The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Psystar fight back against Apple's lawsuit against it.
channelregister.co.uk — The Miami-based firm said during a press conference this afternoon it plans to challenge Apple's long-standing licensing ban on running the Mac operating system on non-Apple branded devices.
ameologger- 234 diggs
- digg it
- AmyVernon, on 08/27/2008, -0/+14Everyone's going to be watching this one. Hold onto your hats.
- hmd1987, on 08/27/2008, -2/+9It'd be refreshing to see Apple unable to buy their way out of this...in a kind of...
corporations-can't-win-EVERY-time kinda way. But I do love me some mac. - brainnovate, on 08/27/2008, -0/+8It would probably help Apple if they would let some other companies build rigs. Of course they still need to maintain some unique difference.
- DeuceDiggalow, on 08/27/2008, -2/+5Apple should let us install OSX on PCs!!!
- digitalpencil, on 08/27/2008, -0/+3OS X's inherent stability is due to a limited hardware profile and although I run a quad-core X86 build myself, i'd hate to see that stability sacrificed for compatibility.. Moreover, it's naive to think a firm this size stands a chance against a giant Apple's size with some half-baked anti-competitive behavior suit.
- brisbin33, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1That's a true statement; but i disagree on just how much OS X's stability is predicated on the limited hardware profile.
Yes, it's a luxurious position to be in as a vendor, to be able to control the hard and software sides of building a computer, but linux can also be pretty stable and on a wide range of hardware profiles. I'd say it's 80 - 20 apple does this out of a monopolistic aversion to competition (something key to their current success, i admit)
at this point, i think it would be pretty easy for apple to legally allow the use of OS X on non-apple hardware and just write in an explicit lack of support for it. want to run it on a pc? go ahead, you get no warranty / repairs / guarantee from us in anyway. then those that want to buy this psystar crap can, those that want to build their own can (i applaud those hobbyist and hope to do it myself soon), and those that want the fully supported apple 'experience' can (well worth the price tag in my opinion).
bottom line - i don't see any lost profits for apple if they 'allow' alternative installations. someone who buys psystar because that's all they can afford isn't a lost mac customer... they're probably a lost dell customer.
these x86 projects have been around for a while, and i hear this psystar computer isn't very good / stable. i think the problem wouldn't get as out of hand as everybody fears.
- brisbin33, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1That's a true statement; but i disagree on just how much OS X's stability is predicated on the limited hardware profile.
- Sonan, on 08/27/2008, -0/+3I can definitely see some non-technical judge making some ridiculous ruling, like saying Mac software can be run on non-Apple machines, but not the Mac OS itself...
- clak, on 08/27/2008, -0/+5I saw someone named Paul Chapel make this analogy on Engadget. Hits the nail right on the head.
Let's say you're the president of Hewlett Packard and you're trying to find a way to beat out Dell for market share. The only thing that really makes Dell computers stand out from HP computers is price. After all, Dell computers run Windows too. So you gather your board members for a meeting about this and someone asks, "Why don't we make a better operating system to compete with Dell?"
You say, "Great idea! Let's design an operating system that's better than Windows." So you and your team of engineers spend billions and billions designing a new operating system from scratch. It's ten years ahead of it's time. It a 128-bit operating system and it's does computations five times as fast as Windows. Your built in security software is bullet proof and as a result, HP computers sell like hot cakes.
A few months later, HP is the market leader, but Dell steps in and says, "Hey, wait a minute. This isn't fair. HP is competing with us. How dare they! They can't make their own operating system. They have to license it."
A court steps in and says, "Hey, license your operating system to Dell." You, as CEO of the company, look up at the judge and say, "Hey, wait a second judge, we spent BILLIONS of dollars making this operating system and spend millions more maintaining it. Dell didn't lift a finger. Now you're telling me we HAVE TO license them our new software?"
The judge brings down his gavel and says, "Yes," but instead of licensing the operating system, you say "Screw it. If we have to license every OS we write, what's the use of writing it when we're just going to have to give it away, for far less than we would make on hardware? We're just doing cheap R&D for Dell so that they can turn around and beat us in the market again. Why should HP do that if we can continue to license Windows for twenty dollars a copy?"
As a result, there's no innovation in the market. Everyone continues to use Windows because it's cheaper than developing their own operating system and then giving it away. Does that seem fair to anybody?- nogoodusername, on 08/27/2008, -1/+0Wall of text is a critical hit.
- digitalpencil, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1agreed. In the same light, OS X is not a gaming platform due to the fact that DirectX has and never will be licensed to 3rd parties. It is the standard that provides MS with a monopoly over the games market and it would be ludicrous for them to forgo this monopoly after all the work and investment they have thrown into it.
Some see this practice as unfair, but it is simply common sense..
- leetleo, on 08/27/2008, -0/+5Painfully worded title >_<
/grammar-nazi- whoreable, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1Gotta love the double negative.
- gr3yn3t, on 08/27/2008, -0/+3Wait, what?
...fight back against Apple against it?
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is