Friday, September 30th 2011
Apple Emerges Victorious Against Psystar, But Have They Really Triumphed? (UPDATED)
In a court ruling on Wednesday 28th September 2011, Apple's assertion that any kind of 'Hackintosh' was, is and always will be, illegal, was conclusively affirmed. This will bring great dismay to Psystar customers, potential purchasers of other "alternative Macs" and the many PC enthusiasts who want to run the latest Apple OS on the high-spec rigs they've built themselves from hand-picked components. This ruling has unfortunately sounded the death knell for enterprising and surprisingly plucky upstart outfit, Psystar, who showed what could be possible with an open mind and technical skill. UPDATE after the jump.Psystar began selling their Mac OS X-capable Open Computer in April 2008, despite the fact that they unequivocally broke Apple's licensing restrictions. The EULA read:
In short, the case had more twists and turns than a whodunit novel, with Psystar actually winning a couple of small victories, although it was all ultimately for nothing. Psystar even filed for bankruptcy and just when it looked like it was all over, emerged phoenix-like from the ashes to continue fighting Apple. A surprising accomplishment in the face of such a powerful and relentless legal onslaught.
However, this Wednesday, Apple finally got the hands-down victory they had fought for so long, when judge Mary Schroeder of the US District Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco issued the final words in this case:
So there still remains the small matter of whether Apple will be able to keep select court documents sealed, which may cause a smile or two among Psystar supporters. Of course, the damages that Psystar is now liable for are going to completely sink what's left of the company. It's doubtful that Apple will actually see all the money that they're owed and likely that they won't care. It was all about stopping the competition.So, are Apple triumphant in all this? Yes, they have been able to put the genie back in the bottle, they want to protect the 'purity' of their Apple Mac brand and keep any and all profits from the brand, which they have achieved. However, the bottom line is will this actually result in more money flowing into their bank account? It may not.
Think of the original IBM PC: it was cloned, against IBM's wishes and due to a legal technicality, they couldn't stop it. However, this made the platform grow phenomenally into the industry-dominating juggernaut that it is today, together with all the niche spin-offs, including the high performance enthusiast segment. And critically, it has made IBM's product much more successful and lucrative for them than if IBM had been allowed to keep it closed and proprietary with high prices.
So, by the same token, keeping the Mac platform closed and proprietary, Apple are likely to actually reduce awareness and interest in their products. Therefore, ironically, Apple's victory in court may actually be a bigger victory for those in the Anti-Apple camp, who want to see their market penetration remain small and who would be happy if they just faded away into obscurity. So, will Apple's current stance remain now that Steve Jobs has stepped down as CEO and no longer has such a dominating influence over the company? This remains to be seen.
By restricting their products this way, Apple have actually reduced the market penetration of their much-loved operating system, since running it on more and cheaper hardware configurations is no longer possible. Many people that like the Mac OS would normally never buy a Mac due to the sheer cost of entry to the club, which this would have lowered. In time, those same customers may well want the 'real thing' for their next machine and buy a genuine Mac. There's no reason why Apple couldn't have licensed the OS for Psystar hardware and collected a handsome royalty on every sale in the process - a win-win situation.
For more details and lots of links, head on over to The Register article this story was based on.
UPDATE
Well, it looks like this really isn't over yet. Psystar are down, but they are not completely out and are most certainly not giving up. They believe that they have a very strong case, so will be taking it all the way to the Supreme Court.
If Psystar eventually prevail, then it could mean the end of unreasonably restrictive product lockdowns by manufacturers. Read all about it over at update source, PC World.
Source:
The Register
You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labelled computer, or to enable others to do so.For a surprisingly long time, Apple did nothing. This caused some industry pundits to suggest that perhaps Apple had given their tacit approval for a clone. However, it turned out that this was most certainly not the case and Apple eventually sued Psystar. However, what surprised many, is that Psystar quickly countersued, asserting that Apple's EULA violated the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts.
In short, the case had more twists and turns than a whodunit novel, with Psystar actually winning a couple of small victories, although it was all ultimately for nothing. Psystar even filed for bankruptcy and just when it looked like it was all over, emerged phoenix-like from the ashes to continue fighting Apple. A surprising accomplishment in the face of such a powerful and relentless legal onslaught.
However, this Wednesday, Apple finally got the hands-down victory they had fought for so long, when judge Mary Schroeder of the US District Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco issued the final words in this case:
The district court's grant of summary judgement in favour of Apple and its entry of a permanent injunction against Psystar's infringement of Mac OS X are affirmed.But even in defeat, Psystar won a tiny victory. Apple - in its eternal quest to protect any and all information about itself - had asked Schroeder to keep documents about the summary judgement case sealed. Schroeder refused, saying that to do so "without explanation" was out of bounds.
So there still remains the small matter of whether Apple will be able to keep select court documents sealed, which may cause a smile or two among Psystar supporters. Of course, the damages that Psystar is now liable for are going to completely sink what's left of the company. It's doubtful that Apple will actually see all the money that they're owed and likely that they won't care. It was all about stopping the competition.So, are Apple triumphant in all this? Yes, they have been able to put the genie back in the bottle, they want to protect the 'purity' of their Apple Mac brand and keep any and all profits from the brand, which they have achieved. However, the bottom line is will this actually result in more money flowing into their bank account? It may not.
Think of the original IBM PC: it was cloned, against IBM's wishes and due to a legal technicality, they couldn't stop it. However, this made the platform grow phenomenally into the industry-dominating juggernaut that it is today, together with all the niche spin-offs, including the high performance enthusiast segment. And critically, it has made IBM's product much more successful and lucrative for them than if IBM had been allowed to keep it closed and proprietary with high prices.
So, by the same token, keeping the Mac platform closed and proprietary, Apple are likely to actually reduce awareness and interest in their products. Therefore, ironically, Apple's victory in court may actually be a bigger victory for those in the Anti-Apple camp, who want to see their market penetration remain small and who would be happy if they just faded away into obscurity. So, will Apple's current stance remain now that Steve Jobs has stepped down as CEO and no longer has such a dominating influence over the company? This remains to be seen.
By restricting their products this way, Apple have actually reduced the market penetration of their much-loved operating system, since running it on more and cheaper hardware configurations is no longer possible. Many people that like the Mac OS would normally never buy a Mac due to the sheer cost of entry to the club, which this would have lowered. In time, those same customers may well want the 'real thing' for their next machine and buy a genuine Mac. There's no reason why Apple couldn't have licensed the OS for Psystar hardware and collected a handsome royalty on every sale in the process - a win-win situation.
For more details and lots of links, head on over to The Register article this story was based on.
UPDATE
Well, it looks like this really isn't over yet. Psystar are down, but they are not completely out and are most certainly not giving up. They believe that they have a very strong case, so will be taking it all the way to the Supreme Court.
If Psystar eventually prevail, then it could mean the end of unreasonably restrictive product lockdowns by manufacturers. Read all about it over at update source, PC World.
103 Comments on Apple Emerges Victorious Against Psystar, But Have They Really Triumphed? (UPDATED)
Shame, shame.
Unfortunately, Apple haters gonna hate.
Well, not hate. I wish they'd sell OSX for other platforms and all the handset manufacturers would quit suing the shit out of each other and innovate.
Why diss the site ?
and now the thread crapping starts
If I may be so bold as to translate Rhino's meaning.
This is a forum for PC enthusiasts, who build and overclock their own systems. Apples' products aren't aimed at me or you. The mainstream forum member hates Apple, it's products and its business structure. Meanwhile in mainstream America, Apple is gaining ground among the masses.
He didn't dis TPU.
Can't be proven, agree to disagree and move on.
Btw not much inovative about putting a fancy skin on unix.
I'm done, over and out.
A) People liking them.
B) Showing users they care.
C) Not being the dick that fucks your ass.
D) All of the above.
Mac is a religion. It has been scientifically proven.
Macs get hacked first, its just that no one wants to steal the first three sentences of your novel you have been working on for the last three years.
Every Mac users I have ever seen stands around like a dog waiting to be pet for having a toy.
Ipad, I wish my Iphone were too big for my pocket and couldn't make calls.
Iphone, its the best, and if they make better we will sue them!!!!!
Itunes, prepare to be a human centipad.
Mac airbook, sure its thin, disregard that laptop IBM made that has more features for less money. Accessories that you have to pay extra for makes them extra special.
Mac, we have all sorts of great games. Like.....once you bootcamp it.
End of discussion. Apple has more money than the government as it drives workers to suicide in sweatshop like conditions. If we eliminated all the government jobs the same way we would be fine.
Look around you at the people here who buy Intel over AMD, or Nvidia over ATI, or Kingson over Corsair, or Asus over Gigabyte, and so on. People have a right to choose what they want to buy with their own money and YOU should not be the one to decide why. The person buying one product over another is not inferior or superior based on the choice they make. The product itself may be inferior based on some comparison with a competing alternative, that video card might be better in 4 out of 8 games but those 4 might be the games you play. That cpu might be faster overall, but it costs too much or it consumes too much power/produces too much heat. That phone might have the performance and the battery life, but it is made of plastic instead of aluminum. It uses glass on the front and back which scratches easily. Or doesnt do LTE. Yes these factors can all be weighted against an alternative product that is or is not superior.
But the person buying them should not be labeled as one thing or another because they have a right to buy what they want.
Through out this whole topic the arguments about value or quality have been brought up and discussed. The facts are simple in that for instance, the 27" imac is a good product for its class because no other all in one offers what it offers today. It may not fit your needs but that doesn't mean it is an inferior product. And someone who buys one because it fits their needs, isn't inferior to you who built your own.
Stop being judgmental pricks and let people spend their money how they want. I am "clearly" and apple "fanboy", who owns an ipad, an iphone, and a macbook air. Go ahead and ignore my windows PC specs on the left there. Go ahead and ignore the half a dozen touchpads I bought. Ignore the Droid I gave to my brother in law after using for a while. Ignore samsung and archos tablets I also own. Clearly I just buy these things to cover up my apple fanboyism. It has nothing to do with me wanting to use competing products and make up my own mind which I want to keep, no I just bought them because you'll think I'm cooler for having a galaxy tab instead of an ipad.
You probably think because you know computers, you are awesome. But then you find out you're considered to be a retard by soap enthusiasts for buying soap bars based on hearsay and advertisements.
I'll tell you why, because then they would loose all that revenue they gain from doing repairs from the poor schmucks that have no where else to go. Like only taking a car to have a service at the company dealers for double the price.
They know that if they let people loose with their products their revenue would plummet. Imagine how much money they would lose if anyone could replace the battery on the iPod etc.
Apple is made for people who want low-hassle pre-built equipment (that looks good). This also means they are a bit more limited in functionality and they can charge more as well.