Of course! All this software is available for FREE at netkas.org
If you look at tutorials for specific motherboards on insanelymac.com you can build your own hackintosh relatively easily WITHOUT paying Psystar a penny.
Or just wait a few days and someone will upload the full cracked version to the torrent sites.
Good because this will then go against everything Psystar was trying to achieve with the sale of the software, Bad because it means that its out there for the general public.
Meaning future Apple releases will have to have some fix to disable this working.
I called the company and found out some additional information.
The software comes in 2 parts - the OS Install and the OS X software. The software you download from their website you burn to a CD to allow you to boot the OS X disc.
Once OS X is installed, you install the OS X software package which is unusable unless you purchase a license (stupid). You can't run the hardware detector (for sound, ethernet, etc) to even find out if your hardware is compatible before you purchase it.
Once you purchase a license, Rebel EFI is locked to that machine. If some of your hardware is not compatible then Rebel EFI will send Psystar a hardware report, where Psystar will fix any incompatibility problems with your machine.
In order to install any OS X updates you have to use Rebel EFI.
If Psystar goes out of business you won't be able to install any further OS X updates.
As a result of using a Hackintosh, I've already decided that my next computer will be a MacBook Pro.
Similar story -- I put together a Dell Mini9 hackintosh over the summer (bought the Leopard box set to do it too, so Apple already made some dough on me) and loved it... on the strength of that experience, I just ordered one of the new 2.26Ghz minis for a home media server.
A hunch? The entire business exists because of the Hackintosh efforts.
Yes I know. Their first machine had installed Os X using drivers and scripts taken from netkas and the rest from the hackintosh crowd without permission or acknowledgement. I used the word hunch as in I suspect that it is the same code that they did not write or have permision to use and put a Gui on it. I have not examined the new program hence I did not state it as a fact.
I called the company and found out some additional information.
The software comes in 2 parts - the OS Install and the OS X software. The software you download from their website you burn to a CD to allow you to boot the OS X disc.
Once OS X is installed, you install the OS X software package which is unusable unless you purchase a license (stupid). You can't run the hardware detector (for sound, ethernet, etc) to even find out if your hardware is compatible before you purchase it.
Once you purchase a license, Rebel EFI is locked to that machine. If some of your hardware is not compatible then Rebel EFI will send Psystar a hardware report, where Psystar will fix any incompatibility problems with your machine.
In order to install any OS X updates you have to use Rebel EFI.
If Psystar goes out of business you won't be able to install any further OS X updates.
In their defense, you installing the OS yourself does it make it extremely more legal than other method of selling pre-made unofficial Mac clones. No court in the US is going to say that they are allowed to be a reseller without licensing from Apple, but this is a different story. It?s like those plans you can buy to make a still even though building it is illegal and those ?tobacco pipes? you can buy in head shops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowace
Similar story -- I put together a Dell Mini9 hackintosh over the summer (bought the Leopard box set to do it too, so Apple already made some dough on me) and loved it... on the strength of that experience, I just ordered one of the new 2.26Ghz minis for a home media server.
I?ve heard a lot of these type stories since the OSx86 Project started. I don?t think Apple has a problem with them (though it would be impossible to kill anyway) and there is some evidence that Apple may be even helping them a bit, as started by some of the communities developers. Yet I have yet to read of anyone buying a Psystar Open PC. It seems like they really don?t have much of a market. If you are willing to suffer the hassle of having a Hackintosh why not just build it yourself for cheap instead of suffering what many people complain about with Apple: being tied to limited HW offerings. It?s certainly not difficult to do and the HCL Wiki is quite extensive.
Following in the footsteps of Mac OS X's reliance on open source with a slick Apple interface
The difference is that Apple follows the License and returns code back to the project. There is nothing wrong with that, thats they way it is supposed to work. They code that they write on top of that is owned by Apple and that is what you are paying for.
B]I hope Apple is smart enough to push OSX on PC.[/B]
I doubt very much that they would want to pony up for to 10x increase in customer support they would need for the 90% of the additional calls that would be solely for hardware issues.
I'm 39 and I'm still remember my first experience with Paint on Macintosh Plus in 1987.
Being the same age and still remembering my first experience with MacPaint on my first home computer, the 128k in 1984, I feel compelled to chime in here.
I agree with what Serge said. Moreover, I don't understand why this site is frequented by the Apple Crusaders so often. So many attorney's-in-training screaming about what's "legal" or "illegal." Let the courts work that out. It's really none of our concern. We all take certain risks when we go outside Apple (Psystar could go under), but that is for us to live with. And no, our doing so is not going to spell the death of Apple either.
Our concern, as a consumer, is seeing the Mac OS thrive. And what better to do that than to allow the Mac OS to run on Apple and non-Apple hardware. The successful liver transplant earlier this year has assured us that won't happen for a while though -- Steven P Jobs is still at the helm at Apple. And don't get me wrong, from an AAPL stock standpoint I love Jobs. And from an aesthetic standpoint I love Jobs (and Ive) -- Apple Macs are lovely to the eye. But from a usability and practicality and "bank for the buck" standpoint, Apple has some problems. And again, I say this as a Mac lover since 1984 who has yet to build a Hackintosh. I am just very open-minded about options available to run OS X. Psystar, however we may personally feel about them or their honesty or integrity or legality, are all about "presenting options."
What if one wants more power than a Mac Mini but a computer that is smaller than a Mac Pro, all with a matte display? Apple doesn't offer that, so you are often forced to go the Windows route. Psystar and the Hack community is presenting alternatives to that (and again, "legality" is largely irrelevant here, we're talking about "OPTIONS"). And then of course, there's the whole discussion on how to get around Apple's overbearing lockdown on the iPhone too.
It's about "more choices" for you and for me, people who like OS X over Windows. Stop worring about the legality and stop excessively defending Apple. If you like to debate about "all things right and wrong" then join a forum where lawyers get together and chat about such things. If you love Apple so much you want to protect them at all costs, apply for a job in Cupertino.
Articles like this one on Psystar should stimulate more discussion on "choice in computing," not about legal issues, however much the media loves to spotlight the legal case between Apple and Psystar. It's all about choice, and increasing choice doesn't mean the death of our beloved Apple either.
STANDARD DISCLAIMER: No I don't work for Psystar. I am merely a Crusader of Choice.
I agree with what Serge said. Moreover, I don't understand why this site is frequented by the Apple Crusaders so often. So many attorney's-in-training screaming about what's "legal" or "illegal." Let the courts work that out. It's really none of our concern.
You need a little perspective mate. This is a tech forum. On the internet! If people are going to discuss the roundness of Steve Ballmer's head then they, sure as hell, can discuss the legality of Psystar's business.
Quote:
Our concern, as a consumer, is seeing the Mac OS thrive. And what better to do that than to allow the Mac OS to run on Apple and non-Apple hardware.
Or Apple could simply sell more Macs. Or they could put OS X onto small hand-held devices and sell 40 million of those.... Not thriving enough? Why is your way... the better way?
Quote:
But from a usability and practicality and "bank for the buck" standpoint, Apple has some problems.
By problems do you mean growing 2 or 3 times faster than the rest of the computer industry every year? Even during a recession?
Quote:
Psystar and the Hack community is presenting alternatives to that (and again, "legality" is largely irrelevant here, we're talking about "OPTIONS").
You previously asked for "the courts to work that out", yet legality is irrelevant?
Quote:
And then of course, there's the whole discussion on how to get around Apple's overbearing lockdown on the iPhone too.
It's about "more choices" for you and for me,
I am merely a Crusader of Choice.
Remember the choices you had before the iPhone? Now you got another .... choice!
This isn't about choices. You just want something ( a feature, a product, a service) that one company doesn't offer. And to justify that sense of entitlement, the arguments are always the same. Either Apple is making a big business mistake...or must be breaking some law or other.
You need a little perspective mate. This is a tech forum. On the internet! If people are going to discuss the roundness of Steve Ballmer's head then they, sure as hell, can discuss the legality of Psystar's business.
Indeed. This is truly a "tech forum." As such, the roundness of anyone's head would require analysis and math, both of which are "technical" in nature and therefore on-topic. However, what goes on in the courtroom is not "techy" at all. It simply happens to "impact tech."
But this is yet again detracting from the main thrust of the discussion: choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Why is your way... the better way?
I wrote about "choice." You wrote in reply to me in order to merely argue with me personally. It would therefore appear that you are seeking your way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
By problems do you mean growing 2 or 3 times faster than the rest of the computer industry every year?
I apologize. I meant to spell it "bang" for the buck. What I was trying to say was that some people have turned to Hackintoshes because they believe such gives them more BANG for the buck. But again, I don't own any non-Apple hardware myself. So why then am I trumpeting this issue? Because I believe in choice! Just because I myself don't own any Psystar hardware or software does not mean I should deny others from purchasing such. Again, it's all about choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
You previously asked for "the courts to work that out", yet legality is irrelevant?
Your comment is evidence you misunderstood me. I was saying that we should leave it to the courts to decide, and thereby, leave out that part of the discussion here. Let people elsewhere discuss the legal issues. We should entertain "tech-related" issues here, which center on choice, which in turn talks about how to run our preferred software (e.g. OS X) on our preferred hardware (e.g., take your pick of Intel machines).
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Remember the choices you had before the iPhone?
Mate, I don't even own an iPhone. But my friends and family do. They turn to me when they run up against a wall on how to do something Apple won't let them do. So I then look on the internet to see how I can give them answers -- how I can bring them "choice."
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
This isn't about choices.
If you think I feel that way, you are mistaken. "Choice" is the central theme of all I have written here. The question is, why do you hate "choice" so much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
You just want something ( a feature, a product, a service) that one company doesn't offer.
Wrong again. See, you are trying to isolate "choice" to just me. But you cannot do that. Because as I said, I currently only own Apple hardware. That has always been true, since my first Mac in 1984. But again, just because I am that way doesn't mean I should expect everyone else to be that way. You are trying to put us all in a box, stamp us, then wash your hands of us. Mac users are a diverse group, and I like it that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
And to justify that sense of entitlement, the arguments are always the same. Either Apple is making a big business mistake...or must be breaking some law or other.
You hate "choice" so much that you have redefined it as "an entitlement." Frightful, mate. Just frightful.
I am talking about "choice." If Apple offers more of that in the future, great. If they don't, then why should I deny others from seeking alternatives to run OS X elsewhere.
Your entire argumentative stance is built around denying choice to others. My stance is just the opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
"Crusader of choice" or just an entitlement geek?
Anyone with common sense can easily answer that from what I have written above. (But I will concede that you are most certain "entitled" to your own opinion.)
doesn't apple have a legal department? why does this even happen?
Nokia just sued Apple yesterday. . .doesn't mean Apple is wrong or should stop using a certain technology until a settlement is reached or a court rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Fred 1
Cause Apple isn't in the software business, their in the hardware business.
How old are you?
Apple hasn't been in the hardware business since the PowerPC days. They are in the software business. They use PC parts just like anybody else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
The last thing any OS X user in their right mind would want is for it to become a Windows clone. There goes nearly every reason to use OS X. Right out the window.
This "open up OS X" garbage seriously has to stop. It's bad business from every angle, and it would certainly be a colossal disservice to the average user. It's not going to happen.
Besides, No one, that is, NO ONE in their right mind selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principle of the EULA.
Apple succeeds spectacularly with Macs and OS X precisely because it's a closed, controlled ecosystem. Anything else (or anything less), and OS X becomes a Windows clone. And who the hell would want that?? The whole reason behind Apple's business model when it comes to Macs (and their resulting success) is that OS X is tied to Apple's hardware. This is the reason customer satisfaction rates are so high, year after year. This is the reason the also-rans of the industry aspire to render their products more "Mac-like" in every way possible.
This "freely use computing hardware the way they want" and "open up OS X" notion lives and dies in small corners of the internet, and in the even smaller corners in which Apple fan sites live, fuelled mainly by the geek/tech-enthusiast minority that (wrongly) thinks it knows whats best for everyone else. In fact, Apple knows best. Period. The proof is in the numbers. Hackintoshes and mucking around with the OS and wailing about "freeing" it is alright for that small segment of Apple's user base (a segment which in the grand scheme of things is inconsequential anyway), but it would be a monumental disservice to the average user.
Apple succeeds because of these specific differentiations. It's a coveted business model that others only wish they could emulate successfully. We're at the point now, where if the average user has $1000+ to spend (and apparently, plenty of them do!) a Mac will be near or at the very top of their list. That's quite an accomplishment. It's the reason Ballmer ends up looking stupid, flustered, and tongue-tied at press conferences, especially when he's in a room-full of Macs.And by the way, the last thing Apple's numbers, record Mac sales, and dominance of consumer mindshare and opinion would suggest is for Apple to open up its OS. What's the reason to use OS X then? As an alternative interface? All the real benefits of OS X would be gone. Windows clone.
There's simply no demand for that and no reason to do so, especially when Apple's making headlines, dominating mindshare, #1 in satisfaction surveys and reports year after year, the darling of the tech industry, and defying the recession with its current business model. Do you think Apple would be stupid enough to let go of all that??
Sorry folks. You want a Windows hardware experience but with an OS X interface? Not going to happen. You can't have it both ways. Stick with your hobby hackintoshes (because that's all they are), and be relieved that Apple is sticking up for the integrity of its product as well as the average user's interests.
Wait - your argument is based on DEMAND? If there wasn't a DEMAND than there would not be hacks, no Psystar and certainly no need for a group(s) or company to make a disc that allows you to install OSX into a PC. But that's not true.
Further, if there wasn't a DEMAND, Apple wouldn't even have filed suit because the market would e so small that it would be a moot point. But that's not true either.
The fundamental fact of the matter is that there is a demand for a way to port OSX to a PC. And it is about choice. There are plenty of people out there who would love to purchase a 15" laptop running OSX for under $1,000. But they cannot. The alternative, however, is to purchase a SONY or some other product for that 1K mark and install OSX on it.
Now, you're not going to win the argument that Apple's hardware is better than Sony's. More elegant? Absolutely. But they both use relatively interchangeable stuff.
What makes Apple far superior in the OVERALL user experience is OSX. I believe that we all can agree on that. OSX rules.
But here's the bottom line really. If you do not address a market to operate in where there is a demand, somebody else will. Be it a fringe group, pirate or renegade company.
If Psystar didn't see their potential market as profitable, they wouldn't be in court battling Apple. But there is a DEMAND for an Apple clone or a way to port OSX to a PC and that's what this is about.
One thing I'd wager on. If Psystar wins either part or all of the lawsuit, you will see Apple selling OSX with the capability to run on a PC. They will have to.
Further, if there wasn't a DEMAND, Apple wouldn't even have filed suit because the market would e so small that it would be a moot point. But that's not true either.
There's a "demand" for kiddie porn. What is your standard of what should happen and what should not?
Also, your statement is not really accurate. Owners of intellectual property must defend their rights or they risk losing them. So it's not a moot point, no matter what the "demand" might be.
Indeed. This is truly a "tech forum." As such, the roundness of anyone's head would require analysis and math, both of which are "technical" in nature and therefore on-topic. However, what goes on in the courtroom is not "techy" at all. It simply happens to "impact tech."
Yes, it "impacts tech". And that is why the legal implications of the Psystar case have every reason to be discussed on a forum such as this. People were discussing Ballmer's head, not because of maths, but because Ballmer's head (sadly for Microsoft!)... also impacts tech.
Quote:
But this is yet again detracting from the main thrust of the discussion: choice
No. You are making the discussion about choice. You cannot simply shove the legal stuff all to one side and get on your high, crusader horse. The choices that you want from Apple (or even Psystar) all depend on the law.
Either Apple is legally allowed to restrict it's OS to run on it's own hardware... or it's not.
Quote:
Mate, I don't even own an iPhone.
It doesn't matter. Before iPhone you had choices. After Phone you have more choices.
Quote:
The question is, why do you hate "choice" so much?
You hate "choice" so much that you have redefined it as "an entitlement."
Your entire argumentative stance is built around denying choice to others.
I do not hate choice. I simply believe that I cannot expect to be given all the choices that I want from ONE company. And, unless I am being denied some basic human right (or "entitlement") or the company is breaking the law, I would not expect the law to force that company to accommodate me.
Within the law, a company also has the right to make some choices. And choosing what business they want to be in is their business, not their customers.
I simply believe that I cannot expect to be given all the choices that I want from ONE company.
I agree with you 100%. I want those additional choices to come from Apple too, just like you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
And, unless I am being denied some basic human right (or "entitlement") or the company is breaking the law, I would not expect the law to force that company to accommodate me.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Within the law, a company also has the right to make some choices. And choosing what business they want to be in is their business, not their customers.
Agreed. And the case between Apple and Psystar is not over yet. So in the meantime, it technically is legal to buy from Psystar and expand one's choices accordingly -- not silly Psystar alone, but anyone else offering the means to build a Hackintosh, however gray an area that may be legally. But again, my position is not to get caught up in all the legal mumbo jumbo. Why? Because it's not like I plan to sell the stuff. We're geeks here talking about techno stuff. That's why it's more of a gray ('who cares') area when we do this hackintosh stuff in our own homes.
What I like to see (and why I come to these forums) is talk about techy stuff that enable me to do more than I can do right now. I came to this forum to see what people are saying about Psystar and what non-Psystar alternatives there are for accomplishing the same thing -- running OS X on non-Apple hardware. And once again, I say this as someone who has yet to buy anything outside Apple. And I say this as someone would would be thrilled to see a matte screen iMac and other such "choices" come on the scene. But for now, we have to look elsewhere for that.
Comments
I have a hunch that most of this was ripped off from the work done by the hackintosh crowd and given a gui. These folks steal from everyone. Imho.
Following in the footsteps of Mac OS X's reliance on open source with a slick Apple interface
Cause Apple isn't in the software business, their in the hardware business.
How old are you?
Actually, they're in the closed system business, which relies on hardware *and* software to be successful.
Looks like it's the Chameleon project...
Of course! All this software is available for FREE at netkas.org
If you look at tutorials for specific motherboards on insanelymac.com you can build your own hackintosh relatively easily WITHOUT paying Psystar a penny.
Good because this will then go against everything Psystar was trying to achieve with the sale of the software, Bad because it means that its out there for the general public.
Meaning future Apple releases will have to have some fix to disable this working.
The software comes in 2 parts - the OS Install and the OS X software. The software you download from their website you burn to a CD to allow you to boot the OS X disc.
Once OS X is installed, you install the OS X software package which is unusable unless you purchase a license (stupid). You can't run the hardware detector (for sound, ethernet, etc) to even find out if your hardware is compatible before you purchase it.
Once you purchase a license, Rebel EFI is locked to that machine. If some of your hardware is not compatible then Rebel EFI will send Psystar a hardware report, where Psystar will fix any incompatibility problems with your machine.
In order to install any OS X updates you have to use Rebel EFI.
If Psystar goes out of business you won't be able to install any further OS X updates.
As a result of using a Hackintosh, I've already decided that my next computer will be a MacBook Pro.
Similar story -- I put together a Dell Mini9 hackintosh over the summer (bought the Leopard box set to do it too, so Apple already made some dough on me) and loved it... on the strength of that experience, I just ordered one of the new 2.26Ghz minis for a home media server.
A hunch? The entire business exists because of the Hackintosh efforts.
Yes I know. Their first machine had installed Os X using drivers and scripts taken from netkas and the rest from the hackintosh crowd without permission or acknowledgement. I used the word hunch as in I suspect that it is the same code that they did not write or have permision to use and put a Gui on it. I have not examined the new program hence I did not state it as a fact.
I called the company and found out some additional information.
The software comes in 2 parts - the OS Install and the OS X software. The software you download from their website you burn to a CD to allow you to boot the OS X disc.
Once OS X is installed, you install the OS X software package which is unusable unless you purchase a license (stupid). You can't run the hardware detector (for sound, ethernet, etc) to even find out if your hardware is compatible before you purchase it.
Once you purchase a license, Rebel EFI is locked to that machine. If some of your hardware is not compatible then Rebel EFI will send Psystar a hardware report, where Psystar will fix any incompatibility problems with your machine.
In order to install any OS X updates you have to use Rebel EFI.
If Psystar goes out of business you won't be able to install any further OS X updates.
In their defense, you installing the OS yourself does it make it extremely more legal than other method of selling pre-made unofficial Mac clones. No court in the US is going to say that they are allowed to be a reseller without licensing from Apple, but this is a different story. It?s like those plans you can buy to make a still even though building it is illegal and those ?tobacco pipes? you can buy in head shops.
Similar story -- I put together a Dell Mini9 hackintosh over the summer (bought the Leopard box set to do it too, so Apple already made some dough on me) and loved it... on the strength of that experience, I just ordered one of the new 2.26Ghz minis for a home media server.
I?ve heard a lot of these type stories since the OSx86 Project started. I don?t think Apple has a problem with them (though it would be impossible to kill anyway) and there is some evidence that Apple may be even helping them a bit, as started by some of the communities developers. Yet I have yet to read of anyone buying a Psystar Open PC. It seems like they really don?t have much of a market. If you are willing to suffer the hassle of having a Hackintosh why not just build it yourself for cheap instead of suffering what many people complain about with Apple: being tied to limited HW offerings. It?s certainly not difficult to do and the HCL Wiki is quite extensive.
Following in the footsteps of Mac OS X's reliance on open source with a slick Apple interface
The difference is that Apple follows the License and returns code back to the project. There is nothing wrong with that, thats they way it is supposed to work. They code that they write on top of that is owned by Apple and that is what you are paying for.
B]I hope Apple is smart enough to push OSX on PC.[/B]
I doubt very much that they would want to pony up for to 10x increase in customer support they would need for the 90% of the additional calls that would be solely for hardware issues.
I'm 39 and I'm still remember my first experience with Paint on Macintosh Plus in 1987.
Being the same age and still remembering my first experience with MacPaint on my first home computer, the 128k in 1984, I feel compelled to chime in here.
I agree with what Serge said. Moreover, I don't understand why this site is frequented by the Apple Crusaders so often. So many attorney's-in-training screaming about what's "legal" or "illegal." Let the courts work that out. It's really none of our concern. We all take certain risks when we go outside Apple (Psystar could go under), but that is for us to live with. And no, our doing so is not going to spell the death of Apple either.
Our concern, as a consumer, is seeing the Mac OS thrive. And what better to do that than to allow the Mac OS to run on Apple and non-Apple hardware. The successful liver transplant earlier this year has assured us that won't happen for a while though -- Steven P Jobs is still at the helm at Apple. And don't get me wrong, from an AAPL stock standpoint I love Jobs. And from an aesthetic standpoint I love Jobs (and Ive) -- Apple Macs are lovely to the eye. But from a usability and practicality and "bank for the buck" standpoint, Apple has some problems. And again, I say this as a Mac lover since 1984 who has yet to build a Hackintosh. I am just very open-minded about options available to run OS X. Psystar, however we may personally feel about them or their honesty or integrity or legality, are all about "presenting options."
What if one wants more power than a Mac Mini but a computer that is smaller than a Mac Pro, all with a matte display? Apple doesn't offer that, so you are often forced to go the Windows route. Psystar and the Hack community is presenting alternatives to that (and again, "legality" is largely irrelevant here, we're talking about "OPTIONS"). And then of course, there's the whole discussion on how to get around Apple's overbearing lockdown on the iPhone too.
It's about "more choices" for you and for me, people who like OS X over Windows. Stop worring about the legality and stop excessively defending Apple. If you like to debate about "all things right and wrong" then join a forum where lawyers get together and chat about such things. If you love Apple so much you want to protect them at all costs, apply for a job in Cupertino.
Articles like this one on Psystar should stimulate more discussion on "choice in computing," not about legal issues, however much the media loves to spotlight the legal case between Apple and Psystar. It's all about choice, and increasing choice doesn't mean the death of our beloved Apple either.
STANDARD DISCLAIMER: No I don't work for Psystar. I am merely a Crusader of Choice.
I agree with what Serge said. Moreover, I don't understand why this site is frequented by the Apple Crusaders so often. So many attorney's-in-training screaming about what's "legal" or "illegal." Let the courts work that out. It's really none of our concern.
You need a little perspective mate. This is a tech forum. On the internet! If people are going to discuss the roundness of Steve Ballmer's head then they, sure as hell, can discuss the legality of Psystar's business.
Our concern, as a consumer, is seeing the Mac OS thrive. And what better to do that than to allow the Mac OS to run on Apple and non-Apple hardware.
Or Apple could simply sell more Macs. Or they could put OS X onto small hand-held devices and sell 40 million of those.... Not thriving enough? Why is your way... the better way?
But from a usability and practicality and "bank for the buck" standpoint, Apple has some problems.
By problems do you mean growing 2 or 3 times faster than the rest of the computer industry every year? Even during a recession?
Psystar and the Hack community is presenting alternatives to that (and again, "legality" is largely irrelevant here, we're talking about "OPTIONS").
You previously asked for "the courts to work that out", yet legality is irrelevant?
And then of course, there's the whole discussion on how to get around Apple's overbearing lockdown on the iPhone too.
It's about "more choices" for you and for me,
I am merely a Crusader of Choice.
Remember the choices you had before the iPhone? Now you got another .... choice!
This isn't about choices. You just want something ( a feature, a product, a service) that one company doesn't offer. And to justify that sense of entitlement, the arguments are always the same. Either Apple is making a big business mistake...or must be breaking some law or other.
"Crusader of choice" or just an entitlement geek?
You need a little perspective mate. This is a tech forum. On the internet! If people are going to discuss the roundness of Steve Ballmer's head then they, sure as hell, can discuss the legality of Psystar's business.
Indeed. This is truly a "tech forum." As such, the roundness of anyone's head would require analysis and math, both of which are "technical" in nature and therefore on-topic. However, what goes on in the courtroom is not "techy" at all. It simply happens to "impact tech."
But this is yet again detracting from the main thrust of the discussion: choice.
Why is your way... the better way?
I wrote about "choice." You wrote in reply to me in order to merely argue with me personally. It would therefore appear that you are seeking your way.
By problems do you mean growing 2 or 3 times faster than the rest of the computer industry every year?
I apologize. I meant to spell it "bang" for the buck. What I was trying to say was that some people have turned to Hackintoshes because they believe such gives them more BANG for the buck. But again, I don't own any non-Apple hardware myself. So why then am I trumpeting this issue? Because I believe in choice! Just because I myself don't own any Psystar hardware or software does not mean I should deny others from purchasing such. Again, it's all about choice.
You previously asked for "the courts to work that out", yet legality is irrelevant?
Your comment is evidence you misunderstood me. I was saying that we should leave it to the courts to decide, and thereby, leave out that part of the discussion here. Let people elsewhere discuss the legal issues. We should entertain "tech-related" issues here, which center on choice, which in turn talks about how to run our preferred software (e.g. OS X) on our preferred hardware (e.g., take your pick of Intel machines).
Remember the choices you had before the iPhone?
Mate, I don't even own an iPhone. But my friends and family do. They turn to me when they run up against a wall on how to do something Apple won't let them do. So I then look on the internet to see how I can give them answers -- how I can bring them "choice."
This isn't about choices.
If you think I feel that way, you are mistaken. "Choice" is the central theme of all I have written here. The question is, why do you hate "choice" so much?
You just want something ( a feature, a product, a service) that one company doesn't offer.
Wrong again. See, you are trying to isolate "choice" to just me. But you cannot do that. Because as I said, I currently only own Apple hardware. That has always been true, since my first Mac in 1984. But again, just because I am that way doesn't mean I should expect everyone else to be that way. You are trying to put us all in a box, stamp us, then wash your hands of us. Mac users are a diverse group, and I like it that way.
And to justify that sense of entitlement, the arguments are always the same. Either Apple is making a big business mistake...or must be breaking some law or other.
You hate "choice" so much that you have redefined it as "an entitlement." Frightful, mate. Just frightful.
I am talking about "choice." If Apple offers more of that in the future, great. If they don't, then why should I deny others from seeking alternatives to run OS X elsewhere.
Your entire argumentative stance is built around denying choice to others. My stance is just the opposite.
"Crusader of choice" or just an entitlement geek?
Anyone with common sense can easily answer that from what I have written above. (But I will concede that you are most certain "entitled" to your own opinion.
doesn't apple have a legal department? why does this even happen?
Nokia just sued Apple yesterday. . .doesn't mean Apple is wrong or should stop using a certain technology until a settlement is reached or a court rules.
Cause Apple isn't in the software business, their in the hardware business.
How old are you?
Apple hasn't been in the hardware business since the PowerPC days. They are in the software business. They use PC parts just like anybody else.
The last thing any OS X user in their right mind would want is for it to become a Windows clone. There goes nearly every reason to use OS X. Right out the window.
This "open up OS X" garbage seriously has to stop. It's bad business from every angle, and it would certainly be a colossal disservice to the average user. It's not going to happen.
Besides, No one, that is, NO ONE in their right mind selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principle of the EULA.
Apple succeeds spectacularly with Macs and OS X precisely because it's a closed, controlled ecosystem. Anything else (or anything less), and OS X becomes a Windows clone. And who the hell would want that?? The whole reason behind Apple's business model when it comes to Macs (and their resulting success) is that OS X is tied to Apple's hardware. This is the reason customer satisfaction rates are so high, year after year. This is the reason the also-rans of the industry aspire to render their products more "Mac-like" in every way possible.
This "freely use computing hardware the way they want" and "open up OS X" notion lives and dies in small corners of the internet, and in the even smaller corners in which Apple fan sites live, fuelled mainly by the geek/tech-enthusiast minority that (wrongly) thinks it knows whats best for everyone else. In fact, Apple knows best. Period. The proof is in the numbers. Hackintoshes and mucking around with the OS and wailing about "freeing" it is alright for that small segment of Apple's user base (a segment which in the grand scheme of things is inconsequential anyway), but it would be a monumental disservice to the average user.
Apple succeeds because of these specific differentiations. It's a coveted business model that others only wish they could emulate successfully. We're at the point now, where if the average user has $1000+ to spend (and apparently, plenty of them do!) a Mac will be near or at the very top of their list. That's quite an accomplishment. It's the reason Ballmer ends up looking stupid, flustered, and tongue-tied at press conferences, especially when he's in a room-full of Macs.And by the way, the last thing Apple's numbers, record Mac sales, and dominance of consumer mindshare and opinion would suggest is for Apple to open up its OS. What's the reason to use OS X then? As an alternative interface? All the real benefits of OS X would be gone. Windows clone.
There's simply no demand for that and no reason to do so, especially when Apple's making headlines, dominating mindshare, #1 in satisfaction surveys and reports year after year, the darling of the tech industry, and defying the recession with its current business model. Do you think Apple would be stupid enough to let go of all that??
Sorry folks. You want a Windows hardware experience but with an OS X interface? Not going to happen. You can't have it both ways. Stick with your hobby hackintoshes (because that's all they are), and be relieved that Apple is sticking up for the integrity of its product as well as the average user's interests.
Wait - your argument is based on DEMAND? If there wasn't a DEMAND than there would not be hacks, no Psystar and certainly no need for a group(s) or company to make a disc that allows you to install OSX into a PC. But that's not true.
Further, if there wasn't a DEMAND, Apple wouldn't even have filed suit because the market would e so small that it would be a moot point. But that's not true either.
The fundamental fact of the matter is that there is a demand for a way to port OSX to a PC. And it is about choice. There are plenty of people out there who would love to purchase a 15" laptop running OSX for under $1,000. But they cannot. The alternative, however, is to purchase a SONY or some other product for that 1K mark and install OSX on it.
Now, you're not going to win the argument that Apple's hardware is better than Sony's. More elegant? Absolutely. But they both use relatively interchangeable stuff.
What makes Apple far superior in the OVERALL user experience is OSX. I believe that we all can agree on that. OSX rules.
But here's the bottom line really. If you do not address a market to operate in where there is a demand, somebody else will. Be it a fringe group, pirate or renegade company.
If Psystar didn't see their potential market as profitable, they wouldn't be in court battling Apple. But there is a DEMAND for an Apple clone or a way to port OSX to a PC and that's what this is about.
One thing I'd wager on. If Psystar wins either part or all of the lawsuit, you will see Apple selling OSX with the capability to run on a PC. They will have to.
Apple hasn't been in the hardware business since the PowerPC days. They are in the software business. They use PC parts just like anybody else.
If Apple isn?t in the HW business, then what the hell business is Dell in? Surely you are not going to say software.
Further, if there wasn't a DEMAND, Apple wouldn't even have filed suit because the market would e so small that it would be a moot point. But that's not true either.
There's a "demand" for kiddie porn. What is your standard of what should happen and what should not?
Also, your statement is not really accurate. Owners of intellectual property must defend their rights or they risk losing them. So it's not a moot point, no matter what the "demand" might be.
Indeed. This is truly a "tech forum." As such, the roundness of anyone's head would require analysis and math, both of which are "technical" in nature and therefore on-topic. However, what goes on in the courtroom is not "techy" at all. It simply happens to "impact tech."
Yes, it "impacts tech". And that is why the legal implications of the Psystar case have every reason to be discussed on a forum such as this. People were discussing Ballmer's head, not because of maths, but because Ballmer's head (sadly for Microsoft!)... also impacts tech.
But this is yet again detracting from the main thrust of the discussion: choice
No. You are making the discussion about choice. You cannot simply shove the legal stuff all to one side and get on your high, crusader horse. The choices that you want from Apple (or even Psystar) all depend on the law.
Either Apple is legally allowed to restrict it's OS to run on it's own hardware... or it's not.
Mate, I don't even own an iPhone.
It doesn't matter. Before iPhone you had choices. After Phone you have more choices.
The question is, why do you hate "choice" so much?
You hate "choice" so much that you have redefined it as "an entitlement."
Your entire argumentative stance is built around denying choice to others.
I do not hate choice. I simply believe that I cannot expect to be given all the choices that I want from ONE company. And, unless I am being denied some basic human right (or "entitlement") or the company is breaking the law, I would not expect the law to force that company to accommodate me.
Within the law, a company also has the right to make some choices. And choosing what business they want to be in is their business, not their customers.
One thing I'd wager on. If Psystar wins either part or all of the lawsuit, you will see Apple selling OSX with the capability to run on a PC.
They will have to.
No. They will have to find a better technical and/or legal way of restricting the use of their OS.
So if Psystar wins, everybody loses something. And you will lose your wager.
Windows and MS are not in the same buisness as Apple.
Apple make hardware and software.
MS/Windows makes software ONLY.
If you are going to attack Apples hardware side of the buisness then use Dell or Acer etc as an example.
It's like these morons that bitch about the iPhone OS being closed but fail to realize that so is Nokia and Sony etc
I simply believe that I cannot expect to be given all the choices that I want from ONE company.
I agree with you 100%. I want those additional choices to come from Apple too, just like you do.
And, unless I am being denied some basic human right (or "entitlement") or the company is breaking the law, I would not expect the law to force that company to accommodate me.
Agreed.
Within the law, a company also has the right to make some choices. And choosing what business they want to be in is their business, not their customers.
Agreed. And the case between Apple and Psystar is not over yet. So in the meantime, it technically is legal to buy from Psystar and expand one's choices accordingly -- not silly Psystar alone, but anyone else offering the means to build a Hackintosh, however gray an area that may be legally. But again, my position is not to get caught up in all the legal mumbo jumbo. Why? Because it's not like I plan to sell the stuff. We're geeks here talking about techno stuff. That's why it's more of a gray ('who cares') area when we do this hackintosh stuff in our own homes.
What I like to see (and why I come to these forums) is talk about techy stuff that enable me to do more than I can do right now. I came to this forum to see what people are saying about Psystar and what non-Psystar alternatives there are for accomplishing the same thing -- running OS X on non-Apple hardware. And once again, I say this as someone who has yet to buy anything outside Apple. And I say this as someone would would be thrilled to see a matte screen iMac and other such "choices" come on the scene. But for now, we have to look elsewhere for that.