Goodbye Psystar?

Apple has finally gotten around to suing Psystar. More here...

 

it was only a matter of time.

I'd like it if Apple open's up OSX to non-Apple hardware... but that's a pipe-dream as it would hurt apple's hardware sales significantly.

 

Apple has never even explored the idea of becoming a software company. The only time they dabbled in allowing clones it didn't help them much. Now that Vista (is/may be/seems to be/might be) pushing users to Apple in the (dozens/thousands/millions), it does NOT seem to be in Apple's best interest to change game plans any time soon.

Any decision to allow clones could dilute Apple's already limited software development resources dealing with drivers. I say let M$ continue to deal with that horror story.

I'll keep my well defined, predictable and controlled Apple hardware/software environment. Let the bottom feeders and clone buyers continue to waste their money if they want to. I'm done with Windows and double or triple the hardware price is not too much to pay provided my Apple experience continues to be as good it has been these last several years.

 

The thing is, a lot of the bad things that plague Microsoft Windows are because of the diversity of hardware. Driver issues, tons of legacy support, security issues...all of these are because Windows has to run well on every and any computer out there in this world, basically. And the large market share brings the security issues to it.

Microsoft isn't a dumb company, they have tons of smart people there. If Apple opened up Mac OS X, most likely there would be driver issues and security issues as well. Sure, I'd still prefer the OS X interface and ease-of-use, but a lot of the things that makes Mac OS X better at the moment is because of its locked-in hardware.

 

I have to agree with Sam. I recently found out about Pystar, and I'm glad Apple is finally doing something about this. Their EULA clearly states, Apple OS only on apple-labeled computers (and that could be interpreted as labeled by Apple), and with someone else trying to circumvent that, AND make a profit, IMHO it's totally a copyright violation and they should be taken down for that.
At MR, there's speculation that maybe Pystar will just package computers without the OS, leaving the copyright violation to the end-user.
It's bad business for Apple, and I think it's about time they sued them.

 

sayonara Psystar, and good riddance. provided absolutely nothing that was legitimately worth anything, using technically illegal development, completed entirely by others, and trying to make a profit, guaranteed to fail.

 

ok, here we go...

Good. Now Psystar can show once and for all that their practices are legal despite whatever anticompetitive nonsense Apple puts in their EULA. This should be a boon to Psystar once the courts uphold their right to sell OS X-compatible systems... and hopefully to preinstall OS X for customers as well.

Final Cut, Shake, Aperture, Logic, iWork...

No one's asking Apple to actually do anything, or to spend any money supporting Psystar's stuff... just to not get in the way of what other people decide to do. If Apple sold comparable systems at comparable prices, there probably wouldn't be enough interest in Psystar's products to keep them in business anyway.

...and is OS X worse for you when some other people run OS X on some unsupported hardware?

Well, if Psystar loses, I'm sure they'll do just that. They've already got a lot of publicity as the company whose computers are designed to work well with OS X... so whether they preinstall it or not may not be such a huge deal anymore.

If true, then let them fail in the marketplace without any lawsuits.

Completed by others? So what? Apple uses development completed entirely by others too... BSD Unix. And unlike the free software developers, Apple is getting paid for each Psystar/OS X purchase.

If true, they can fail in the marketplace without any lawsuits.

 

I find it quite humorous, that in the lawsuit, they want / expect all the Open PCs to be recalled. I would think many people would stash them away when someone knocked on the door.

At least that was what I read in one article about the lawsuit.

 

I was not talking about Psystar directly. I was responding that in my opinion, if Apple licensed out OS X as Microsoft does, then so on and so on.

 

For those that think psystar was right, go ahead and rip that OS off of your PS3 and load it onto your xbox 360. What? Worried that it won't work? But it's yours isn't it? You bought it didn't you? Go ahead and load that Wii OS onto your x86 clone and play those wii games with that wiimote you cobbled together with duct tape following instructions on hack-a-wee-dot-com. What? Worried that a hacked Wii might not be a very satisfactory experience? That's what I've been trying to say about Apple. I was excited when Psystar first came along, but as it became apparent they were fly by night, I couldn't help but wonder why Apple let them go so long without taking action.

Go ahead and put Ubuntu on your leftover hardware and stop trying to legislate Apple's intellectual property. If you don't like Apple's policies and corporate philosophy, why not exercise your inalienable right to buy a windows box instead? It's easy to like the underdog, but this isn't an underdog. This is an under-rodent. Psystar isn't some good corporate David fighting some evil corporate Golliath. Psystar has more in common with the guy who tries to sell you a first run movie dvd but you get it home and realize it's shot with a handycam from the back of the theater and you can hear the guy chewing his popcorn better than you can hear the dialog.

Apple isn't perfect but there are other ways to deal with old windows hardware besides hackintosh. They make nice flower boxes. They make excellent targets for small arms fire. They make excellent wheel chocks and even pretty good boat anchors. There's even a guy who made a trash can out of one of 'em...

Of course, if you still want to use them as computers, there's always Ubuntu.

If the problem is money, give it some more thought. For me, acquisition is the lowest cost factor in computer ownership. Yes, Apple charges too much for their RAM. But there's no penalty for paying a visit to Crucial. Does Apple charge too much for their hardware? If you want or need OS X, then the answer is clearly no. Could they charge less? Sure. Will they? I hope so. I hope Apple someday offers a low-end that's even cheaper than the Mini. It could help their market share tremendously with those bottom feeders who don't realize what they're missing.

But I want the whole picture, not a knock-off. I want my updates to come through painlessly and I don't want to have to disguise my voice to call Apple support. I certainly don't want Apple to have to resort to the kind of "genuine" hooey M$ uses to verify you paid for their stuff. No thanks.

 

In some ways I think the Pystar model could work well. You have the software maker, in this case Apple, setting the standard and the hardware manufactures conforming to said standard. This contrasts to the Microsoft world where everything's supported. Pystar doesn't look like it had a well thought out plan, but one of these days someone's going to get it right.

 

as swamer sarcastically put it: "...is OS X worse for you when some other people run OS X on some unsupported hardware?"

No. it's the same. The only problem is that if Apple decides to (or is forced to) release their OS to everyone, there will be massive security and stability issues (similar problem windows faces, massive platform support)

so, i'd rather apple attack psystar on the corporate level than abuse the customers. (that is the other alternative)

pray that they beat psystar. if they lose, then they will have to resort to customer abuse to solve the problem from their end.

ZaZ, the problem is, that Apple isn't a software company. they strive to make hardware and software that works well together. outsourcing the hardware defeats the purpose. its all about the tight integration between hardware and software.

just my 2cents

 

I personally think, Apple wouldn't get into this suit if they thought they could lose. Maybe that's why it took them so long, because their legal department was probably mulling it over, every detail, to come out with a final analysis if they could win or not. They're probably very confident they can win, and I'm sure they are very well prepared for this fight in court.
Mind you, this is all speculation, but it makes sense to me.

 

So if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. If the experience isn't satisfactory, then fine. If it is satisfactory, then great. Either way it doesn't need to involve any lawsuits.

If you don't like Psystar's policies and corporate philosophy, why not exercise your inalienable right to buy an Apple Mac (or a Windows or Linux box) instead? No need for silly lawsuits like this one.

Once you've actually used a Psystar for a little while, then I'll look forward to reading your review.

And people make old Macs into aquariums... so what.

This got me thinking... what if Apple added a clause to their EULA that said you can only run OS X on a computer with RAM purchased from Apple. Well, that requirement would be widely ignored, right? Well, it's kind of the same thing, except instead of the RAM that they say has to be from Apple, it's some other parts (like the case). And Psystar is ignoring that. Good for them.

So buy an Apple instead then. The Psystar option is apparently not for you. That doesn't justify some lawsuit to make sure that nobody else can choose that option.

Apple's lawsuit, if successful, would only block Psystar from bundling purchased copies of OS X. It won't do anything at all to people who choose to install pirate copies.

 

I am familiar with Apple's business model. You have two opposite viewpoints in Apple and Microsoft. What I think I was suggesting was a possible third way, a Clinton move if I ever saw one. Instead of supporting or controlling everything, by the software maker setting the standard and the hard manufacturers having to conform to the standard, you could perhaps get the best of both worlds, lower prices and with more stability. Honestly though since the dawning of 2K, I've had very few stability issues any version of Windows. The very few times any box of mine has crashed, it's usually been a new piece of hardware with flaky drivers.

 

Good luck and God speed, Psystar. I hope you kick them in the pants. Shame you don't sell down under. This Apple EULA shenanigans has gone on too long.

 

absolutely, and what is Psystar contributing to anyone? seriously? the only people that would even remotely consider buying a machine would already know the ins and outs of installing OS X on non-supported hardware, and there is no way they would pay another company to do it for them.

Psystar is almost guaranteed to fail as a company no matter what Apple does, but I say they should smash it right here, I am so tired of seeing so many companies and people trying to make money whithout actually providing anything at all.

 

Apple has a right to sell to whom they please under the circumstances they think work for Apple. M$ tried the whole hardware labs, designed for logo thing and it was a joke. I see a "Designed for" logo and I have no delusions about the possibility of ending up with shoddy drivers and a mediocre end user experience. At least with Apple hardware, I have no fear of running across a situation where I can't get my work done because I'm spending my valuable time figuring out a driver conflict. This rigid control over the hardware is worth a premium. Will the Psystar lawsuit result in a 100% recall of the boxes they shipped? It seems rather far fetched but even if it only ends up that Psystar cannot ship OS X it will be enough of a victory. I'd actually like Psystar better if they sent me to get my own copy of OS X and merely stated their hardware is fully tested with OS X. Now the decision to violate the EULA is where it belongs, with the end user. If Apple started going after end users with lawsuits, it would smack of the kind of silly lawsuits in the recording industry and would do more damage to Apple's reputation.

While I never got my hands on a Psystar to do a "review", I did invest a lot of time investigating them and even gave some thought to ordering one of their boxes. When google maps put their address in the middle of a parking lot, I was not amused. When I heard their credit card processor had dumped them, I was not amused. These 2 facts, along with the change of product name on the second day of its introduction, pointed to a flaky "under-rodent" of a company that brought absolutely no value to the computing world. Don't think for a second that M$ wouldn't sue a company that advertised they had cracked M$ registration for you so you won't have to bother with activation. This is roughly equivalent to what Psystar was advertising. They weren't advertising stolen copies of OS X, but they were selling unauthorized mods of a commercial product. If you don't mind unauthorized mods of a commercial product, perhaps you don't mind a little lead in your baby food. There's a reason you see steamrollers running over piles of fake Rolex watches from time to time. Companies have a right to sell their product under their own brand name without fear of somebody else coming along and redefining their product for them by either selling fakes or by blatantly providing services which violate some aspect of their desired business model. Period.

 

right. im not saying that a company like psystar is a bad thing for the end user. more choice is ALWAYS better for you. its just that psystar really doesn't have the right to sell computers running the apple OS.

i know this would be much more difficult and slightly farfetched, but what if i could sell a device that could run linux and could natively play wii, xbox 360, and ps3 games, for about $250. the box would have no drm checks, and could play burned / custom games and code straight out of the box without modification. the only downside would be that it is large and kind of ugly.

obviously- this would be a GREAT thing for the consumers to have. you would get to play all the games! its cheaper than buying the real thing. that still doesn't give me the right to sell it. i CANT sell something like that. its just not mine. i don't know how to put it into words but hopefully the example makes sense. same thing with the apple OS imo. they built the thing, they should be able to define how it is used.

 

There's another blogger weighing in on Psystar. He's more or less saying Apple should give in now and create an officially supported clone program lest they be overrun by hackers world wide. I'm not buying it. Illegal software is still illegal software. I don't think Apple has much to fear from this. So what if you can install OS X on some junker of a pc lying around? If anything, people will try it, like it and the next purchase they make will be from Apple. Granted, their experience on that hackintosh will not be all that smooth but they will know where they got it and they will know they have themselves to blame. The article has an interesting take on the clone question, but I don't think it's time for Apple to roll over and let everybody start making and selling clones. In my travels today, I also found a review of the Psystar that supports Apple's assertion that the thing is junk.

Let's not forget one key underlying fact. OS X doesn't suck. That's why people want it. That's why they're crying about the price. It's desirable. As long as Apple doesn't screw up and allow OS X to slide into mediocrity the presence of homebrew clones is more like viral marketing than an actual threat.

 

Why are people against a private business selling their own products? Don't like them, don't buy them. Apple wants to be the only seller and they have that right to be. It's in their rules and they can of course always change those rules. They can even change the ports so you can't use anything USB. It's their company, but of course that would hurt their sales.

My mac was more expensive that competing units. Will I buy another one? Probably not. But that's my decision and I'll buy what helps me the best with my business needs and wants.

 

I think some of the ill will stems from buying a product then being told how you can and cannot use it. It's like the RIAA executive saying even though you bought a CD you can't rip to your hard drive. People also love a deal. Macs are more expensive. If you can get it for less, people like it.

 

Psystar is back online today. I spent a little time in their forums. It seems a lot of users are excited about cheaper hardware to support OS X. The principal error here was installing the OS before shipping the systems to end users. I'm sure anybody including Psystar, Dell, HP or even Asus could get away with saying their hardware was "tested" with any OS at all, including OS X, and thereby leave the decision on how to handle Apple's EULA to the person it is addressed to: the end user.

I'd still be surprised to see Psystar continue to exist as an entity for much longer, regardless of grass roots legal defense fund offers posted in their forums.

 

I wouldn't call it an error at all... look how much free publicity it's gotten them! Now everyone knows they're the folks to go to if you want to run OS X without being limited to Apple's hardware selection and prices. Lots of people probably didn't know a hackintosh was even possible before, and now Psystar is synonymous with it. Even if a judge makes them stop selling OS X, they've still made a name for themselves this way.

It kind of reminds me of Lindows. Sure, they were violating Microsoft's trademark and they had to change their name to Linspire... but so what? If they just called it Linspire to begin with, they would've missed out on a lot of free publicity. Since they had to change their name, a lot of people heard about the distro and what it was all about.

 

A name would be worth something if there were still a company behind the name. With the damages Apple is asking for, even in the event of an out of court settlement, it is difficult for me to imagine that there could be so much as a post office box behind Psystar a few months from now.

 

Apple won't necessarily get the damages they're asking for. It's easy to file a lawsuit and ask for pretty much anything -- actually getting what you ask for is another matter. I could easily imagine a ruling (or settlement) which forbid Psystar from selling OS X, but awarded very little in the way of damages.

 

For clarification, the EULA part of the suit is not the main complaint. It is really more a copyright infringement case from everything I have read. As for EULA, Engadget's analysis says that EULA's have largely been upheld.

In the end, none of this matters. Apple will win simply because Psystar has no shot of being able to afford this case. Even if it did go to court, I have a hard time believing Psystar would have much of a case.

As for my opinion on clones, I am against them. You will not get anywhere near the same experience from a clone as you do from a Mac, and the entire OS X experience will be diluted. That is why Apple does not allow clones.

 

I'd have to respectfully disagree with that. Arguably someone could build a Mac with better hardware for less. I don't see how that effects ones experience as long as the software remains the same. Pystar came out with a junky product, but if someone were to come out with something good, that'd be another story.

 

Really? I'm not sure of that. What is this "entire OS X experience" you speak of? It realistically is, just the OS X operating system, there really isn't anything else fundamentally different from a Windows PC and an Apple computer at this point hardware wise. I mean, you get a PowerMac and stick it under your desk, this is essentially the same thing. I remember Sammy lamenting that Apple never made a cheaper, smaller desktop tower - thats essentially what this is, except not officially by Apple.

The OS X experience is going to be the same, if you get an Apple keyboard and mouse to go with the computer, maybe an Apple Cinema display if you are so inclined. But it still stands, the OS X experience will be pretty much unchanged on something like this as opposed to say, a PowerMac.

 

Steve Jobs really didnt learn anything from his previous mistakes....same reason Bill Gates is richer than him.

Its time to go open...u cant keep yourself isolated from others and feel superior.

He could have licensed the MAC OSX to them and let them push the OSX sales.

Now i understand why 90% of the world uses MS Windows.

 

I don't think Steve Jobs is in it for the money. Apple licensed out Mac OS before, and it did more harm to them than any benefit. Its not like they haven't tried.

If you ask me, keeping the way Mac OS X is today is fine with me. I don't need Mac OS X to have 90% market share. It only brings in more security and compatibility issues. And when you become such a corporate giant, you lose touch with your customers, which Apple can do better at the moment.