What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Jarice: Next star of Best Buy’s holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Employee Jarice Brodie shares his story, his excitement and his singing voice.
353 Comments
- ThreeDee912, on 07/15/2008, -3/+122I think Apple was trying to keep Psystar's clones on the "down low" and let everyone forget about them, as a lawsuit would simply draw more attention to them. But because that didn't really work, and Psystar kept selling their clones, so they switched to Plan B and sued them.
- galvo, on 07/15/2008, -123/+224I hate Steve Jobs and Apple.
- sanosuke001, on 07/15/2008, -30/+121No, he is expressing an opinion.
And ya, Steve Jobs is a yuppie douchebag :P - klank, on 07/15/2008, -2/+73It was inevitable.
- acevoncash, on 07/15/2008, -4/+68not enough. their economy is built on hardware sales. not os sales.
- drlha, on 07/15/2008, -3/+46Should be interesting to see how this plays out if Psystar decide to stand up to Apple. As Apple's main legal argument would be the fact that the OS X EULA specifically doesn't allow installation on non-Apple computers, a court case to support that would answer some difficult questions about whether a EULA is really enforcable. Of course Apple might just be going the easier route here of attacking Psystar for distributing modified/hacked versions of the 10.5.4 update.
- gcnaddict, on 07/15/2008, -21/+62I hope Psystar wins, not because of any malice towards Apple but because if Psystar wins, Apple might be forced to allow people to install Mac OS onto any x86 machine, which would be great given current prices for Mac OS licenses. It would also force Microsoft to worry more about messing up and create more reasonable developer schedules, thus leading to better software (There's a whole backstory to what happened to Longhorn/Vista involving developer mismanagement if you haven't heard it already). Yay for competition!
Unfortunately, this will likely force Apple into worrying about hardware compatibility and jacking up OS 10.5 prices to compensate for a drop in hardware sales... which might just kill any reason for Microsoft to compete should Apple drive OS licensing prices too high. - getsaf, on 07/15/2008, -6/+39• WAAAAY More support issues
-> New mboards / busses / chipsets etc.
-> Way more complexity of min-requirements to figure.. IE If a user has X model iMac it's easy to determine if it'll run OSX ver G but if it's a custom-built machine, it could be damn-near impossible.
-> Way more complication in the OSX Installer
All this leads to much less revenue due to excess support staff and ultimately it will lead to bad-press for APPLE because of dumbasses complaining that OSX craps out on their craptastic machine..
Imagine how many computer-don't-know-it-alls will try to put OSX on their piece of crap box and it runs super-slow.. It would kill the reputation of the OS (imo).
I think APPLE has a good thing going with their hardware/software packages.. It ensures good quality-of-service from your product. - geoken, on 07/15/2008, -3/+34"You don't hear of Apple suing many people"
You must be new. - MikeSetera, on 07/15/2008, -23/+53I couldn't care less.. I'm building my own Hac Pro. XP for gaming, OS X for important stuff.
- benman587, on 07/15/2008, -2/+32Classic troll is getting more diggs than you are.
- TheZorch, on 07/15/2008, -10/+39The law may be on Psystar's side. The decades old court ruling in the case IBM vs PC Cloners which allowed other companies to make IBM compatible PCs so now we have computers from hundreds of different companies could be sighted now that Apple is using Intel CPUs. Also, in recent history EULAs haven't had much success in the court of law lately. Apple has a uphill battle on their hands, they might not win this one.
- Ilyanep, on 07/15/2008, -4/+32More hardware to deal with/support.
- inactive, on 07/15/2008, -8/+32I'd never buy a Psystar, because I want to know if I'm going to be able to get important updates the day they are released. However, I hope Apple realizes there is a market for a mid-priced tower. Somewhere between the Mac mini and the Mac Pro. Like an iMac without the monitor. I would buy one, and I feel many more people would too.
- inactive, on 07/15/2008, -4/+26I keep hearing people say that Apple could make so much more money licensing OS X and that's just baloney. Apple would die if they licensed their OS X and here's why.
You can only make money licensing an operating system if you have a MONOPOLY like Microsoft.
Microsoft licenses Windows to PC manufacturers, also known as OEMs, for 20 dollars a license (this is their volume pricing). Apple has about 25 million users. So do the math. Even if licensing OS X doubled Apple's market share to 50 million over night using Microsoft's pricing scheme, that would only be 1 billion dollars of revenue.
50,000,000 users X $20 = 1,000,000,000.
Of course, this is in an ideal world where Apple doesn't lose licenses to piracy, but I digress. Even if Apple sold OS X for the full 129 dollars, the most they would make would be around 6.5 billion and that's assuming again that licensing would double their current install base to 50 million users.
50,000,000 users X $129 = 6,450,000,000.
I have no hard data to back this up, but I think it's reasonable to say that Apple makes around 1000 dollars on average selling Macs to its customer base. Every Mac, except for the Mac Mini is at least 1000 dollars, right? So do the math.
25,000,000 users X $1000 = 25,000,000,000.
So, you see, Apple is making at least 25 billion (it's almost certainly more) selling Macs to its current user base. Would you rather have an imaginary 6.5 billion or a very real 25 billion? What's that? Yeah, I thought so.
This entire scenario, of course, ignores the fact that licensing their operating system would mean that Apple would have to SUPPORT literally thousands of different hardware configurations, which would create a horror show of driver problems, which would almost certainly dilute the stability of OS X and the Mac brand. So as you can see, licensing OS X makes absolutely NO SENSE and it's never going to happen, so stop talking about it. - galvo, on 07/15/2008, -0/+22I believe "owned" is the word I'm looking for...
- fowleryo, on 07/15/2008, -2/+22different business models, plain and simple.
- Ilyanep, on 07/15/2008, -1/+21If I had a guess, I'd guess that something within Apple's strategy/plans shifted in the last three months that changed Psystar from a "let's ignore them" thing to a "this is in our way" thing.
Or what ThreeDee912 said. - monkeyrun, on 07/15/2008, -3/+23lol, you can't even sell Apple products without being an "authorized seller".
What makes them think that they could legitimately resell a cracked Apple product. - greevar, on 07/15/2008, -0/+18You mean his megalomania.
- MRintheKeys, on 07/15/2008, -4/+22***** meet Douche, Douche this is *****. Play nice now fellas.
- JohnM5, on 07/15/2008, -6/+24I would have dug you up(or left you alone), but I hate when people try to act better than others by saying why they think they will be dug down.
- klank, on 07/15/2008, -5/+22I am for one that would love to buy OSX and install it "legally" on my PC
Apple is not just a software company however and they have to sell their hardware too. The other likely reason that they don't allow OSX on PC is the vast amounts of different devices and drivers that it would require not to mention supporting said installations. - inactive, on 07/15/2008, -9/+25People? You mean Apple, who based their entire marketing campaign on the fact that most people couldn't turn on a computer?
- superkendall, on 07/15/2008, -2/+18Apple was probably waiting for some time to build a solid case against Psystar. But it will be interesting to see if they succeed, and if so how - I don't think generally EULA's have held up well in court. I'm not sure what leverage Apple can apply against them other than that.
Then again Blizzard was able to stop the Gilder bot people, so that might indicate Apple has a chance. - MikeSetera, on 07/15/2008, -2/+17*I was implying that I'd have both OS X and XP on the rig...
also.. here are a billion install resources http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showforum=1 ... - MacParrot, on 07/15/2008, -2/+17I hope Psystar stands up to Apple and I hope Apple loses. I don't own a Psystar as a computer that makes more noise than a 747 in full reverse thrust doesn't appeal to me personally, but if Apple was truly serious about breaking away from being "just" a computer company, then it's getting near time to put up or shut up.
Their previous attempt at cloning was a disaster. Why? Because they attempted to compete on price with the very same people they gave OS 7 licenses to. Add in their market-share was at less than three percent and the cloners all marketed to the same people Apple was trying to sell computers to. A bad and foolish try.
Apple is now sitting (depending on whose numbers you believe) on 7-10% market-share overall. They could design 3-5 motherboards for desktops and perhaps 3 or so notebooks and allow others to make computers that run OS X. Heck, it's not that far from what they do now. By limiting the hardware to a pre-defined set, you still make it easy to keep OS X running without having to account for every piece of gear out there. Sell the license for the current retail cost of OS X. Between not having to keep assembly lines open, they don't incur manf costs so it'll still be about what they make in profit on the Mac line overall. - Elranzer, on 07/15/2008, -3/+18No, they want total, Nazi-like control over the hardware and the software. This business model hurts consumers, who have to pay extra for the same parts in a similar Dell computer (especially in the graphics cards).
- MacParrot, on 07/15/2008, -1/+15Yes, because playing Crysis looks SO good on your resume
- spacebuddy, on 07/15/2008, -5/+19If apple released OS/X without the copy protection it would be a nightmare for them. They would not be able to support the thousands of different combinations of hardware and have a solid performing OS. Their OS is solid cause they only work with the same limited hardware.
- wildsnake, on 07/15/2008, -7/+20Becuase Apple has every right to product their ideas and product. It's their ideas, they designed it and they manufactured it. They are not forcing you to buy their products and abide by their rules.
- FutureGuy, on 07/15/2008, -4/+17He doesn't give "two ***** " about you either, but your wallet, now that's a different story.
- revscat, on 07/15/2008, -11/+24I fail to see the controversy.
Apple, for business reasons all their own, has chosen not to structure their licenses such that 3rd parties can sell systems that come with OS X pre-installed without Apple's approval. There are plenty of operating systems around with licenses that do permit this. If Apple had a monopoloy on operating systems this would be a different beast. They do not; competition is ripe, and heating up.
Further, this situation seems analogous to one in which some third-party decided to make their own PS3 clones, unapproved of by Sony. The PS3 is Sony's property, to do with as they see fit. Suing this PS3 clone maker into oblivion would be wholly justified. Apple is no different.
So what's the big deal? - galvo, on 07/15/2008, -4/+17People get excited because Steve Jobs is as good as a speaker as Hitler. He sells the product. The product doesn't sell itself. However, Apple managed to sneak their way into the MP3 player market early and have completely monopolized the industry.
Oh yeah, and Bill Gates donates %58 of his earnings each year to charity. How about Stevie? - Super6, on 07/15/2008, -0/+12Apple can't afford to let people build their own systems because then they have to dedicate people to supporting them instead of making the OS, and then they'd end up like microsoft: richer, and with a bad reputation.
- MacParrot, on 07/15/2008, -5/+17People called the Mac a "toy" back in the DOS days. Command line guys couldn't stand the fact that people were actually able to work with a computer without archaic command line codes. Most of them are now dead or have shut up since Win95 came out.
Well...except obviously for Elranzer who still needs to hang onto ten-year old complaints since that's really all he has. C'mon! NOW say something about fanboys, you know you want to. - wildsnake, on 07/15/2008, -4/+16It's their product, they can dictate anything they want. They designed it and manufactured it. They do not force you to buy it.
- colincornaby, on 07/15/2008, -4/+16Because last time they allowed people to purchase the OS for 3rd party rigs they lost so much money they almost went out of business.
They are very much supported by their hardware business. - stizz, on 07/15/2008, -1/+13My hackintosh is the *****.
True I built it to spec, and true I cant get hardware sleep to work perfectly, but other than that it is a beast.
I have a quadcore mac pro now for half the cost.
- Protools? check
- Final Cut Pro? check
- XP thru parallels for when I need Visio? check
- Dual Boot to Ubuntu? check
Cant wait till the 8 core chips come down in price.... - Elranzer, on 07/15/2008, -16/+28...or right-click.
- horsepie, on 07/15/2008, -2/+14More users thinking it would work fine on their current Dell and having it crash, more work for Apple to support the influx of new users and the main one is more work for Apple to incorporate new drivers while keeping the system stable (which is difficult when you start to rely more on third party drivers)
- cawpin, on 07/15/2008, -2/+13MikeSetera - I dugg you simply for using the correct form of the care less saying.
- jeffness, on 07/15/2008, -5/+16absolutely correct. case law is 100% on psystar's side. IBM lost and so will apple.
doesn't even matter what kind of cpu's apples run.. The only reason it has taken this long for clones to popup is because it never made sense to offer a low priced apple clone. now that they are gaining traction, it finally does. - inactive, on 07/15/2008, -8/+19Apple is a hardware company not a software company.
- drlha, on 07/15/2008, -1/+12I read the article and there's no mention or knowledge of what is in the actual suit beyond vague words about license, copyright and tradement infringement, so we don't know on what basis Apple is suing Psystar yet. It could well be the EULA amongst other things.
- Takuro, on 07/15/2008, -3/+14I'm almost kind of glad. They were capitalizing off the hard work of people who pioneered the OSX86 Project. I say screw them.
- colincornaby, on 07/15/2008, -2/+13@jeffness, no, that's not correct. IBM vs. the PC Cloners was about clean room reverse engineering. If Psystar had coded a new version of OS X from scratch that was not related to OS X, not based on OS X, but behaved exactly like OS X, they'd be in the clear (which is what the PC cloners did.)
The problem here is Psystar is breaking the EULA on someone else's software. EULA's are enforceable, and companies maintain rights to software after it's been purchased, as shown by the recent Blizzard vs. the bot creators. - irishjays, on 07/15/2008, -12/+22Michael Dell is watching closely...
- inactive, on 07/15/2008, -1/+11Psystar cashed in on the osx86 moders hard work. The extra attention was not needed, i will be glad to see them gone.
- PhillyMJS, on 07/15/2008, -17/+27"XP for gaming, OS X for important stuff."
Funny how people called the Mac the "toy computer" for all those years. -
Show 51 - 100 of 357 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is