If Psystar actually wins this it could be a huge loss for Apple. Think about the Mac OS showing up in Walmart on discount machines. Then again they might also sell more OS licenses.
sigh In the past, Apple allowed other companies to license the OS and sell it on different hardware. The only reason this stopped was because Steve Jobs forced the renaming of a particular version of the OS so that the contract would no longer apply (it covered version X.Y, they changed it to X.Z)
Also, what's wrong with seeing Mac OS X in Walmart on discount machines?
Apple has deliberately ignored that potential "huge market segment" for years, to great success. Their brand, at least in the eyes of regular consumers, is probably perceived as a bit overpriced, but you know you are paying for a singular solid quality experience. The opposite is true of Windows and PCs, where I think generally (at least using my parents as a barometer) the feeling is that you're taking a bit of a gamble.
Allowing 3rd parties to build licensed OS X machines would do little for Apple but destabilize their platform, which is currently built on the premise that 100% of the package from the pre-installed apps to the OS to the casing to every component inside is vetted and tested to work well together by Apple's army of genius proto-wizards "in beautiful California."
That would be utterly destroyed the moment people could buy a 3rd party computer which pops up the "Mac OS X" logo on boot, and then immediately asks the user if they want to install the AOL trial, Google toolbar, Yahoo toolbar, and Dan's Discount Video Editor EX Lite Edition (Upgrade today!).
I don't want the people in the discount computer market walking into the Apple store to get service on their machines. I pay a premium for my Apple products and I expect stellar service - right now, that's exactly what I get. My service experience would be diminished if AppleCare and the Genius Bar is bogged down with Joe Blows trying to get their interwebs working on their $300 Apple computer.
The Apple stores will only fix Apples - that's what you're paying the premium for.
You might benefit from all the new apps that will get ported to Mac if it suddenly has 3-4x the market share.
Hardcore apple fans. There like: oh no, cheap macs! Im like: cool, cheap macs!
p.s. Downmod me to if you want to(this is a rather trollish comment, so as a good HN member, i encourage you to do so, i have enough karma to burn, but do so because i deserve it, not because i hate apple).
I'm not downmodding you, but I will suggest that there is a difference between "Cheap PCs that run OS X" and "Cheap Macs." Apple tries to ship a certain complete Macintosh experience. Certain types of cheap PC would undermine this experience even if they run OS X.
So, I think that a "Cheap PC running OS X" might not provide the same experience as a Macintosh. Is this a good thing? Should the market choose what they want? I don't know. But I can see the argument that such a device would not be a "Cheap Mac."
Second, Its not like people buying cheap macs are spoiling the user experience of the real mac users.Thankfully most apple users are not assholes and they really don't care that there are pc's running OSX that don't deliver the mac experience. Its not like somebody is "being a pc" at them, right?
So the answer to your question "Should the market choose what they want?" is: absolutely. Is it a good thing? A pc running OSX is probably not worse than a linux box, or a winpc, so its probably not bad, unless you're apple, or you are somehow offended by cheap(in the quality sense) computers.
Yes it does. If it isn't equivalent to a Macintosh but you call it a Macintosh, you dilute the Macintosh brand equity. That's exactly why companies defend their trade marks so zealously.
Not to mention that everyone except the most die-hard mac fans will buy a cheap OS X for their next home PC, and it'll cannibalize Apple's sales, which means they will have to cannibalize their R&D.
So unlicensed OS X boxen may not be "theft" but it does imply revenue lost.
That said, if you want a "cheap OS X box" search Ebay for "MacBook Nano". People are selling MSI Winds with hacked copies of leopard for about $450.
>Certain types of cheap PC would undermine this experience even if they run OS X.
Do you know how ridiculous this sounds? The cheapest hardware that you can buy at any retailer is pretty good.
Some people don't care about the experience that Apple tries to sell, they want a different experience. Why should Apple be allowed to lock people into a particular type of hardware?
Do you know how ridiculous this sounds? The cheapest hardware that you can buy at any retailer is pretty good.
the hidden assumption in your statement is that "pretty good" PCs are interchangeable for this application. This is not true. In another comment there is the suggestion that a certain type of cheap PC would be loaded down with trial software. That would undermine the experience even if the PC was functionally identical to a Macintosh.
Another example would be the choice of cards and drivers. Apple have the luxury of managing compatibility with a very limited number of hardware components. A "pretty good" cheap PC might have components with equivalent quality compoents that are not compatible with OS X as it is currently shipped, so they would have to write their own drivers.
Would these drivers be as good as the existing ones or would they be buggy? Would Apple work as hard to ensure that future versions of OS X would maintain backwards compatibility with other people's buggy code as Microsoft claim to do?
I think it's entirely possible for there to be cheap PCs that are "pretty good" running Linux or Windows but still undermine the experience of a Macintosh.
Some people don't care about the experience that Apple tries to sell, they want a different experience. Why should Apple be allowed to lock people into a particular type of hardware?
Now come on, please re-read what you wrote a few times and then answer the question for yourself. When was the last time someone complained to you that Apple forced them to buy the Macintosh experience? Do you need me to jump on a plane and take you shopping in your town for computers that offer different experiences?
Or come to Toronto, let's have dinner at "The Nose," a nice restaurant near my home. One of the items on their menu is "Spaghetti with Scotty's Giant Meatball," a single large meatball. We can ask for the traditional multiple small meatballs, but they do not serve that dish. Should we complain that they are locking us into giant meatballs? Or should we simply walk down the street to Casa di Georgio, where they serve the dish we want?
Apple sells what it sells. Dell sells what it sells. If people want a Dell, let them buy a Dell.
Yes, i appreciate your advice, but i think that next time i have the need to express an emotion, i will at least try to make it non offensive, instead of not expressing it. My post was a response for the fact that some perfectly valid comments were downvoted. It was not a good response, for which i apologize.
I doubt Apple would let Walmart carry Psystar machines. I mean, they can't officially allow or not allow Walmart to do such a thing, but Apple could probably threaten to pull the iPod/iPhone line and all first party accessories, iTunes gift cards, etc, or something like that.
I believe Apple did try the whole licensing thing in the mid 90's. Didn't work out too well for them so they stopped doing it. Don't forget: Apple makes a ton of money from hardware sales still.
Ironically, the early clones started out the same way these are; Firmware (EFI, in this case) being reverse engineered and sold without permission with the hopes that Apple would give in and license.
If Apple were interested in selling more OS licenses, they could choose to do that on their own, without being compelled to through legal action.
In the event that they do, however, they're likely to attempt to recoup lost revenue by raising license prices. This would do much to nullify the perceived advantage of clone makers.
Is there any way that this little company will ever be more than just a pain in Apple's side? They can't deliver an experience like Apple. Maybe they'll open some notApple Stores.
As I recall, they were doing pretty well, aside from the court case. There seems to be a demand for a generic machine running OSX even if it doesn't "deliver an experience like Apple".
I say best of luck to Psystar, I hope they win, I may never buy an Apple or Psystar Apple computer (can they call it an Apple computer? ...OS X PC?) I still think a company that builds a system with the real OS X operating system, not a pirated copy, is certainly doing nothing wrong.
If Microsoft made/controlled distribution of all the computer hardware in a PC and prevented anyone else from making a PC people would be mad as hell!
Except, AFAIK, pystar machines dont come with "real" OS X. They require either A. OS X to be hacked to run on the machines (aka: your pirated copy) or B. Nonstandard hardware specifically designed to emulate things that PC's cant run.
The latter is much much more of a grey area then the former. However, I think pystar does the former. I remember reading awhile ago that pystar shipped with a legit copy of OS X but a hacked copy installed, so if anyone wanted to reinstall, they would have to send it back and pay $50.
> They require either A. OS X to be hacked to run on the machines (aka: your pirated copy)
Hacked != Pirated.
I am planning to use a hacked MacOS X for IPhone development and I will buy the OS. That's fine, I can pay for the software.
I simply can't afford their overpriced desktop hardware. (The iPhone is reasonably cheap compared to their desktops).
Edit: I don't know why this has been down voted. Maybe I should say that what adds to Apple's desktops cost, besides their premium for the brand, is the importation tax for items over $500 here. As high as 60%. With this tax, I can simply buy the software and assembly the hardware from commodity parts myself.
Theres an overwhelmingly large majority of the people who dont know enough in order to to hack os x and instead pirate a hacked copy. But hey, if you do know enough to hack it, kudos to you.
Though if you're going by the "I bought a legit copy. I should be able to download it in modified forms if I want to" argument, then thats grayer then I would like. Especially if I'm developing for a platform that's controlled by the company that I'm pirating from.
This is pretty weak, as far as "legal wins" go. They merely won the right to argue that Apple is abusing copyright (rather than arguing they are an illegal monopoly because that argument was already shot down).
Even then, if Psystar wins the right to use legally use OS X on their hardware, doesn't Apple have the right to refuse to sell OS X to OEMs, which is what I think the crux of the argument is, not the copyright/monopoly thing.
38 comments
[ 6.9 ms ] story [ 207 ms ] threadAlso, what's wrong with seeing Mac OS X in Walmart on discount machines?
Allowing 3rd parties to build licensed OS X machines would do little for Apple but destabilize their platform, which is currently built on the premise that 100% of the package from the pre-installed apps to the OS to the casing to every component inside is vetted and tested to work well together by Apple's army of genius proto-wizards "in beautiful California."
That would be utterly destroyed the moment people could buy a 3rd party computer which pops up the "Mac OS X" logo on boot, and then immediately asks the user if they want to install the AOL trial, Google toolbar, Yahoo toolbar, and Dan's Discount Video Editor EX Lite Edition (Upgrade today!).
p.s. Downmod me to if you want to(this is a rather trollish comment, so as a good HN member, i encourage you to do so, i have enough karma to burn, but do so because i deserve it, not because i hate apple).
So, I think that a "Cheap PC running OS X" might not provide the same experience as a Macintosh. Is this a good thing? Should the market choose what they want? I don't know. But I can see the argument that such a device would not be a "Cheap Mac."
Second, Its not like people buying cheap macs are spoiling the user experience of the real mac users.Thankfully most apple users are not assholes and they really don't care that there are pc's running OSX that don't deliver the mac experience. Its not like somebody is "being a pc" at them, right?
So the answer to your question "Should the market choose what they want?" is: absolutely. Is it a good thing? A pc running OSX is probably not worse than a linux box, or a winpc, so its probably not bad, unless you're apple, or you are somehow offended by cheap(in the quality sense) computers.
Yes it does. If it isn't equivalent to a Macintosh but you call it a Macintosh, you dilute the Macintosh brand equity. That's exactly why companies defend their trade marks so zealously.
So unlicensed OS X boxen may not be "theft" but it does imply revenue lost.
That said, if you want a "cheap OS X box" search Ebay for "MacBook Nano". People are selling MSI Winds with hacked copies of leopard for about $450.
Do you know how ridiculous this sounds? The cheapest hardware that you can buy at any retailer is pretty good.
Some people don't care about the experience that Apple tries to sell, they want a different experience. Why should Apple be allowed to lock people into a particular type of hardware?
the hidden assumption in your statement is that "pretty good" PCs are interchangeable for this application. This is not true. In another comment there is the suggestion that a certain type of cheap PC would be loaded down with trial software. That would undermine the experience even if the PC was functionally identical to a Macintosh.
Another example would be the choice of cards and drivers. Apple have the luxury of managing compatibility with a very limited number of hardware components. A "pretty good" cheap PC might have components with equivalent quality compoents that are not compatible with OS X as it is currently shipped, so they would have to write their own drivers.
Would these drivers be as good as the existing ones or would they be buggy? Would Apple work as hard to ensure that future versions of OS X would maintain backwards compatibility with other people's buggy code as Microsoft claim to do?
I think it's entirely possible for there to be cheap PCs that are "pretty good" running Linux or Windows but still undermine the experience of a Macintosh.
Some people don't care about the experience that Apple tries to sell, they want a different experience. Why should Apple be allowed to lock people into a particular type of hardware?
Now come on, please re-read what you wrote a few times and then answer the question for yourself. When was the last time someone complained to you that Apple forced them to buy the Macintosh experience? Do you need me to jump on a plane and take you shopping in your town for computers that offer different experiences?
Or come to Toronto, let's have dinner at "The Nose," a nice restaurant near my home. One of the items on their menu is "Spaghetti with Scotty's Giant Meatball," a single large meatball. We can ask for the traditional multiple small meatballs, but they do not serve that dish. Should we complain that they are locking us into giant meatballs? Or should we simply walk down the street to Casa di Georgio, where they serve the dish we want?
Apple sells what it sells. Dell sells what it sells. If people want a Dell, let them buy a Dell.
Ironically, the early clones started out the same way these are; Firmware (EFI, in this case) being reverse engineered and sold without permission with the hopes that Apple would give in and license.
In the event that they do, however, they're likely to attempt to recoup lost revenue by raising license prices. This would do much to nullify the perceived advantage of clone makers.
All Apple computer ship with a TPM chip and I'm pretty sure they could verify hardware with it...
Either way, my MacBook Pro doesn't have a TPM though. There's no way for Apple to use the TPM since not all their shipping computers have it.
If Microsoft made/controlled distribution of all the computer hardware in a PC and prevented anyone else from making a PC people would be mad as hell!
The latter is much much more of a grey area then the former. However, I think pystar does the former. I remember reading awhile ago that pystar shipped with a legit copy of OS X but a hacked copy installed, so if anyone wanted to reinstall, they would have to send it back and pay $50.
Hacked != Pirated.
I am planning to use a hacked MacOS X for IPhone development and I will buy the OS. That's fine, I can pay for the software.
I simply can't afford their overpriced desktop hardware. (The iPhone is reasonably cheap compared to their desktops).
Edit: I don't know why this has been down voted. Maybe I should say that what adds to Apple's desktops cost, besides their premium for the brand, is the importation tax for items over $500 here. As high as 60%. With this tax, I can simply buy the software and assembly the hardware from commodity parts myself.
Though if you're going by the "I bought a legit copy. I should be able to download it in modified forms if I want to" argument, then thats grayer then I would like. Especially if I'm developing for a platform that's controlled by the company that I'm pirating from.