Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations
- Thread starter macenforcer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They still haven't filed their response yet for the current case ... or it hasn't showed up.
Maybe August 28th, which is what their current extension is.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-3:2008cv03251/case_id-204881/
Maybe August 28th, which is what their current extension is.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-3:2008cv03251/case_id-204881/
Well I think Pystar has a case. I mean microsoft got sued for making IE only work with windows. Its also not exactly fair that they sell OSX on the shelf but don't let you install it on pcs. No other operating system tells you what hardware you must install it on. Its interesting to say the least.
All Mobile OS's are limited to the manufacturer in question with the exception right now of Android and Windows CE.
RIM's OS can only go on RIM devices, Nokia's Symbian on Nok only phones and so on and so forth.
Then there is Amiga OS 4, which is mired in legal issues, but still struggling to survive.
Yes but those are phones. Its a little different. Those phone companies don't SELL their phone os in the store.
Ok fair enough. Do you want the only way to obtain OSX is via a new Apple computer? That fixes the 'problem'.
Then Apple gets it for no longer supporting their old computers. Hopefully this will make Apple at least make a consumer tower
Yep. Let's face it, apple has been gouging us with high prices for years. Every computer manufacturer out there makes a cheap expandable tower except apple and its all because of the OS.
I used to think that OS X would be best just running on Macs, but now I'm all for running it on other PCs.
The reason?
The cheapest (and only) mac that can physically handle dual monitors is the Mac Pro which costs at least £1,700. You can buy a dell that has pretty much any dedicated graphics card for £350 that can do the same, and even cheaper if you build it yourself.
Why should we be forced to pay £1350 extra for such a small feature? I bought a Matrox TrippleHead2Go for my MacBook Pro to run dual monitors, it cost £200 and is no where near as good as two independent monitors.
I'm not saying that Apple should licence OS X to Dell, but I am saying that they should allow us to install it on any compatible system without having to torrent a hacked version, just provide basic motherboard support and allow major manufacturers to produce OS X drivers just as they would for Windows.
Microsoft was forced to produce a copy of XP that didn't have Media Player on it, so why is Apple allowed to get away with telling me that I have to spend almost 2 thousand pounds for a basic feature?
The reason?
The cheapest (and only) mac that can physically handle dual monitors is the Mac Pro which costs at least £1,700. You can buy a dell that has pretty much any dedicated graphics card for £350 that can do the same, and even cheaper if you build it yourself.
Why should we be forced to pay £1350 extra for such a small feature? I bought a Matrox TrippleHead2Go for my MacBook Pro to run dual monitors, it cost £200 and is no where near as good as two independent monitors.
I'm not saying that Apple should licence OS X to Dell, but I am saying that they should allow us to install it on any compatible system without having to torrent a hacked version, just provide basic motherboard support and allow major manufacturers to produce OS X drivers just as they would for Windows.
Microsoft was forced to produce a copy of XP that didn't have Media Player on it, so why is Apple allowed to get away with telling me that I have to spend almost 2 thousand pounds for a basic feature?
From Ajthomason I'm not saying that Apple should licence OS X to Dell, but I am saying that they should allow us to install it on any compatible system without having to torrent a hacked version, just provide basic motherboard support and allow major manufacturers to produce OS X drivers just as they would for Windows.
Microsoft was forced to produce a copy of XP that didn't have Media Player on it, so why is Apple allowed to get away with telling me that I have to spend almost 2 thousand pounds for a basic feature?[/QUOTE]
From HLdan
Microsoft being forced to produce a copy of XP without a Media player is not at all the same thing. You are totally missing the point.
Use all the logic about a halo effect all you want but the fact of the matter is Apple will lose a lot of hardware sales let alone create a lot of headache supporting motherboards.
Apple is not a full time software company, they produce their own software to run on the hardware they make. People are getting quite confused because you can go into an Apple store and buy Leopard off the shelf and think it's sold to run on any computer. Apple sells it only to upgrade older Macs or to replace your lost discs.
You are sadly misguided if you think people would stop torrenting OS X if Apple officially licensed it. Anyone that even illegally torrents their software would do it regardless.
You can buy MS Office for your Mac or PC but I'm sure many people still torrent it to avoid paying for it.
Microsoft was forced to produce a copy of XP that didn't have Media Player on it, so why is Apple allowed to get away with telling me that I have to spend almost 2 thousand pounds for a basic feature?[/QUOTE]
From HLdan
Microsoft being forced to produce a copy of XP without a Media player is not at all the same thing. You are totally missing the point.
Use all the logic about a halo effect all you want but the fact of the matter is Apple will lose a lot of hardware sales let alone create a lot of headache supporting motherboards.
Apple is not a full time software company, they produce their own software to run on the hardware they make. People are getting quite confused because you can go into an Apple store and buy Leopard off the shelf and think it's sold to run on any computer. Apple sells it only to upgrade older Macs or to replace your lost discs.
You are sadly misguided if you think people would stop torrenting OS X if Apple officially licensed it. Anyone that even illegally torrents their software would do it regardless.
You can buy MS Office for your Mac or PC but I'm sure many people still torrent it to avoid paying for it.
Sorry, I think that you're missing my point. There is a difference between not providing support for other computers and deliberately preventing people from installing their software on other machines.
As I said, I'm not asking Apple to produce a copy with specs listed for PCs, guaranteeing compatibility, I'm just asking them to allow hardware manufacturers to officially publish drivers for OS X and let people see if they can install it on their own PCs (Just like the OSx86 community, but with official support from Intel/AMD etc.)
My reference to torrenting was not about people not paying for the software, but about not being able to install the disk that you paid for (I would never tell someone to torrent OS X unless they have a spare, unused, genuine licence for it. I know that this does not make it completely legal, but it is still better). To install OS X on non-mac computers at the moment, you mostly have to have one of the hacked versions that you get by torrenting, because Apple have restricted the real versions.
You can, indeed, buy MS Office to run on PCs or Macs - that is the difference, you cannot buy OS X to run on PCs, there is no option but to torrent it.
As I said, I'm not asking Apple to provide guaranteed compatibility with PCs, I'm just asking them to allow hardware manufacturers to officially publish drivers for OS X (e.g., for motherboards that aren't used in genuine macs)
OS X is software that is engineered to be used with specific hardware. Before you start screaming for blood, remember that this is not the only instance of software that can be purchased separately from the hardware, yet designed to work solely with particular hardware.
For years, video games have been engineered to work on specific hardware consoles. Many games have been created to work on different consoles, but these have been separate versions created at the discretion of the publisher. When clone consoles surfaced, you can bet that the original console manufacturers quickly used the copyright infringement card.
Apple makes the hardware and the software. The way I see it, they have every legal right to snuff clones.
For years, video games have been engineered to work on specific hardware consoles. Many games have been created to work on different consoles, but these have been separate versions created at the discretion of the publisher. When clone consoles surfaced, you can bet that the original console manufacturers quickly used the copyright infringement card.
Apple makes the hardware and the software. The way I see it, they have every legal right to snuff clones.
The real problem with this is that the games consoles have dedicated hardware that was designed specifically for that console. OS X now runs on Intel chips, which was designed for all computers. You can legally make and sell a machine identical to a Mac Pro (using the same hardware, but not software or design) and they can't do anything to stop you, this is completely different to games consoles that the software will only run on custom built hardware.
Except here, you do have to modify the OS in order for it work - as well as any updates that come down the pipe. Take a look at Psystar's site, they modified Software update to look to their servers for modified versions of the updates, not Apple's for the actual version.
EDIT: On topic, As it has been said before, the only thing they have a monopoly on is Apple computers ... every company has a monopoly on their product, and monopolies are not inherently illegal.
This is about the Apple selling the software and hardware as a single product - the Macintosh.
I dont remember who said it, but this is nothing like the Microsoft case. MS was using things in the OS to give IE an advantage over Netscape and every other browser out there. They refused to open up these hidden tools to anyone else, which was unfair competition.
If this goes bad for Apple, I can see bad things happening ... there might not be anymore OS X for sale at stores (online or otherwise). We might even have to register, providing proof we own a Mac, in order to order the new version.
Don't kid yourselves about this being a fight for the greater good. This is about Psystar making a profit with no actual work, and very little in terms of expenses.
But in the end, Apple does own OS X, and can decide what it can/cannot run on. I think this is one of those circular discussions, in that everyone is right, everyone is wrong, and the result will be that Apple will come out on top.
That's the bit that I'm commenting on - they shouldn't have to modify the system, they only did to prevent apple from crippling the computers bought from them.
Yes, apple do own the software and yes they should be able to do what they like with it, but they are overpricing their hardware and forcing you to make sacrifices just to get your hands on their software. The laptops are fine, and although expensive, they are not too bad.
It is the desktop PCs that I draw the line at; they need to release a low power, standard desktop (that does not cost £1700) - with normal PCI ports and full size HDD & CD Drive support, and until they do - I am going to back any company that makes a product that is capable of doing all these things and running OS X. Don't get me wrong, Apple's hardware is some of the best out there - but seriously? the Mac Mini is the only real desktop option for most of us, and you can't do anything with it - I can't put a better graphics card it, upgrade the hard drive or CD drive properly and they even make it very difficult to upgrade the RAM.
Come to think of it, the only laptops that I've seen in my life that you can't replace the HDD with ease are all made by Apple - the last 3 laptops that I've owned (and even the 10" Eee sitting on my desk) all have covers on the bottom that provide direct access to the HD.
Sorry to change topic (away from Psystar and onto design flaws with Apple's computers), but I don't see why Apple can tell us how amazing OS X is, and how we should all ditch windows and then control what we can and can't do with our new products.
Anyway, this discussion has turned more into an argument, so I'll just leave it at that. You now know my opinions on this matter, so now it's up for others to share theirs instead of just argue with all of my points.
This statement is pure hogwash. I am so sick of hearing this. Apple need not support anyone, they do however need to remove the lock on the OS which PREVENTS users from installing it on non apple hardware. If they did that people would make the drivers and there would be no issue. Apple maliciously cripples the install of the OS on any system that does not contain an apple ID.
Wow, I'm sorry that you feel that you have to be "forced". Last time I checked Apple's computers are just another product like Dell's computers, like HP's, like Sony's, like Asus. You have a choice to buy any of them.
Interesting that Apple has a small marketshare (although increasing very well I might add) but you'd think it was much more than that since people are going through such lengths to do the wrong thing.
You have a pack of gum, you decide you want to be selfish and not share a stick of it with anyone. Somebody gets upset with you and decides to sue you to force you to share. But it's your pack of gum and you paid for it, why should you be forced to share it right? Oh, but you will share it for a high price, but I have to buy the whole pack from you. Well, then I might as well go to someone else who is willing to share for free or I may as well pay your cost because your pack of gum better suits me.