What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Want an MP3 Player than is not an iPod? view!
newegg.com - This one is under $50 on rebate at Newegg.com
249 Comments
- Ikus13, on 11/15/2009, -29/+81Fair enough. If the company that produces the software wants it to be linked with the hardware it produces or at least sell the software themselves, they have the right to do so. Apple is a company that has survived because of its link to hardware, however I might disagree with that. I just can't empathize with Psystar, they did something illegal, even if many think it should be done.
- Nephersir7, on 11/15/2009, -26/+74Good riddance, Psystar. You won't be missed.
I can't believe for how long they made money and gained massive puclicity by just stealing open-source tools from the osx86 community and reselling/marketing it as their own without giving back ANY credit where due. - strangewill, on 11/15/2009, -25/+61Is Microsoft started selling hardware and forced bundles there would be lawsuits up the ass.
I just think it's kind of ***** that you only have to follow rules if you're 90% of the market, otherwise it's ok. - RogerMcDodger, on 11/15/2009, -5/+35Nope. Psystar was a negative for the hackintosh movement.
- firesights, on 11/15/2009, -31/+61God forbid someone wouldn't want to pay $2000 for an Apple desktop.
partially /s - enantiodromia, on 11/15/2009, -10/+37"iMac 21.5" starting at $1199"
- moduspwnens, on 11/15/2009, -4/+29Was hoping for pictures of the "clone suit." :(
- GregR, on 11/15/2009, -20/+44Microsoft has software tied to hardware - XBox.
Are you saying it's ok for someone else to build a cheap XBox knock-off and pirate the XBox OS and sell it?
Microsoft would be doing exactly what Apple has done in this case, protect their copyright. - homer524, on 11/15/2009, -5/+28From the title I assumed a piece of fruit had won some sort of outfit that allowed it to make copies of itself. Very disappointing.
- TheCrazyAsian, on 11/15/2009, -36/+57Unfortunately, Apple has that right. Even if it does make them douchebags
- spyderveloce, on 11/15/2009, -3/+24OSX is based on a BSD-like OS, not FreeBSD. Even FreeBSD is a variant of another BSD OS. Apple does use some open-source code and they fully disclose that.
- chochazel, on 11/15/2009, -3/+21Of course Apple can make software to go with their hardware. The XBox analogy is absolutely right, similarly if LG made an innovative TV User Interface (they don't, clearly, but if they did) and made it available as a firmware update, other companies could not legitimately download it and stick it on their TVs and sell them at a profit - regardless of whether it were a paid download, a free download or sold in shops on a disc. Why would the OS being sold separately make any difference? If it's clearly stated in the license agreement, what possible legal comeback do you imagine Psystar could have? If you buy music, you have the right to listen to the music, but not to stick it on your own compilation and then sell that at a profit, then blame the original artist for having the nerve to sell their creation in a shop. That's far worse than file sharing as it's done for profit. Similarly what Psystar did was far worse than what the OSX86 community do.
Just because Microsoft chose a different business model to all the other computer companies back in the 80s, and were more successful, it doesn't make Apple, Atari, Commodore, Sinclair or Acorn or any of the others evil. If you prefer the Microsoft model, by a Windows PC. If you don't understand why Microsoft got into trouble in the anti-trust cases, maybe read up on it, but remember they weren't selling the hardware. - Nephersir7, on 11/15/2009, -5/+22This is benific for the hackintosh community as Psystar was only a nuisance
***** PSYSTAR. - colincornaby, on 11/15/2009, -1/+18For those that didn't read the Groklaw article... basically what it came down to was that Psystar was selling modified versions of OS X without Apple's permission, which is illegal. It would be like if you repackaged Windows with a bunch of hacks (maybe some of them to bypass activation), and then began reselling copies of that without Microsoft's permission, which would also be illegal, even if you included the original Windows disk.
This would make the Hackintosh community safe, for now, in since the Hackintosh community isn't actually reselling or pirating full copies of OS X. - LeonardNimrod, on 11/15/2009, -2/+18You’re a tool!
They were teenagers in the 70s doing this.
Jobs wasn’t running a company worth $170B.
They also made the device themselves, they didn’t break copyright laws to build it.
The story behind the blue box is quite interesting if ever actually look it up. It also has nothing to do with Psystar. - ineversleep, on 11/15/2009, -2/+17Keep in mind that the only reason Apple sells the OS separately is for upgrade purposes. Now, what you do at home with your legal copy should be in no way illegal. However, turning around and selling that is another story. I'm not particularly pleased to see Psystar go, I thought that competition in the OS X market would be a positive thing, but I do see the case.
- monkeyrun, on 11/15/2009, -0/+15I am pretty sure Apple doesn't really care about people building hackinosh as a hobby.
But once you try to build a business around building Hackintosh, then it's a huge problem. - AngelBunny, on 11/15/2009, -11/+25How does it make them douchebags exactly? If I made a successful product I wouldn't want others ripping me off either.
- cawfee, on 11/15/2009, -20/+34More like Apple Wins Clown Suit.
- Nephersir7, on 11/15/2009, -8/+22No, because didn`t violate FreeBSD's license (the BSD license allows commercial use) and did not try to say they created FreeBSD and gave credit...
- mrBitch, on 11/15/2009, -1/+14The key point here is that Dell has obtained permission from Microsoft.
- LeonardNimrod, on 11/15/2009, -1/+13One of the first things Jobs did when he came back as interim CEO after the NeXT acquisition was to stop the licensing of clones. They were able to finish out any contractual agreements but after that they didn’t sell Mac OS
Note the difference between the official cloners of the day and Psystar. Mac OS would install and run on the clone hardware without any hacking. It worked from the get go and yet they didn’t continue to sell their product.
Note that Dell and other major PC vendors have pleaded with Apple over the years to license them their OS at fees greater than what they pay MS for Windows simply to offer something different (and arguably better) while getting out from under MS’ thumb. Even when Apple was down to a valuation of $5B and never collapse they refused to go this route. For those that think they’ll do it eventually don’t understand Apple’s business model. - LeonardNimrod, on 11/15/2009, -0/+12Psystar was illegally using their code, too.
Apple has never gone after the OSx86 community.
(and no, the Atom issue with 10.6.2 is not Apple attacking a single processor for hackintoshes that they don’t even compete with) - portnoy, on 11/15/2009, -3/+15Apple does not sell the OS separately, they sell UPGRADES! Just because they don't lock down those upgrades with tons of crappy DRM shouldn't mean they lose all voice in how those upgrades are used is *****. We should be rewarding companies for not using DRM, not punishing them.
- colincornaby, on 11/15/2009, -0/+11Psystar didn't get in trouble because they bought the software, Psystar got in trouble because they modified the software, and then sold the modified copies without Apple's permission. Basically they were selling derivative works. Read the judgement.
- AngelBunny, on 11/15/2009, -0/+11When Steve Jobs took over Apple.
- non00b, on 11/15/2009, -4/+15I'm pretty sure a 21 inch IPS LED backlit display with full HD resolution would cost nearly as much as the entire computer.
- cthellis, on 11/15/2009, -1/+11The number of shares Microsoft owned of Apple was miniscule. A portion of non-voting stock used as a cash infusion, that years later was turned into common stock (perhaps 5-6% of total stock issued), and then a few years after that cashed out. (Of course if they'd held onto their stock and sold at the end of 2007 instead of 2003, they would have made a STUPEFYING amount of money.)
There was certainly no "most of Apple" going on. - NotaFanboy87, on 11/15/2009, -1/+11I agree, Apple doesn't care what an individual does with a mac. It's if a company tries to do it for money. That's clearly out of line.
- GregR, on 11/15/2009, -7/+17This is Digg! You expected logic to enter into the discussion? Too many fanboys and Apple haters.
- Nephersir7, on 11/15/2009, -1/+11"but Bill Gates doesn't get all pissy if you install windows on a mac"
Of course:
Microsoft is a software company. They don't give a ***** on which brand of PC you install their OS as long as you use theirs... In fact, MS makes more money when somebody installs Windows on an Apple PC, because the user has to purchase the $200 retail version because it doesnt come preinstalled. - ineversleep, on 11/15/2009, -0/+10At this point it is likely. However you must consider that Apple desires very strict guidelines for new users experiencing their OS and related software. You also have to remember that one of the reasons Windows has been known to be so unstable at times is due to the fact that it is so open. When you allow for infinite hardware expansions to the OS, you can't plan for every variable. I believe that is all that Apple is trying to do, guarantee a positive experience by limiting the variables in order to predict them and prepare for them with more precision. It is an admirable goal, and while they're not perfect at it, they do a fairly good job. I'm not sure that majority market share is even their goal.
- srg13, on 11/15/2009, -1/+11That's really hilarious... The BSD licence (and only parts of Mac OS X's kernel is based on BSD - like the network stack, VFS and a couple of other parts. The rest is the Mach microkernel) only requires that you ship a file with the copyright notices in it with the product - which Apple does. Unlike the GPL, the product can be closed source. Despite this, Apple lets anyone download the full source code to Mac OS X's kernel and many of its libraries (like launchd, IOKit and so on), complete with the copyright and licensing notices!
Pystar was ripping off open source code. Apple uses open source respecting the licences it's released under, and actually releases code of its own as open source. It's pretty much the complete opposite. - DelMonte, on 11/15/2009, -9/+18@EGOvoruhk: Aren't you angry then that Microsoft doesn't even sell the Xbox 360 OS separately? Isn't that worse?
@strangewill: Microsoft can bundle their OS with any software they want on their own hardware without any lawsuit (just like they do with the Zune and the XBox). They got into trouble because they were using their position in the market to force OTHER companies to bundle their software. Apple only forces THEMSELVES to bundle their OS and software with Macs and I don't see anything wrong with that. - NotaFanboy87, on 11/15/2009, -6/+14No, it's crystal clear. Microsoft was out of line on the fact that they bought out any competitors they had and perpetually eliminated competition by actively preventing users from using other web browsers. Apple isn't out of line because Psystar was trying to undermine Apple's business strategy by selling what was rightfully Apple's for profit. Apple doesn't sue everybody that makes a hackintosh, they're not the concern. Apple sues the ***** out of people who make a profit from their hard work. It's a matter of protecting basic copyright laws.
- LeonardNimrod, on 11/15/2009, -0/+8No double standards. A single standard. Free market. If you invent something you have the right to license it to whomever you wish. If you wish to be the only seller of your product you have the right to do so. You have the right to prevent others from destroying your business model
If you don’t like what Apple has to offer then you have the right to choose another company. If you don’t like that Dell, HP, Sony and other PC vendors choose to be too lazy to make their own OS to sell their PCs then you can choose not to buy their PCs.
You can go to Apple’s website and download iPhone or iPod Touch OS for FREE. By your argument anyone should be able to build a business model around their code because it’s easy to obtain. Just crack the code to install on your HW and you’re good to go. You don’t even need to pay anything for it. - scythefwd, on 11/15/2009, -0/+8@popstation - Pystar was reselling software licenses without being an authorized reseller. It was using the software outside the terms of use they were required to agree to in order to install it (else the license is voided). They were doing this for profit.
The home hackintosher - Isn't reselling licenses.
Is using the the software outside the terms of use.. but gets no support from Apple, license it technically void.
NOT MAKING PROFIT off of someone elses property (I hate software patents, etc. as well but as it stands you don't have a legal right to use it outside the terms of the EULA).
Apple's issue was that pystar was stealing customers away by using unauthorized installations of apples software. The home hackintosher isn't. The home hackintoshers effect about .00001 percent of apple's hardware sales where pystar had the possabilty to make a large dent in apples sales.
pystar was taking sales away from apple. People, mostly uneducated, thought that the OSX they were getting was properly licensed. Pystars' customer base were not the people who would download an illegal copy of the software and attempt to get it working on their own machines. Yup.. the only LEGAL way to get the software is through apple. So the choice was .. be an outright pirate, purchase an unauthorized system, purchase from apple. Pystar was cheapest, but not a legal system. Again people might have thought what they were purchasing was a legal copy of the software or even a supported piece of HW/SW. - DelMonte, on 11/15/2009, -6/+14@NeoTechni: Why do you think it can run only on the 360 hardware? Because Microsoft made the console completely incompatible with anything else to prevent other companies from making compatible hardware that could run their OS/software. Tell me why this is not worse than having an easily breakable BIOS/EFI protection?
Essentially you blame Apple for not making a completely proprietary box like the 360?
"You're free to install it on whatever you could get to run it."
Yet you mention that it would only run on XBox 360's hardware... - EvilNecro, on 11/15/2009, -1/+8"I purchased a copy of the OS."
No, you did NOT. Every retail copy of OS X is an UPGRADE, you must have a Mac with an OS installed on it to qualify to use the retail disc. Just because they don't have draconian DRM protecting everything (and huge props to them for not doing that) doesn't mean you can go violate their copyright.
If you need a MS analogy.... Visual Studio can be purchased as stand alone (big $$), or as an upgrade(relatively cheap). The difference between the two products is that one checks for an existing VS install. Other than that, they are the same product. Does that give you the right to buy the Upgrade version, and trick it into installing without owning a prior version? - DanielPhermous, on 11/15/2009, -2/+9Quite. Clearly any judge which you disagree with must, by definition, be on the take.
- cthellis, on 11/15/2009, -0/+7Are... are you ***** us? You seriously see no difference between "random people obtaining the code online and building their own hackbox" and "a company doing that as the focus of their business model?"
- Nephersir7, on 11/15/2009, -4/+11no, when they tried licensing their OS in the 90s, they nearly went bankrupt...
- srg13, on 11/15/2009, -0/+7"Depends on how you define "contribute"."
Well, given that I can download the whole OS X kernel, launchd, IOKit among other libraries, Webkit, etc, and the fact that they sponsor the development of and empoly quite a few developers of the awesome LLVM and Clang compiler projects, I'd say they contribute quite a lot... - simbait, on 11/15/2009, -0/+7My fear was and is that with companies like Psystar, Apple would restrict their software (with more HW checks) further. Apple might tolarate Hackintoshes if they remain contained in the hacker/hobbyist community.
- portnoy, on 11/15/2009, -0/+6No, it wold be more like if you repackaged Windows UPGRADE disks with a bunch of hacks that allow them to be used as full install disks and resold them as such I think.
- chochazel, on 11/15/2009, -2/+8@EGOvoruhk
I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.
Is it whether the OS upgrade is sold, or whether it's available in the stores?
If Microsoft wanted to sell a major XBOX OS upgrade rather than give it away for free, wouldn't they have that right?
If the OS upgrade were huge (over 6GB), wouldn't it make sense to make it available on disc, rather than as a download? Do you imagine that if they did this, they would be obliged to let you install it on your own clone machines? If so why?
>Just like thousands of other hardware makers don't sell their proprietary OS (or firmware) because they only want it run on their product.
Firmware is frequently a freely available download. How available it is has nothing to do with whether they want you to use it on other hardware.
Whether it's a paid or a free update has more to do with how much work has gone into it - you're not going to charge for a 128kb firmware upgrade, but an OS that has been years in the making that weighs in at 6 or 7 GB is too big to be downloaded, and may be charged for, if the makers consider it in their interests. Why on earth not? - colincornaby, on 11/15/2009, -1/+7Why on earth would you buy a Psystar when they offer less support than the Hackintosh community, and they cost more, for the exact same feature set?
I'm an Apple hardware user (do important business work, so my hardware and software has got to be fully supported), so I'm already not prone to building a Hackintosh (no offense to the Hackintosh folks), but actually paying for a Psystar machine is in a whole different league of stupidity... - colincornaby, on 11/15/2009, -1/+7Uh, the iMac also uses desktop hardware now. (Excluding the 9400m model.)
The i5 and i7 iMacs are definitely using full desktop hardware. I'm pretty sure all the 27" models are actually, with the extra room they added the cooling for desktop grade hardware. - scythefwd, on 11/15/2009, -0/+6Actually works with coders to improve and maintain source code on many different projects. Mainly in the form of source code contributions to web browsers that I can think of.
- monkeyrun, on 11/15/2009, -0/+6It's kinda like asking,
q: when did having sex with women become illegal...
a: When they don't want to. -
Show 51 - 100 of 252 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is