arstechnica.com— Psystar surprised the industry in April by announcing an extremely cheap but unlicensed Mac clone for $399. Everyone waited for Apple to fire off a lawsuit, and it finally has.
Jul 15, 2008View in Crawl 4
Their OS is far from solid, and would be much worse if wasn't for being able to run only on supported hardware.But they would NOT have to support any other kind of hardware, and knowing apple as I know I wonder why they still support their own hardware.... Let the users solve their problems by theirselves.Where do you think the 200 USD difference between an Apple and a Psystar goes?
If Apple were to free OS X, they could start with a small list of supported hardware, and other hardware companies that want OS X compatibility will have to write drivers, support customers, etc. by themselves.
What Microsoft tried to do was the exact opposite. Instead of selling their own hardware with their own software like Apple, they licensed their OS to third party PC sellers. They got in trouble for having restrictive licensing agreements that prevented OEM manufacturers from installing other operating systems. In other words, they got in trouble for wanting to spread their OS a tad too eagerly than what is legal. This is just the tip of the iceberg of a collection of MS anti-trust accusations.
He's a douchebag, but he can manage a company: Apple (only lost it's greatness in the era that Jobs was put out), Pixar (the most sucessfull animation company in the world) and NeXT (a failure, but built the future for Apple's OS X, the most capable Operating System in the world)
unitedatheismJul 16, 2008
Their OS is far from solid, and would be much worse if wasn't for being able to run only on supported hardware.But they would NOT have to support any other kind of hardware, and knowing apple as I know I wonder why they still support their own hardware.... Let the users solve their problems by theirselves.Where do you think the 200 USD difference between an Apple and a Psystar goes?
thirdprizeJul 16, 2008
They probably just had to wait 3 months while they asked em nicely to stop doing it and then see if they would. More of a legal nicety than anything.
diggimatorJul 16, 2008
If Apple were to free OS X, they could start with a small list of supported hardware, and other hardware companies that want OS X compatibility will have to write drivers, support customers, etc. by themselves.
diggimatorJul 16, 2008
What Microsoft tried to do was the exact opposite. Instead of selling their own hardware with their own software like Apple, they licensed their OS to third party PC sellers. They got in trouble for having restrictive licensing agreements that prevented OEM manufacturers from installing other operating systems. In other words, they got in trouble for wanting to spread their OS a tad too eagerly than what is legal. This is just the tip of the iceberg of a collection of MS anti-trust accusations.
Closed AccountJul 16, 2008
Because I wanted one. That doesn't mean the f**ker can nickel and dime me every chance he gets.I'm also getting the apps free too. Sweet.
nls87Jul 21, 2008
He's a douchebag, but he can manage a company: Apple (only lost it's greatness in the era that Jobs was put out), Pixar (the most sucessfull animation company in the world) and NeXT (a failure, but built the future for Apple's OS X, the most capable Operating System in the world)
riboAug 4, 2008
tcpip4lyfe:Because the kernel is largely FreeBSD, which already has extremely stable support for pretty much all consumer hardware.