. This is illegal.
If you are tech savvy then you don?t need to pay Psystar profit and get yourself limited to their few HW choices. You can simply read the OSx86 Project Wiki HCL make your own Hackintosh. it?s not like any of what Psystar is doing is difficult. They aren?t writing any code or doing any research to make this happen, they are reading the community generated pages and stealing the code that others have written and strictly forbid from making a business around without their permission, which they won?t give. The OSx86 community is none to happy with Psystar either for stealing from them, too.
PS: Are you aware of EFiX? It?s a USB chip that tricks the OS into installing and running on certain MoBos? That is completely legal in that there is no alteration of OS X code and that they aren?t selling an entire computer where the sellers are accepting any agreement and doing a transference of code from one medium to another. Well, EFiX USA, the US distributer for the dongle, decided that they were going to compete with Psystar by selling per-made Mac clones. This was just the installing OS X on the compatible HW. EFiX dropped them as a distributer as soon as they heard. What EFIX is selling it legal, for you to use it is legal, for you create a business around it is not legal.
HP and Dell may very well be part of Pystar's investors. My theory is that pissed off billionaire Michael Dell, invested in or even created Pystar because Apple refused to license him OS X for his Dell machines. That's the only thing I can think of since Pystar seems to be able to magically keep pulling money out of its company ass.
I imaging the IRS and FTC would very interested in finding out if Psystar is being financed from "behind the scenes". IMHO anyone financing them is a fool because if Psystar are as bungling as they appear they might be stupid enough to let slip who Daddy Bigbucks is to save their own skin.
I imaging the IRS and FTC would very interested in finding out if Psystar is being financed from "behind the scenes". IMHO anyone financing them is a fool because if Psystar are as bungling as they appear they might be stupid enough to let slip who Daddy Bigbucks is to save their own skin.
None of Psystar?s actions scream that they are being funded by a larger company behind the scenes. We also know that they are in debt to their previous attorneys.
Comments
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone5.htm
Since 2G was implemented, all cell phone communications are digital, much like the switch to digital for television, so in this case, it really is all 'data' as far as type of communication. The only difference here is that voice data will always get priority over other packet types.
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone5.htm
Cell phones have been digital since PCS - which is like 15 years ago.
"Apple has done a great job creating a stylish and functional operating system. That’s why we buy and use Apple products. We never set out to conquer Apple, what we wish is to coexist with Apple as a competitor in the industry.
It is our goal at Psystar to offer a great product (OS X) to people who are not included in Apple’s target market. Steve Jobs has even said, “There are some customers which we choose not to serve.” Some people simply cannot afford an Apple computer. Others would like to see better performance from their machines with hardware configurations that Apple does not provide. Our Psystar machines were developed to fill niches that a larger corporation like Apple doesn’t serve.
Like Apple, Psystar is an American company and provides American jobs. As such, we would like to see a market with healthy competition; competition that benefits you, the consumer. We respect Apple as a company and admire the success they have achieved.
What we offer here at Psystar is a choice as to what platform you chose to run OS X Leopard on. We screen all software updates to ensure that they all work safely on our machines before we encourage our customers to update their Psystar computer. And we will continue to support our computers through new software releases."
I don't think Psystar has a real understanding of the manner in which Apple's business structure works. Apple doesn't serve certain groups because Microsoft and the various PC OEMs do. And when you run a vertically aligned manufacturing process, it's because it benefits both your company and your customers, not because you want to eliminate competition.
Besides, and it's funny, the OSX86 community that Pedraza likes to talk about so much, literally exists to help people fill these gaps he speaks of, the difference is they realize trying to create a business out of that helps absolutely no one (which is when the head of the project has publicly cursed him on several counts). You don't make products for the extremely naggy 10% of your customers who will never be satisfied no matter what you put out, you sell to the 90% that enjoy the benefits of the ecosystem you've created.
I'm so tired of hearing this choice bullshit from them though. They've already lost that argument in court and they keep beating it into the ground. Apple existing and running its ecosystem differently from Microsoft and its 90% market domination is in and of itself choice. The idea that you have to subdivide a segment because you disagree with its business strategy is downright offensive. Apple doesn't make low-end computers for a reason and it has served it extremely well and its customers love it. The only problem here is that people like Pedraza don't know how to leave a good thing well enough alone.
Cell phones have been digital since PCS - which is like 15 years ago.
Actually PCS and 2G are one in the same. 1G was analog. 2G is digital.
I don't think Psystar has a real understanding of the manner in which Apple's business structure works. Apple doesn't serve certain groups because Microsoft and the various PC OEMs do. And when you run a vertically aligned manufacturing process, it's because it benefits both your company and your customers, not because you want to eliminate competition.
Then by your reasoning, Apple shouldn't care what Psystar does at all unless they start offering an "iStar", iMac clone, or similar model. By your own admission, the people purchasing from Psystar were never potential customers and thus in no way threatened Apple's potential profits. In fact, it actually benefits Apple since they (should) have been receiving $79 for each copy of OS X installed on a Psystar PC.
In fact, it actually benefits Apple since they (should) have been receiving $79 for each copy of OS X installed on a Psystar PC.
So the reason why Apple is fighting this, is...?
Then by your reasoning, Apple shouldn't care what Psystar does at all unless they start offering an "iStar", iMac clone, or similar model. By your own admission, the people purchasing from Psystar were never potential customers and thus in no way threatened Apple's potential profits. In fact, it actually benefits Apple since they (should) have been receiving $79 for each copy of OS X installed on a Psystar PC.
I've made no such admission. Apple doesn't make mid-range tower units because they're all extremely low margin and if you're going to base your business on the idea of profiting from your hardware, not your software, one needs to accommodate the other. Psystar doesn't have to worry about any of the overheard costs Apple incurs as a result of research & development or running a retail chain (among other things). It's a rinky dink little throw together of a company that can only even exists because it isn't paying licensing fees to anyone (Apple or the OSX86 community whose patented hacks they use without authorization).
The fact of the matter is that if people think they can get a premium experience, which is what Apple seeks to provide (I don't care to hear whether you think that's true or not), at a fraction of the cost, they will buy it every time because people are insanely cheap. There's a reason that innovation go to the Windows market to die: everyone is buying the cheap crap so there's no impetus to create anything spectacular because not enough people will buy it and you'll just lose money on it as a result. Apple running its business like Microsoft would mire into the same problem and the company would fold as a result. Apple runs its business the way it does because it is by far the best strategy for the company to take. Whoever said you fight fire with fire was a friggin inexperienced idiot.
So, to answer your question more directly, I'm sure a certain percentage of the people who buy from Psystar would never buy a Mac anyway, but these are typically the people who think Apple's stuff is overpriced no matter how competitively priced it is with its direct competition. Setting up the precedent that a non-existent market should be legally subdivided because, for instance, BMW doesn't care to make sub-$30,000 cars is the kind of reverse socialism that is going to screw the world up if its allowed to proliferate.
I mean, my g-d, when I eventually have kids, I hasten to think my son would decide that since he doesn't like my decisions he's gonna go ask the neighbor's father since I have an unfair monopoly on parenting him.
Could someone please point me to a law somewhere that states when a company writes an operating system that it has to run on any computer?
can you point me to the opposite?
I mean, my g-d, when I eventually have kids, I hasten to think my son would decide that since he doesn't like my decisions he's gonna go ask the neighbor's father since I have an unfair monopoly on parenting him.
How is that bad? If your son is intelligent enough to understand that he can get a 2nd opinion than all the power to him. Just because you're Daddy doesn't mean you're right.
DP
.
can you point me to the opposite?
How is that bad? If your son is intelligent enough to understand that he can get a 2nd opinion than all the power to him. Just because you're Daddy doesn't mean you're right.
You're missing the point, he's my child and if I decide I don't want him going to the zoo, I'll be damned if the couple across the street will take him. Just because he likes their decisions more, doesn't mean he gets to live by them. If you can't understand that, I pray you never have kids.
Apple can afford to lose the sale of the few computers that Psystar sells and with all the publicity it makes, it's good advertising. The average user thinks that OS X must be one heck desirable system for anyone to fight so hard to obtain it. So Apple may in fact be hyping up the news to their own advantage. But if they think there could be a chance that they might lose, then we'll see Apple 'Genuine Advantage' and all software will be delivered over the internet only to qualified machines.
I find it interesting how pretty much every update from Apple requires a restart and the supposed restart initiates before the product even starts downloading effectively preventing some custom program from reading the data or installer script due to the fact that no other application can run during the install process.
No, Apple is not "hyping" this up. They don't do that with pending lawsuits. And if you havent heard, Apple is one of the most recognizable and most successful companies in the world (fan or not.)
The majority of updates do not require restarts. When they do, it is because a core service is being changed and cant be overwritten while you or another program are using it. It also installs much faster and reliable when all non-essential services are closed. This is the nature of math and programming.
I'm interested in seeing how it plays out. As far as I can tell none of this is hurting apple one bit. Just take a look at their numbers. I understand apple has to defend its IP but again I don't get what all you people have against them. You act as if they killed your first born.
I don't get the animosity against psystar. So what they make hackinthoshes. A normal consumer wouldn't buy this. People who are buying this are mildy tech savvy people who already own another mac.
I'm interested in seeing how it plays out. As far as I can tell none of this is hurting apple one bit. Just take a look at their numbers. I understand apple has to defend its IP but again I don't get what all you people have against them. You act as if they killed your first born.
The problem doesn't come from Psystar in itself. In and of itself Psystar is no threat. The threat comes from if Psystar wins, that allows other OEMs like HP, Dell, Asus, Toshiba, etc to put OS X on their computers. That would destroy Apple. Just HP alone putting OS X on their computers would destroy Apple. HP is the largest computer maker worldwide
So how about Apple agrees to Pystart's demand
But with a twist. Sell a non-Apple hardware version of Mac OS for $999.99 Which would make Pystars computers uncompetitive if they legally acquired the software. But Still charge only $29 for apple computer users to upgrade. Apples argument would be that the OEM Apple HW buyer is subsidizing the OS cost and hence gets it cheaper. Whereas a Pystar buyer has no subsidy and has to pay fair value for the OS. Similar to a Cell phone plan where you buy with or without contract.
A $999.99 version of OSX would really put to shame those who complain that Windows is expensive
They would create 2 versions of OS X. One for Apple owners for the purposes of upgrading and charge a nominal fee and one for the 3rd party manufacturers to license.
The third party version would be available for, lets say $2000 per license and come with no support from Apple whatsoever.
Then lets see Dell and HP create their clones.
Theres nothing to say at what price Apple needs to supply a license to third party cloners.
The problem doesn't come from Psystar in itself. In and of itself Psystar is no threat. The threat comes from if Psystar wins, that allows other OEMs like HP, Dell, Asus, Toshiba, etc to put OS X on their computers. That would destroy Apple. Just HP alone putting OS X on their computers would destroy Apple. HP is the largest computer maker worldwide
The only one who gets destroyed if Psystar wins is Psystar. Apple?s business model gets bruised but Apple doesn?t falter. The next to lose, and to lose big, would be Microsoft, depending on how Apple handles the notion that if they sell a copy of OS X on shelves that anyone can start a business of selling that OS installed on computers so long as they take responsibility for servicing.
Apple would have several directions to take. They could raise the price to compete directly with Windows Ultimate full install disc at $400, or go even higher. They could then get certain companies like HP and Dell on board to sell a particular line of machines that Apple may support in the GUI but have a contract that limits the effect of HP and Dell?s direct sales against Apple?s HW line. They could not sell any version of Mac OS X on shelves but have some sort of one free OS update voucher with each Mac sold and/or require that you now need a valid Mac serial number in order to install the OS. They could even go with a complete digital download system that could first check to see if you have purchased a Mac in the past.
Besides Psystar?s business being killed by the big box companies that are ow willing to pay a premium to get out from MS? thumb and MS losing significant marketshare because OS X is now being sold to other PC vendors (note that even if Apple had the largest worldwide PC marketshare that HP holds it would still only have 25% of the OS market), the Mac user also loses here. We now have a company that has a strong focus on pairing hardware to their OS and apps, have made things simple with no HW checks reporting to Apple?s authentication servers and a simple install process that still uses the honor system. All that would go away for a Windows-like experience at one or many of the options above.
I don't get the animosity against psystar. So what they make hackinthoshes. A normal consumer wouldn't buy this. People who are buying this are mildy tech savvy people who already own another mac.
I'm interested in seeing how it plays out. As far as I can tell none of this is hurting apple one bit. Just take a look at their numbers. I understand apple has to defend its IP but again I don't get what all you people have against them. You act as if they killed your first born.
If you find this a legal action then why are there no other companies in the US doing it. Why aren?t HP, Dell, and all the other companies that can?t stand being beat down by Windows and having only Linux as an alternative not selling their Mac OS X on their machines. Retail versions of Windows Ultimate are $400 while a full version of Mac OS X Snow Leopard is only $29.
The problem is not with the Hackintosh community. Apple has never attacked the OSx86 Project as these are just tech savvy modders who are not selling their wares. The problems comes from Psystar creating a business around Apple?s own IP without their written permission. They aren?t the end user and they aren?t just selling the disc for their customers to install on OSx86 compatible HW that they put together. This is illegal.
If you are tech savvy then you don?t need to pay Psystar profit and get yourself limited to their few HW choices. You can simply read the OSx86 Project Wiki HCL make your own Hackintosh. it?s not like any of what Psystar is doing is difficult. They aren?t writing any code or doing any research to make this happen, they are reading the community generated pages and stealing the code that others have written and strictly forbid from making a business around without their permission, which they won?t give. The OSx86 community is none to happy with Psystar either for stealing from them, too.
PS: Are you aware of EFiX? It?s a USB chip that tricks the OS into installing and running on certain MoBos? That is completely legal in that there is no alteration of OS X code and that they aren?t selling an entire computer where the sellers are accepting any agreement and doing a transference of code from one medium to another. Well, EFiX USA, the US distributer for the dongle, decided that they were going to compete with Psystar by selling per-made Mac clones. This was just the installing OS X on the compatible HW. EFiX dropped them as a distributer as soon as they heard. What EFIX is selling it legal, for you to use it is legal, for you create a business around it is not legal.
HP and Dell may very well be part of Pystar's investors. My theory is that pissed off billionaire Michael Dell, invested in or even created Pystar because Apple refused to license him OS X for his Dell machines. That's the only thing I can think of since Pystar seems to be able to magically keep pulling money out of its company ass.
I imaging the IRS and FTC would very interested in finding out if Psystar is being financed from "behind the scenes". IMHO anyone financing them is a fool because if Psystar are as bungling as they appear they might be stupid enough to let slip who Daddy Bigbucks is to save their own skin.
I imaging the IRS and FTC would very interested in finding out if Psystar is being financed from "behind the scenes". IMHO anyone financing them is a fool because if Psystar are as bungling as they appear they might be stupid enough to let slip who Daddy Bigbucks is to save their own skin.
None of Psystar?s actions scream that they are being funded by a larger company behind the scenes. We also know that they are in debt to their previous attorneys.