Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations

[HLdan]

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.

Exactly which part of it is hogwash? Apple losing hardware sales? Or the motherboard support headaches? They are already having issues trying to support both platforms for their mobileme.

Just get over it, Apple has a right to do what they want and this is a losing argument for you.

 

[quagmire]

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.

So you willing to pay $500 for OS X? As that is what it will cost to buy OS X if Apple is forced to remove the lock so they can regain the profits they would lose from the hardware sales and people not buying OS X anymore due to incompatibility with the dozens of configurations there are.

 

[macenforcer]

So you willing to pay $500 for OS X? As that is what it will cost to buy OS X if Apple is forced to remove the lock so they can regain the profits they would lose from the hardware sales and people not buying OS X anymore due to incompatibility with the dozens of configurations there are.

Yes, I am willing to pay that if it means I can install it on any machine I like.

 

[Sun Baked]

Yes, I am willing to pay that if it means I can install it on any machine I like.

All you should need is a copy of the ...

Psystar OpenComputing Leopard Restore Disk

Customers who purchased Open Computing products with Leopard will receive a restore disc which will

* allow them to reinstall their OS directly from the Leopard DVD included with their computer
* allow them to boot into the service console

Which should allow you to start your own clone business, since all you need is the Mac OS X license.

 

[r.j.s]

* allow them to boot into the service console

Off topic: Really, what is the service console, and how many people are looking to get at it?

 

[ajthomason]

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.

I think you'll find it's more like a company develops the greatest flavour of gum, there is no reason why they can't let you buy it, but they decide that you can only have it if you buy a huge bar of chocolate from them as well, then they will sell it to you.

Let's say that you want this gum, but you would rather have a different brand of chocolate. What you're saying is that you don't feel that you're being FORCED into buying this chocolate although you don't really want it?

That is, according to your argument, justifiable. You are being forced into buying the chocolate in exactly the same way that we are being forced into buying Macs just so that we can have this gum ( if you didn't work it, the gum represents OS X )

The analogy that you put forward only works if all gum is equal and the manufacturers of the gum 'I' want don't slate the competition and claim that their gum is so superior.

Now we've hit a problem - I seem to be fighting for the wrong side. I am a fan of Apple (but not a fanboy), and I'm arguing against them because I honestly believe that they are going against even the things that they believe in. I don't regret buying my MBP, even if I could get OS X on a Dell, I would have bought it, however I am happy with the Asus Eee that I am typing on at the moment and I would not have bought a MacBook or MacBook Air as an alternative either way because neither of them are right for, so Apple didn't lose any money. If you hadn't guessed, this Eee is running OS X because I want my network to be perfectly compatible.

 

[ajthomason]

So you willing to pay $500 for OS X? As that is what it will cost to buy OS X if Apple is forced to remove the lock so they can regain the profits they would lose from the hardware sales and people not buying OS X anymore due to incompatibility with the dozens of configurations there are.

Vista Ultimate sells for £200 in this country (about $400), so if I'm buying one - I would rather pay the extra £50 and get OS X.

 

[Gasu E.]

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.

But Microsoft can now legally sell the same product at two different price points based on whether it is an "upgrade" or an original purchase. All Apple would have to do to counter a judgement is rename its current retail OS box to be the "upgrade" version and offer an "original" version at $700. In fact, Apple could do this preemptively, even before a judgement, and it possibly would make the suit moot.

 

[toxicbomber]

Nuff said.

 

[conebbs]

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.

Then stop buying Apple.

 

[sterno74]

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.

Big difference: Microsoft is a monopoly. Apple's monopoly is over operating systems for Apple hardware, but in the context of the industry, they are still a small player.

What the anti-trust laws generally frown upon is leveraging of a monopoly in one realm to dominate another. So for Microsoft it was control of the operating system that controlled 95% of the market used to take over the browser market. I don't see how that's at all applicable in this case.

If this passed muster in court, the logic would be that any proprietary software running on proprietary hardware is free game for similar action. So you could make your own router hardware, then install copies of CISCO's OS on them. Arguably that's a much more justifiable concept because CISCO dominates the industry to a much larger degree (though still not a Monopoly by any stretch).

 

[deputy_doofy]

If MS can set the pricing for Windows to the PC makers, why can't Apple simply make the price ridiculously high for unofficial clone-makers, assuming the trial favors Pystar?

If Pystar wins, I'm suing to have every game solely made for xBox work for Wii and PS3. Otherwise, xBox has a monopoly. The same goes for Wii and PS3. Zelda for PS3. Mario for Xbox.

Where do we draw the line with this nonsense?

 

[Dmac77]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah!You have got to be kidding me! I'm ROFLAMO! This puny little tiny company thinks that they can take on Apple! That's hilarious! I hope that these idiots know that they are going to lose everything, Apple will crush them and take them for every damn dime that they have. Even if they have grounds, Apple will drag it out in appeals until my great great great grandchildren are dead.

This has made my day. Thanks for the laugh Pystar!

Don

 

[fizzwinkus]

But Microsoft can now legally sell the same product at two different price points based on whether it is an "upgrade" or an original purchase. All Apple would have to do to counter a judgement is rename its current retail OS box to be the "upgrade" version and offer an "original" version at $700. In fact, Apple could do this preemptively, even before a judgement, and it possibly would make the suit moot.

all retail copies of mac os x ARE upgrades. you are upgrading from an earlier version of mac os - the one that shipped with your computer.

There is no such thing as a stand alone version since there are no macs that sold without an os.

 

[Bonte]

So you willing to pay $500 for OS X? As that is what it will cost to buy OS X if Apple is forced to remove the lock so they can regain the profits they would lose from the hardware sales and people not buying OS X anymore due to incompatibility with the dozens of configurations there are.

A Mini costs $499 with osX and iLife, the profit for Apple can't be much more than $125.

 

[hob]

Initially I thought Psystar were being just a little cheeky. Now I think they've taken it to a whole new level. They can just go get lost. Anti-competitive?! To who exactly? Apple don't HAVE to license their OS! It's THEIR OS!

 

[MidiMonk]

Go Psystar!!!

Apple needs to be put in its place for once, just like Microsoft before them.

 

[gcmexico]

Hmm. This might open up OSX to be installed on a DELL. What thinks??




Pystar to Countersue Apple

*
no way!! I never what to see Mac of OS on dell!

 

[w00master]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah!You have got to be kidding me! I'm ROFLAMO! This puny little tiny company thinks that they can take on Apple! That's hilarious! I hope that these idiots know that they are going to lose everything, Apple will crush them and take them for every damn dime that they have. Even if they have grounds, Apple will drag it out in appeals until my great great great grandchildren are dead.

This has made my day. Thanks for the laugh Pystar!

Don

Not saying that I'm in favor of Psystar (I'm not), but there have been many cases where the "puny little company" has defeated the big corporations.

Ultimately, this case will fail b/c OS X needs to be hacked in order to run on their non-Apple made computers. This is a violation of the DMCA, so I can't see them winning at all.

That being said, I am in favor of clones and the ability to load OS X on whatever piece of hardware I wish.

 

[Unspeaked]

Then stop buying Apple.

Of course - how dare a consumer be unhappy with any aspect of the company they support with their purchases.

all retail copies of mac os x ARE upgrades. you are upgrading from an earlier version of mac os - the one that shipped with your computer.

There is no such thing as a stand alone version since there are no macs that sold without an os.

This is true, but no Mac OS disc has ever required an existing install. That's got to mean something, right?

 

[gcmexico]

Then stop buying Apple.

*
exactly!!! let the market speak

 

[kntgsp]

I really hope Psystar wins, if only to strike down the EULA and open up OSX installation onto anything we want. If Apple wants to enforce the idea that you can only install OSX on an Apple computer, then stop selling boxes of your OS in retail stores.

If I walk into your store and buy OSX, I can take it home and install it on any goddamn thing I want. Let them try to install it on a toaster or an amiga for all I care.

Once you hand them currency in exchange for that box of software, it is YOURS to do with and install on, whatever you damn well please. And any company who claims otherwise can pry it from my cold dead hands or issue me a full refund.



That being said:

That doesn't mean Apple has to guarantee that it'll work flawlessly. They can still put disclaimers on it stating that they offer no official support unless installed on Apple computers. There is nothing illegal about that. But restricting it altogether and forcing people to go the "hackintosh" route is mind bogglingly retarded.

And this tired excuse of "oh well if they open it up, it'll become as unstable as every other OS because there's so many more hardware combinations to support."

That is utter ********. In my experience of using OSX/XP/Vista/Debian, it's a wash. I get the spinning balloon just as often as I get the hourglass in XP. Allow the community to help you develop drivers and submit them to Apple for verification if they want, since Apple will almost assuredly claim that they don't have the resources to put towards developing additional drivers (cough*bulls$$t*cough). Hell, I know plenty would be more than willing to pitch in.

Major hardware manufacturers like ASUS/Gigabyte/ATI/NVIDIA, etc. all put out Linux drivers in addition to Windows drivers. You don't see them straining to keep their company afloat due to the horrible amounts of resources wasted compiling basic linux drivers.

Give. Me. A. Farking. Break.

 

[r.j.s]

This is true, but no Mac OS disc has ever required an existing install. That's got to mean something, right?

No. XP upgrade doesn't require a previous version, but it does check for the CD. Just because Apple forgoes this check doesn't make it not an upgrade.

 

[ImageWrangler]

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.

I'd bet a million bucks you'd be the first person complaining once you tried to put OS X on some Dull or crappy peecee and something went wrong, blaming Apple for the fact it didn't work on some third-party hardware.

You have a choice. Don't like Apple's OS only running on an Apple computer? Great... buy a Dull or some other brand.

Mirrors the same whiners who complain about a radio station without taking in consideration it has a dial, and that dial gets OTHER stations. Don't like Apple's station, use the dial. Cripes people!

 

[zombitronic]

If this passed muster in court, the logic would be that any proprietary software running on proprietary hardware is free game for similar action. So you could make your own router hardware, then install copies of CISCO's OS on them. Arguably that's a much more justifiable concept because CISCO dominates the industry to a much larger degree (though still not a Monopoly by any stretch).

If Pystar wins, I'm suing to have every game solely made for xBox work for Wii and PS3. Otherwise, xBox has a monopoly. The same goes for Wii and PS3. Zelda for PS3. Mario for Xbox.

Where do we draw the line with this nonsense?

Don't forget the iPhone clones that can't run the iPhone OS. You've gotta sue Apple over that, too. They've got a monopoly on Apple iPhones.

If MS can set the pricing for Windows to the PC makers, why can't Apple simply make the price ridiculously high for unofficial clone-makers, assuming the trial favors Pystar?

Because there isn't a specific clone version of OS X. They'd have to raise the price for everyone.