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.
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)
Campus systems will always lock up because they wound up being used by hundreds a day, each totally abusing the system. Put your own desktop in a computer lab somewhere and see how long it takes before it starts experiences crashing due to some overlord software, malware, viruses, or even long term use causing wear.
And please, you simply cannot compare your newegg bargain to an imac. First of all they are not the same profile, your newegg bargain has a big tower, not an all in one design. Then that cheap little viewsonic is only 1080p not 2560x1440 - the cheapest that runs such resolution is $806. So replace that viewsonic with the CHEAPEST 2560x1440 panel newegg sells and your "focus" is suddenly $1420.46. If you're gunna try to compare specs, at least get them close. But even then, there is only a $300 difference in price which on the Apple side include the OS (add another $100 for windows 7 home premium), toss in an 802.11n wifi card ($30-$50), and suddenly the price difference with similar hardware drops to only about $50. And that's money you're paying to have an all in one form factor as opposed to a bulky tower. Ok fine maybe you want a tower, but still. A custom machine milled all aluminum case is expensive. If you had used a nice Lian Li case instead of a cheap bundled Rosewill, your build would be more expensive than the Apple imac.
Also note the 27-inch iMac does use a Sandy Bridge chip, not an older clarksdale. It uses a i5-2500 S int he 2.7ghz model. Which is a low TDP model, closest newegg sells is the 2405 S which is a 2.5/3.3 turbo quad core with a 65w TDP instead of a 95w on standard SB chips. Also note it is a Z68 chipset and not a P67.
Sure you can argue the "facts" of the apple build don't matter, but it is pretty clear that when you build your own "imac killer" and use at least similar parts, you don't save any money at all, or very little. Even the all in ones that Anand compared the imac to in his charts that were all about $1200 and had similar specs to the $1700 imac - none of them had 2560x1440 panels, they all ran 1920x1080. The $500 premium you pay for the imac over those, at least grants you a $800-$1200 upgrade in display.
The only odd one out in the current imac range is the 21.5" as obviously at $1199 it is not as good a deal as the offerings from other manufactures. Dell and HP at least offer 23" panels in the same resolution for that money.
oh one last edit lol. That last $50 you save on the DIY 27" imac can be spent on a 720p HD webcam that your newegg build excludes as well. The new imac includes a rather good 1280x720 webcam that is encoded using Intel's Quick Sync technology. :p
What's that Mac? Your screen gets a crack and you have to send it back? No computer for you.
What's that PC? Your screen has a crack, and you've got a cheap shitty spare in the cupboard. It's okay I'll use that until good screen comes back. I still love you PC.
I'd never own an all in one as my primary system simply because I like upgrading to newer hardware when available. I benefit from having a tower pc just like everyone else here. But if I needed to save space in my office or guest room or where ever, then yea an all in one is great since I can still get a powerful sandy bridge chip and dedicated graphics.
and thats deff your opinion as mine is that apples macs etc are plain overpriced, under upgradeable ponceware but then thats my opinion :D and their os is nowt special either
again imho
oh and they no nothing about premium except premium price.. exactly what has a mac got that you cant buy a better one of on a pc
But as I mentioned to Kurgan, the 27" imac is hardly overpriced as any similar system with a 2560x1440 display costs about the same. What apple over charges for standard hardware they make up for with that beautiful display. The Dell U2711 - the panel most of us choose in the end, retails for about $1000 (newegg wants $990, dell wants $1,099). And from that stand point, I doubt you could build something as powerful and feature rich with the remaining $700 without sacrifices.
I'm glad you've been honest though! Most people simply try to hate on Apple without admitting they just don't like them. They try to justify it by saying things that are easy to disprove. So far you're the only one to point out the non upgradability which is the biggest flaw of any Apple system! All you get on even the big Apple towers is some hard drives or specific mac edition gpus from ATI or Nvidia.
Thanks for being honest! :D
And about the only thing you get with a mac that you can't get with a standard PC is the enclosure, the OS, and the use of low power parts as opposed to standard issue TDPs. I stand by the belief that nobody could build a true mac competitor without charging mac prices, even if all it comes down to is a visual difference in that the apple systems are all aluminum construction vs something that uses mostly plastics. And you really just can't ignore the OS, even if you don't like it you can't say its worthless. If microsoft has a right to charge you money for windows, then apple has a right to charge you for OSX when they include it with the systems they build.
As long as Apple want to make computers they will try to stop these clones, its difficult as anyone really can make a hackintosh. If Apple wanted to penetrate the OS market they would allow it to be used on more machines but that makes it a transition from a traditionally computer company to a software one.
Like i said before Microsoft is mainly a software company or rather traditionally, Apple is a computer company and it tries to sell you a whole machine so if selling Macs is their business why would they want people making clones?
Obviously ignoring the fact they also make other products now.
i dont like microsoft that much either but at least theyve the balls and surety to stand by their os's 100% instead of wrapping it in ally and overpriced tat to sell it
though as i posted earlier sort of im glad their here because competition rules , especially for us customers
sorry by the way not tryin to annoy just expressing an opinion, i think they could have had it both ways with them selling their usual slim ally stuff plus os's for boxes hence spreading the apple joy, fools then the peeps using hacked boxes would grow to love osx and want a sexy proper mac.
2) There is plenty of reason to go beyond 1080p, or into multi monitor work spaces. Just because you don't like to do so doesn't make your newegg build a valid comparison. If you want to argue the price you have to use similar components. That was my point, sorry if it didn't come across as such.
And imacs have just as many issues with replacing parts as any all in one system. If a part breaks in your all in one HP, Dell, or any laptop then you're in the same boat as the imac. You can't just replace the video card in a laptop when it is integrated. But then again these all in ones usually have an MXM style video card which can be replaced.
The case may not matter to you, but I for one am willing to pay more money to have a nice looking case. Be it a lian li for my desktop systems, or a nicely crafted mac.
3) The imacs have no worse video cards than the typical high end laptop. They do not use slow ram, they use the same DDR3 1333 you typically see in most any laptop today. That is slower the industry average DDR3 1600 desktops use (or the faster DDR3 1866/2000/higher we can get). Component trade offs are expected in laptops and highly integrated all in one systems, or the tightly compact systems like the mac mini (or even dell's zino).
My answer for macbooks vs standard laptops would be the same. Granted the price premium there may be higher, but you are still getting some very impressive build qualities and a very robust unibody aluminum case. If apple used the cheap plastics everyone else used, then you would probably see the same price being asked. But these cases are damn near works of art and for that I am willing to pay extra. They have qualities many of us are willing to pay extra for. The magsafe power connection for instance I absolutely love. No more worries about if people tripping over my wire would bend the internal connection because the cord is held in magnetically and just pops out if someone trips. The low profile keys, the illuminated keyboards the slim profile, the use of intel's latest and greatest IO technology (thunderbolt) - all of these are little things that add up to a total package that many of us are willing to pay extra for. And of course mac OS itself. Don't call it worthless just because you don't like it.
If you build an imac or a macbook it will cost the same as an imac or a macbook. Look at the new UltraBooks intel is pushing, they are very similar to the macbook air and as such cost almost the same. The cheapest I've seen yet being the Acer 3951 which should be around $900 at its base model, but even there you have to sacrifice the 128gb SSD in favor of a 320gb mechanical drive. The Lenovo U300s is similar, has the same chip, 128gb SSD, but only runs 1366x900 instead of 1440x900 but even then, you pay $1,199 which is only $100 cheaper than the macbook air. And I think a lot of people would pay that extra $100 for the extra rows of pixels and a 50-watt-hour battery instead of a 30-watt-hour battery, especially if they are using the same hardware.
Point is hardware aside, apple has a right to protect their OS and if they only want to use it on their systems, that is a choice they can make. Dell chose to launch laptops that only use either windows or ubuntu as their preinstalled OS. Why cant they give us Fedora? Or Red Hat, or any other OS? They get to chose what OS they want to include, and that is all there is too it.
Macintosh- the effective use of marketing to convince hipsters that an attractive box of "premium hardware" (actually average shit) is worth more than it really is.
Isnt there a mac support group where macsters can all get together and talk about how awesome their macs are..... away from people who don't care.
I'm just so tired of this eternal discussion and how everyone who hates Apple have to spill it around at every chance they get.
Do you think Apple is alone in their marketing? Intel is just as guilty with their "intel inside" stickers. How many people would buy a PC with that sticker because they were told intel was better than AMD back in the days when the Pentium 4 was slower and less energy efficient than the Athlon 64 that cost the same or cheaper? Same for the Pentium D days.
What about google, they splash their "with google" on every android smart phone because they have told people it means something to have google technology. Never mind that competing tech exists from other brands and may be just as good, or better. Never mind that it is the handset maker that makes the device, chooses the hardware, and puts it out for sale...it has to have that "with google" sticker on it because marketing tells people that sticker means something.
You say other people are getting upset when they are trying to have a simple debate about technology on a forum that exists specifically for people to discuss technology... It takes a wall of text sometimes to explain your view point, and to include reference and materials to support your thoughts. Anyone who is unwilling or unable to support their views on technology with anything more than "because its my opinion" is the real fanboy.
Most apple hardware is not over priced, apple is not an evil company, and people who buy apple products are not all fanboys and mindless drones. Just because you feel that way doesn't make it true. I've provided numerous valid points to support why apple was right to go after psystar in an effort to protect their products. And I've shown that anything similar to the 27" imac or the macbook air using the same hardware costs about the same. All you've done is put up a picture of a man in a skin tight suit that you've probably had saved on your hard drive for some unknown and possibly creepy reasons.
Comparing the way Apple handles competition (suing everyone) to Google adding a lable on the back of some phones is a bit of a streatch but you can write another essay if you feel like it.
Really, I'd love to hear your opinions on Apple and what ever materials you have to support them, even if they are just your own experiences.
That's why I never ever bought Apple in my lifetime. I F-CkIn HATE APPLE!!!!!!!!!