Apple V. Psystar Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 11/02/2009 6:46:01 PM PST by Swordmaker
Mac clone maker wants Apple to stop saying it's breaking the law
The Mac clone maker that's been battling Apple for more than a year in federal court last week asked a judge to rule that its business is legitimate, and to stop Apple from saying different.
In an amended complaint submitted last Thursday, Psystar asked U.S. District Court Judge William Hoeveler to rule that it is legally allowed to sell machines with Apple's Mac OS X 10.6, aka Snow Leopard, pre-installed.
"A declaration by this Court of the legal rights of Apple and Psystar with respect to Psystar computers running Mac OS X Snow Leopard would clarify, to put it bluntly, the legality of Psystar's business -- and would remove the substantial negative effect on Psystar's business of continued uncertainty and legal wrangling between Apple and Psystar," the Florida clone maker said in the revised complaint filed in Miami, Fla. federal court.
Psystar originally sued Apple in Florida two months ago, when it claimed that Apple illegally ties the then-new Snow Leopard to Mac hardware.
(Excerpt) Read more at computerworld.com ...
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Where's your "/sarc" tag? You DO know how ridiculous (in the sense of being so "out there") that statement is, right?
why can I buy the componets to put a ibm pc together and run windows but I can’t buy the hardware and run mac os on it?
Um, no.
Mac OS X is not sold for use on just any random machine. Now, Apple doesn’t care if you buy it and install it on your own personal machine. They DO care if you start putting them on machines for resell.
Microsoft does the same thing with their academic and in-house purchases - if you buy discounted non-OEM versions of Windows intended for school or personal employee use and then turn around and start reselling them preinstalled on machines that you built, Microsoft will come down on you.
Windows is available in a “feel free to install me on anything for resale” commercial license. Mac OS X is not.
Learn the difference in definition between:
and then we'll have a conversation. Until then your ignorance (in the sense of lack of familiarity) with those topics precludes intelligent argument.
Hint: There is no direct comparison possible between Windows (a standalone software product) and Mac OS-X (a minor software component of a system product). Yes, they are both operating systems. But in terms of how they are sold and the conditions under which each may be used, they are as different as software and hardware.
BTW, you certainly CAN buy hardware and run OS-X on it. Knock yourself out, with my personal blessing. In fact, to be perfectly honest, I admire the folks who are working on their own Hackintoshes -- that's tough going and hard work.
But it is quite disallowed by the conditions of sale of OS-X, so they do their work without Apple support. Their choice. Certainly in my earlier days I did similar things.
I object to Psystar because they are trying to ruin Apple's business with illegal use of technology, propped up by a shadow investor who wishes only to destroy Apple. But I think individuals hacking on their own shows initiative.
I have built many a windows based pc even built them for friends there are several small companies who buy the hardware and sell you the pc then you put the os on it. whats wrong with that?
Nothing in the world wrong with it! The Windows license allows you to install it on your toaster, if you have a PC-compatible toaster.
OTOH, the OS-X license spells out that OS-X is one component of a SYSTEM -- hardware plus software -- in which the software and hardware are designed to work together, and are sold to be used together.
Apple makes their money selling hardware. Their OS software comes with the system that includes the hardware. They don't sell the OS separately for random PCs.
The fact that you can (also) run Windows on the Mac hardware, stems from the fact that Apple re-designed their hardware a few years ago to support Virtual Machines and dual-boot systems. Apple doesn't really intend that you wipe out OS-X on a Mac and run Windows, or Linux (NOTE: I have in front of me two Macs that are running precisely those two non-Apple OSes, in addition to my OS-X notebook). But they don't discourage it because they made their money on the hardware.
Business model. Study the business model. Seriously -- the rest of it won't make sense to you until you do.
Win7 is good -- I've been using it for many months and it's a winner. Still more comfortable with XP but that will change with greater use of Win7. Having used Vista a little, Win7 is basically Vista with the bugs fixed and on a diet. Which is good -- it's what Vista should have been two years ago.
I'm running Win7 on one of my Mac Minis ;-) Makes a great performing PC. I've got plenty of other "real PC" hardware (mostly HP boxes) but they're big and noisy -- the Mini is small and silent and doesn't dominate my desk the way the towers do.
I like Apple's hardware a lot; I tolerate their GUI because it's actually BSD Unix underneath, which is my favorite operating system.
To each their own -- I'm glad you're happy with Windows and wish you continued good experience.
It is called licensing. Apple hardware can run Windows because Microsoft licenses the software to ANY hardware that is capable of running it. Microsoft is not a hardware manufacturer (though they sell a handful of keyboards/pointing devices and other side items), their business model is primarily focused on software/OS sales. Thus the reason for the price point for a new install of Windows 7 (or Vista).
Apple, on the other hand, has a major hand in hardware. They build their os to run on a specific set of components, thus a big part of why the Mac OS is comparatively more stable. But Apple, because hardware is a large part of their business model, sell the OS for less $. But along with that OS is a license that spells out what hardware it can be run on and still be within the license agreement. Such agreements are not new. And when you add the fact that Apple's OS requires a very specific set of instruction in the Open Firmware (what Apple uses that roughly equates to the BIOS for Windows machines). This Open Firmware is proprietary. For a computer to run Leopard or Snow Leopard, a computer must emulate/fake the OS into thinking it is Apple hardware. This requires reverse engineering, then applying proprietary technology/code to get around.
Microsoft is perfectly content with people buying licenses to install Windows - it is their bread and butter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.